For decades there has been endless policy wrangling over whether “unlocking your phone” (removing restrictions allowing you to take the device with you to another carrier) should be allowed. Giant carriers have generally supported onerous phone locks because it hampers competition by making it harder to switch providers. Consumer rights groups and the public broadly support unlocked devices.
Now the FCC is proposing a new rule that would require wireless providers unlock customers’ mobile phones within 60 days of activation, giving them the freedom to switch providers so long as their phone supports the mobile network they’re switching to. FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel had this to say of the proposed changes:
“Real competition benefits from transparency and consistency,” said Chairwoman
Rosenworcel. “That is why we are proposing clear, nationwide mobile phone unlocking rules.
When you buy a phone, you should have the freedom to decide when to change service to the carrier you want and not have the device you own stuck by practices that prevent you from making that choice.”
At various times unlocking your phone was deemed downright illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Things have eased some over the years; very often it’s now possible to unlock your device and change carriers if your phone is paid off and you’re no longer under contract. The FCC is contemplating a rule that would force unlocking even for those under contract.
While competition-phobic telecoms have ceded some ground on this space, they still enjoy creating as much friction as possible when it comes to changing providers, hoping to mute competition’s impact. After the Sprint T-Mobile merger U.S. price competition effectively halted; I imagine they’d be thrilled if they could revert to an era where switching providers was as monumental of a hassle as possible.
The FCC is only proposing a new rule and hasn’t provided details yet. That happens on July 18, at which point the public will have an opportunity to comment. Carriers will inevitably sue to prevent any possible reform on this front; and with the recent 6-3 Supreme Court Chevron ruling, corporate lawyers have more tools in their arsenal than ever to mire efforts just like this one in perpetual legal muck.
