T-Mobile and AT&T are pushing back against a proposed FCC rule that would require carriers to unlock phones after 60 days, arguing it would threaten their ability to offer subsidized devices. However, their claims face skepticism from consumer advocates and even some industry observers.
The Federal Communications Commission is considering requiring all mobile carriers to automatically unlock phones 60 days after activation, even if the device is not fully paid off. T-Mobile and AT&T have filed comments opposing this rule, claiming it would force them to reduce or eliminate phone subsidies that make devices more affordable for consumers.
According to T-Mobile's filing, implementing the 60-day unlocking requirement could lead to a 40-70% reduction in subsidies for both low and high-end devices on their prepaid plans. The carrier argues this would disproportionately impact lower-income customers who rely on subsidized phones.
AT&T similarly warned the rule would create upward pressure on handset prices and reduce flexibility in device financing. Both carriers claim locked phones enable them to offer more compelling deals to consumers.
However, these arguments face several counterpoints:
-
Verizon already unlocks phones after 60 days due to existing spectrum license requirements, yet still offers competitive device deals and financing.
-
The UK mobile market demonstrates subsidized plans can coexist with unlocked devices.
-
Consumer groups argue locked devices unfairly restrict customer choice and competition.
-
Some industry observers suggest carriers could still offer subsidies through contracts rather than technological locks.
The carriers' stance also appears at odds with their actual pricing. Despite claims that locking enables cheaper devices, carrier-sold phones often have similar prices to unlocked models sold directly by manufacturers.
T-Mobile in particular has faced criticism for its restrictive unlocking policies, including locking prepaid devices for up to a year. This has led to frustration among customers who own their phones outright but still face difficulties unlocking them.
While the carriers present their opposition as protecting consumer interests, many see it as an attempt to maintain control and reduce competition. As one commenter noted, Wolf, coyote oppose pasture rule, claim cramped coops are good for chickens.
The FCC will need to weigh the carriers' economic arguments against the potential consumer benefits of easier device unlocking. Whatever the outcome, it's clear the mobile industry's device subsidy and locking models are under increased scrutiny.