Locking the phone to a carrier is not an anti-theft mechanism. They're available in abundance on the used market with no special protections of any kind from the carriers, the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier.
Maybe you're thinking of the locking mechanisms built in to Android and iOS?
I was mostly asking because the comment I replied to wasn’t perfectly clear and I’ve read more than a few complaints about e-waste caused by people forgetting to release things from their account before tossing it. I think what they’re doing is a great idea and was curious how much hassle it involved.
This issue is about carrier locks. It doesn’t prevent a phone from being used, it just prevents a phone from connecting to a service provider that isn’t the original retailer’s
> the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier
I mean, that’s honestly kind of a theft deterrent. One that’s distributed on average amongst the set of all stolen phones, but anything that reduces the average expected value of a phone thief is de facto a deterrent.
Because carrier-locked phones to major carriers don't suffer a severely depressed price. AT&T has high market share it doesn't matter enough if a phone is locked to AT&T to prevent theft and depress resale prices.
>Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.
I know people hate "Source?" as a reply but I think this claim really needs a source.
There is also the assumption that everyone has access to a job, which depending on where you are and what you're background is (we are very hostile to people with disabilities, physical "deformities" that people find unpleasant to look at, felony convictions, etc.) may or may not be true. A lot of folks turn to theft out of desperation.
It depends on what you mean by crime, income, etc. and what factors you consider - but as you note, people often start out desperate, and then escalate because crime doesn’t really solve the desperation. Some crimes do produce good income, relative to the same effort in a legal occupation, but most don’t. And in many (but not all cases) the people involved can’t actually get equivalent legal work. So it is difficult to compare.
An unlocked phone is indistinguishable from a locked phone until you attempt to sign it up for another network. That distinction isn’t made until the phone is already stolen.
If I’m a thief, I steal the phone either way. Sometimes I get a carrier locked phone and only make $10 (realistically more. Carrier locked phones sell at a discount around 20-50%), or I get an unlocked phone and make $400.
Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.
If the average selling price of a stolen phone drops, the incentive to steal phones does so too.
> Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.
People don't tend to carry cash any more. And you know what has stopped happening as often as a result?
But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525.
The carrier lock mostly just affects the owner of the phone, and the resale value when they are done with it. In completely unshocking news, TMobile also has a program to buy back t-mobile phones, unlock them, and sell them on.
Stealing a $400 phone vs stealing a $525 phone is irrelevant to the thief.
What DOES stop thieves is activation and firmware locks. Phone theft is way down since Apple effectively made it impossible to use a phone that hasn't been logged out of. Those phones are only worth what their unlocked parts are worth, which is not that much.
> But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525.
A reduction in average selling price is a reduction in incentive to steal, full stop. I'm not sure how you can argue with that. I'm not stating it's 100% effective, I'm not stating that it's worth the cost, all I am saying is that it is a disincentive.
Because my belief is that the number of thefts doesn't exist on a relatively linear curve, which would have to be true for your position to be correct.
My bet is that stealing phones is more like a thresh-hold. Does this crime pay > $x? Then I will do the crime. In this case I suspect that $x is well below the selling price of an unlocked phone. There isn't a gradual dropoff, at least not in the region between $400-$520.
I could also argue that carrier locked phones could have a paradoxical increased effect on theft. If the expected value of stealing a phone is lower, the average thief needs to steal more phones to make the same amount of money.
Phone theft in areas with predominately iPhones went from ‘very common’ to ‘non-existent’ because of Apple’s remote bricking.
In theory there may be a point you’re describing, but in SF for instance people just started looting cars instead of mugging (or snatch and grabbing) phones.
Carrier locking is not firmware locking! Carrier locking doesn't disable a stolen phone. It disables the use of non approved carriers on the phone, stolen or not.
That's my whole point. Carrier locking used to be standard, even on iPhones, and phone theft was very common too. Carrier locking wasn't a theft deterrent.
Firmware locking is a great theft deterrent. A stolen iPhone is basically just a few cheaper used parts, and all the expensive ones are useless.
Yes, but one harms the consumer far more than any possible benefit from reduced theft (again, I would argue that carrier locks don't reduce theft), and the other causes no harm to the consumer while providing a huge benefit by reducing theft.
So we have a measure that is, at best, “marginally effective” as a theft deterrent by your phrasing and actively harms consumers while actively benefitting the entities that artificially impose it.
The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.
You seem to think that I have said there is a marginal reduction in theft due to carrier locks. I do not think that is the case at all, and I have said so.
I am arguing that the reduction in theft due to carrier locks is 0. You are arguing that it is small (marginal).
I am saying that no matter what, the actual cost of the carrier lock to the consumer (as demonstrated by used phone values on eBay), is far higher than whatever marginal benefit you are arguing for.
It is a massive net loss to the consumer, and the only guaranteed beneficiary is the wireless carrier.
Indeed. Anecdotally I’ve seen in a few places where the going rate for one carrier or another is actually a bit higher than unlocked because people aren’t that well-informed and think “I need a Verizon phone cuz I’m on Verizon.”
Which was pretty universally true in the USA 15 years ago.
Before Verizon stopped using pre-LTE, most unlocked phones wouldn't work on Verizon. I imagine you get burned by that once, and then you pay attention longer than necessary.
Ding ding ding, that's the key. There are some people who will mug you for any amount > $0.00. You can't make crime disappear by lowering the value. As that value drops, though, fewer and fewer people will bother as the risk/reward ratio shifts. You'll still have crimes from people desperately sick with drug addiction who need something, anything, to get more, and they're notoriously bad and risk/reward calculations anyway. You'll have fewer crimes from people who'd otherwise think, hey, let's go out and boost some phones for spending money.
It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is:
- get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years.
- don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them.
- You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone.
Carrier locking prevents this. If someone steals your phone on the train that’s a different problem with a different solution
That is a weird take which is not informed by an understanding of how business operates.
It is 100% an _exclusive dealing_ mechanism. (This is a term of art for a business strategy which may not be legal in the current context, by the way.) It was undoubtedly implemented because it's a way to make more money. Businesses love imposing exclusive dealing. It can reduce their competition and increase their margins. We have businesses all over the American economy doing it.
Now does this particular case of exclusive dealing also serve to reduce theft? Perhaps it does, a case can be made. But what is 100% certain is that anti-theft was not the motive for doing exclusive dealing. It's the other way around. The FTC recognizes that. Any nominally honest judge or business executive would recognize that. Anti-theft is an afterthought compared to the billions in profits at stake.
This is incorrect. You can pay off a phone early and simply ask that it be unlocked - the carrier will happily comply because you are no longer a credit risk. You can also just purchase phones unlocked by paying cash upfront. You don’t need to be a genius to deduce how this works.
The imei blacklists for theft were created much later and aren’t honored globally
Where are they not honored globally in the first world bar Romania and Africa/China?
iPhones are effectively rendered useless even with IMEI blacklisting due to the iCloud tie-in. When stolen phones end up there, the receivers on the Asian end try and guilt/shame/social engineer the original owner to unlock from iCloud - but there's basically no technical solution.
For those that claim 'oh but the OEM parts resale value only' need to keep up with the news:
Back in 2012 there were international agreements which required us cellular carriers to enforce locking phones. Those may have been unwinded by now but it’s not a simple “just force the companies to do it” scenario
A) This isn't what OP was asking about. They're pretty clearly asking about stolen devices from a consumer, not consumers stealing devices from carriers.
B) Your take is complicated by the fact that there actually is a secondary market for locked phones [0], so this isn't just about people rent-to-owning a phone with an explicit installment plan.
My point is that carrier locking is about managing credit risk and fraud, not an evil plot to trap customers, and not a mechanism for discouraging street theft.
It’s only complicated if people conflate issues or fail to understand the mechanics of carrier locking. You can just call up a carrier and ask to have the phone unlocked and they’ll oblige if its paid off. Sometimes people confuse carrier locking with imei blacklists, which is for stolen handsets. Sometimes people confuse phones with modems or firmware that only work with specific carriers as “carrier locked” but again, that’s not the same thing
They're essentially extending credit lines to people they know nothing about. Sounds like they should just stop doing that. Their "lock down the phone" solution should be illegal.
That sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.
It’s not speculation - this is literally why cell phone locking was invented. The imei blacklists were created much later specifically for theft, not to manage credit risk of customers getting subsidized phones.
You can literally just call your carrier to ask how to get your subsidized phone unlocked. There’s no need to speculate- it’s not a secret!
To be fair, that was an argument that was put forth by carriers years ago (at least in Canada). That said, I don't think it has popped up as much (or at all) in recent years.
So your average phone costs $700-$800 retail new. Cost of repossession would be going to court, court costs, lawyer bills etc. I would end up costing $5000+ for a piece of used goods that is worth $300 if they are lucky.
None of the carriers care if the phone is stolen, unless it's reported as stolen. They only care if it stays on their network. As a practical matter I have to work with the phone's previous owner to erase it (eg, an Apple phone that's been associated with an iCloud account, or a Samsung phone associated with a Samsung account). The carrier lock only matters after I've gone to the trouble of erasing it since I won't distribute a phone that hasn't been erased.
So far I have never handled a stolen phone as far as I know so I don't know much about that angle. What I get are peoples old iPhone 7's that have been sitting in a drawer for a few years. They are eager to donate them but have no idea how to get their personal data off them, so the work I do is sitting down with them and walking them through the process. I would say that's about 1 hour per phone including getting to and from the donor, teaching them how to reset their iCloud account password (or Samsung account, whatever) to erase the phone. When I get a carrier locked phone I sell it on eBay and buy an unlocked phone or a bunch of chargers and cables. I'm always happy when the phone is from Verizon or was bought unlocked, but AT&T is better than most.
Nice. I can imagine volunteering to do that. Or helping to wipe old hard drives or laptops. Sounds satisfying.
Do you also help teach them how to navigate the changes to each new version of iOS/Android? I would find that frustrating... so many "hidden affordances", and increasingly complexity.
I imagine the phone's previous account having removed the device/cancelled service without filing any sort of loss/theft claim would help. And then a red flag would be the unlock call coming before the previous account adds a replacement phone/cancels service.
At least on the 4g days there was such a thing as a lost and stolen device database that was shared between providers. When the phone presents its IMEI to the network the process that checkes it’s subscriber status also checks if it’s IMEI is on that block list.
