In a recent thread I was asked what's the best $200 smartphone
*Good $200 Android phone please*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>

And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
*Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>

However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
"Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
major US and Canadian carriers."

Can someone explain what that sentence even means?
--
I need to know because I'm recommending a noob buy the correct one.

On 1/16/2022 14:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> In a recent thread I was asked what's the best $200 smartphone
> *Good $200 Android phone please*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>
>
> And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
> *Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
> <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
>
> However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
> "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
> for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
> major US and Canadian carriers."
>
> Can someone explain what that sentence even means?

A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me. I surely
will never switch back to AT&T if so.

On 1/16/22 5:19 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 1/16/2022 14:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> In a recent thread I was asked what's the best $200 smartphone
>>   *Good $200 Android phone please*
>>   <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>
>>
>> And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
>>   *Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
>>   <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
>>
>> However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
>>   "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
>>    for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
>>    major US and Canadian carriers."
>>
>> Can someone explain what that sentence even means?
>
> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> disallowing unlocked phones on their network.  This is third hand
> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
> phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
> Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me.  I surely
> will never switch back to AT&T if so.

The only way I'd go back to ATT is if they were the last and only
phone/cable company in America.

They screwed me over a few years back with a mandatory two year contract
featuring a good first year monthly rate but no documented 2nd year
rate. The ATT store manager where I signed up assured me, however,
they'd take good care of me and maybe even offer a lower price for the
2nd year as that was a common promotional tool ATT used

Natch, on month 13, they jacked up my rate 78%.

I went back to the store and don't you know...the same guy was still
there. He denied remembering me (plausible) or his statements to me. He
said he would never say something like that to a customer. I reminded
him that when he said it, I was a prospect, not a customer.

I showed him the notes I had taken during the earlier meeting and the
picture I had snapped of him and the store sales weasel talking to me
back then. I said I was not happy with their bait and switch and
outright misrepresentations.

He stone-walled me- and I eventually calmly said I'd see him in small
claims court...at which point he told me to leave the store. I did, not
even bothering to slam the door, gentleman that I am ;-)

Long story short, the administrative law judge found in my favor...

5

--
Why is it that the politicians who want more government control over
your life are the same ones who want you to be disarmed?

On 1/16/2022 19:19, Wade Garrett wrote:
> On 1/16/22 5:19 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 1/16/2022 14:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> In a recent thread I was asked what's the best $200 smartphone
>>> *Good $200 Android phone please*
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>
>>>
>>> And the result, so far, seems to be this one (based on this review)
>>> *Motorola $200 Moto G Power (2022) Review*
>>> <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
>>>
>>> However, in selecting the sub models, the review warns us that...
>>> "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
>>> for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
>>> major US and Canadian carriers."
>>>
>>> Can someone explain what that sentence even means?
>>
>> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
>> disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
>> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a
>> new phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's
>> network. Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me.
>> I surely will never switch back to AT&T if so.
>
> The only way I'd go back to ATT is if they were the last and only
> phone/cable company in America.
>
> They screwed me over a few years back with a mandatory two year contract
> featuring a good first year monthly rate but no documented 2nd year
> rate. The ATT store manager where I signed up assured me, however,
> they'd take good care of me and maybe even offer a lower price for the
> 2nd year as that was a common promotional tool ATT used
>
> Natch, on month 13, they jacked up my rate 78%.
>
> I went back to the store and don't you know...the same guy was still
> there. He denied remembering me (plausible) or his statements to me. He
> said he would never say something like that to a customer. I reminded
> him that when he said it, I was a prospect, not a customer.
>
> I showed him the notes I had taken during the earlier meeting and the
> picture I had snapped of him and the store sales weasel talking to me
> back then. I said I was not happy with their bait and switch and
> outright misrepresentations.
>
> He stone-walled me- and I eventually calmly said I'd see him in small
> claims court...at which point he told me to leave the store. I did, not
> even bothering to slam the door, gentleman that I am ;-)
>
> Long story short, the administrative law judge found in my favor...

Nice! I only had them briefly for a pre-paid plan. I really wasn't
impressed with the network. I'm on a super cheap T-Mobile plan now, and
I have no complaints. T-Mo seems to be doing well since absorbing
Sprint. I now have service in more places than my Mother has on Verizon
Wireless, who used to be the "top dog"... I only have a cheap older
iPhone SE without all of the bands to boot.

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>
> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> disallowing unlocked phones on their network. This is third hand
> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
> phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
> Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me. I surely
> will never switch back to AT&T if so.

Is there any corroborating evidence? Far as I can tell my unlocked
iPhone 6 still works on a prepaid account. At least, I can still
check spam voicemails.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

On 1/16/2022 4:19 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:

<snip>

> The only way I'd go back to ATT is if they were the last and only
> phone/cable company in America.

Here's enough of a reason to not give AT&T any of your money:
<https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/>.

On 1/16/2022 2:19 PM, Michael Trew wrote:

<snip>

> A friend recently told me that AT&T has initiated a new policy
> disallowing unlocked phones on their network.  This is third hand
> information, and it was a relative of his who allegedly had to get a new
> phone as their existing phone was an unlocked phone on AT&T's network.
> Of course, I can't prove this, but if true, that shocked me.  I surely
> will never switch back to AT&T if so.

There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
AT&T with their incomplete "white list."

One person on the Total Wireless Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/r/TotalWireless/comments/qn9dft/oneplus_nord_n10_verizon_compatible_totalwireless/>
was complaining that that Total Wireless said that his Nord 10, bought
at Best Buy, was not compatible with their network even though:
a) The phone is Verizon compatible for BYOP on Verizon
b) Total Wireless used to sell the Nord 10
c) Verizon used to sell the Nord 10
d) The package for the phone said that it works on Verizon as well as on
Tracfone
e) The phone worked fine on Total Wireless once a SIM activated on a
different phone was inserted.

So why was the poster upset that Total Wireless told him that the phone
was not compatible based on the IMEI? Total Wireless could look at the
IMEI of the phone and decide to kick it off their service, for any
reason, or no reason at all..

LTE and 5G phones that lack CDMA will usually work just fine on Verizon
if you insert a SIM that is already activated, and you'll lose very
little coverage (probably no lost coverage on Verizon, but a little lost
roaming coverage). Visible by Verizon doesn't even support CDMA, and in
Alaska Verizon's network has never supported CDMA, only LTE and 5G.

Don't look for logic when it comes to carriers and BYOP. They may not
always care whether or not a phone is compatible or not, and may ban it
for no understandable reason. They may not have an up-to-date IMEI
database of compatible phones. The removal of W-CDMA (GSM 3G) and CDMA
support, and the requirement for VoLTE support has resulted in a lot of
confusion by carriers as to which phones will work on their networks.
The carriers also can't possibly test every phone on the market. There
are a lot of third tier phone manufacturers that don't sell direct in
stores in the U.S..

Occasionally, unlocked phones have features that the carrier has removed
from the same model of phone that they sell and they don't want
subscribers to have those features. Sometimes the carrier's model has
more features than the unlocked phone. For example the Pixel 6 (non-pro)
bought unlocked from Google does not support mmWave 5G, nor does the
Pixel 6 sold by T-Mobile. But the Pixel 6 sold by AT&T and Verizon does
support mmWave 5G (and costs more than the unlocked or T-Mobile
version). mmWave 5G on a phone is really not all that useful at this
time, unless you happen to be in very close proximity to a 5G mmWave
cell. mmWave 5G is primarily for wireless broadband service and IOT.

In article <ss6qkl$so2$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
> phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
> AT&T with their incomplete "white list."

at&t does not have a whitelist, nor does t-mobile.

they have a compatibility list (not the same thing), which lists phones
that have the appropriate bands for their network. phones not on that
list will work in a limited manner, possibly not at all after 3g is
turned off.

currently, verizion is the *only* carrier with a whitelist. a phone not
on their whitelist cannot be activated, although there is an
unsupported loophole. see below.

<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
You can check the eligibility of your device on our Bring Your Own
Device page.
To ensure voice and data work properly, only select BYOD devices
with approved hardware and software are allowed for use on the
Verizon Wireless network.

all carriers have blacklists for stolen phones.

they also have an fec lock for phones with unpaid financial
obligations, which will be released when the phone is fully paid off.

mvnos may restrict certain phones, but that's up to the mvno, not at&t,
t-mobile or verizon. the various mvnos set their own policies.

>
> LTE and 5G phones that lack CDMA will usually work just fine on Verizon
> if you insert a SIM that is already activated,

that's the loophole.

you're being disingenuous again by not telling the full story. some
would call it outright lying.

inserting an already activated sim into a non-whitelisted phone will
work only because it's a *loophole*. it's also only an option for those
upgrading an existing verizon device, who already have an active
verizon sim.

for those wanting to activate new service, verizon will only activate
it if the phone is on their whitelist *and* it's the first activation
for the phone. otherwise, they will refuse. if it's previously been
used on another carrier, they won't activate it.

although swapping an activated sim works, it is unsupported, which
means if someone calls in regarding service issues and the device is
not on their whitelist, verizon will say it's not an approved device,
that's why it doesn't work, goodbye.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:24:05 -0500, nospam wrote:

> mvnos may restrict certain phones, but that's up to the mvno, not at&t,
> t-mobile or verizon. the various mvnos set their own policies.

But what does it mean for a phone to be "optimized for AT&T's network?"
"Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
major US and Canadian carriers."
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>

In article <ss70ad$j9a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> But what does it mean for a phone to be "optimized for AT&T's network?"

it has the appropriate lte bands for at&t.

> "Motorola offers two versions of the G Power: one that's optimized
> for AT&T's network and an unlocked model that works on all the
> major US and Canadian carriers."
> <https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>

<https://www.androidauthority.com/motorola-moto-g-power-2022-review-3070
286/>
AT&T/Cricket:
4G: LTE band 2/4/5/12/13/14/30/66/29
3G: WCDMA band 1/2/4/5/8
2G: GSM band 2/3/5/8

T-Mobile and all others:
4G: LTE band 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/17/25/26/38/41/66/71
3G: WCDMA band 1/2/4/5/8
2G: GSM band 2/3/5/8

both versions have lte bands 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 66

the at&t version also has 14, 29, 30
the t-mobile version also has 1, 3, 7, 8, 17, 25, 26, 38, 41, 71

at&t uses
<https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1008740/>
700 MHz: Bands 12/17/29
850 MHz: Band 5
1900 MHz: Band 2
1700 MHz /2100 MHz: Bands 4/66
2300 MHz: Band 30

the t-mobile model will work on at&t on bands 2, 4, 12, 17 & 66.
however, it lacks bands 5, 29, 30, which may be a problem, depending on
location and cell capacity. for some reason, the at&t model lacks band
17, which at&t also uses.

tl;dr the at&t model is a better choice for at&t customers, but less
desirable if they ever decide to switch.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:40:08 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the t-mobile model will work on at&t on bands 2, 4, 12, 17 & 66.
> however, it lacks bands 5, 29, 30, which may be a problem, depending on
> location and cell capacity. for some reason, the at&t model lacks band
> 17, which at&t also uses.
>
> tl;dr the at&t model is a better choice for at&t customers, but less
> desirable if they ever decide to switch.

Thanks for finding that out for the team as it was perplexing why both
models would work on all 3 major carriers but only one model was "optimized"
for AT&T - where it seems that the one model has those extra AT&T bands.

Thanks for fleshing out the question asked in the OP.
Much appreciated.

She hasn't bought the phone yet but the article says it's $190 so it's in
the price range (although I told her the $280 Galaxy A32-5G was better).
--
The great news overall is electronics just gets better, faster & cheaper!

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 19:45:01 -0500, Michael Trew wrote:

> Nice! I only had them briefly for a pre-paid plan. I really wasn't
> impressed with the network. I'm on a super cheap T-Mobile plan now, and
> I have no complaints. T-Mo seems to be doing well since absorbing
> Sprint. I now have service in more places than my Mother has on Verizon
> Wireless, who used to be the "top dog"... I only have a cheap older
> iPhone SE without all of the bands to boot.

On the point of the three US carriers, I've had all three (sequentially)
over time, where I didn't see much difference in coverage at the times I
switched (I'm in the Silicon Valley & I am well aware location matters).

What I didn't like about Verizon was they upped my 2-year contract when my
Kyocera broke under the replacement plan my company paid for (as I wouldn't
have paid for a replacement plan but they were paying my bills in those
days). So the instant that extra two years ran out I switched to AT&T.

AT&T was fine (and it was a bit cheaper at the time but I didn't care as the
company was paying my bills) but eventually I retired and the company let me
keep the Blackberry they also paid for. Unfortunately, in those days, AT&T
kept a list of what phones AT&T considered to be "smart" and they _forced_ a
$25/month data plan but luckily AT&T had no problem with adding a data block
on my "grandfathered" Blackberry when I dropped the plan after leaving the
company, to no data.

However, eventually the clit on the Blackberry broke and it was time for a
real "smart phone" but AT&T refused to allow any "smart" phone to not have a
data plan. I complained to the FCC who had an AT&T executive call me up. She
spouted such a kindergarten argument that you must have data even if you
have a data block that I began to wonder if they believe their own lies.

She told me a smart phone was useless without a data plan, which I couldn't
get into her head was the furthest thing from the truth. Maybe she only
hangs around dumb people or maybe she thinks all her customers are morons,
but I couldn't believe she'd even say such a thing to me over the phone.

Funny thing is I dropped AT&T the instant the two-year plan ran out and at
about the same time I got a letter from the FCC saying that the AT&T exec
told the FCC we resolved the issue to the customer's satisfaction.

It was at that time that I turned to T-Mobile, who, at that time, was even
cheaper than AT&T (each time I switched, a bonus was it was cheaper although
I didn't care when the company was paying all my phone & Internet bills).

T-Mobile didn't care what phone I had (smart, dumb, flip, or whatever).
T-Mobile didn't care how I got the phone (they'd work with any gsm phone).
T-Mobile didn't care if I wanted a data plan or not (I didn't want it).

The only thing T-Mobile couldn't solve at that time was that the iPhone
didn't work with T-Mobile so I had the enjoyment of doing my first
jailbreak, and gave the kid an iPhone with Cydia (which she was ok with).

She's had iPhones ever since and the rest of us have iPads & Android.
T-Mobile even gives the iPads a free for life 200GB/month SIM card.

That's fine but Apple keeps trying to kill the iPads by forcing crap on 'em.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg> Apple _forces_ a log in!
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg> Apple _forces_ a lock out!
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> Apple _disables_ your acct!
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg> Apple _locks_ you out!
<https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg> Apple won't let you back in!

Basically Apple forces you to keep giving them data about you by forcing you
to log into an iCloud account that they control and that keeps tabs on you.

Google can't.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
[...]

> There is a lot of illogic by carriers, and MVNOs, when it comes to
> phones that will work perfectly well on their network. It's not just
> AT&T with their incomplete "white list."
[...]
> So why was the poster upset that Total Wireless told him that the phone
> was not compatible based on the IMEI? Total Wireless could look at the
> IMEI of the phone and decide to kick it off their service, for any
> reason, or no reason at all..
>
> LTE and 5G phones that lack CDMA will usually work just fine on Verizon
> if you insert a SIM that is already activated, and you'll lose very
> little coverage (probably no lost coverage on Verizon, but a little lost
> roaming coverage). Visible by Verizon doesn't even support CDMA, and in
> Alaska Verizon's network has never supported CDMA, only LTE and 5G.
>
> Don't look for logic when it comes to carriers and BYOP. They may not
> always care whether or not a phone is compatible or not, and may ban it
> for no understandable reason. They may not have an up-to-date IMEI
> database of compatible phones. The removal of W-CDMA (GSM 3G) and CDMA
> support, and the requirement for VoLTE support has resulted in a lot of
> confusion by carriers as to which phones will work on their networks.
> The carriers also can't possibly test every phone on the market. There
> are a lot of third tier phone manufacturers that don't sell direct in
> stores in the U.S..
>
> Occasionally, unlocked phones have features that the carrier has removed
> from the same model of phone that they sell and they don't want
> subscribers to have those features. Sometimes the carrier's model has
> more features than the unlocked phone. For example the Pixel 6 (non-pro)
> bought unlocked from Google does not support mmWave 5G, nor does the
> Pixel 6 sold by T-Mobile. But the Pixel 6 sold by AT&T and Verizon does
> support mmWave 5G (and costs more than the unlocked or T-Mobile
> version). mmWave 5G on a phone is really not all that useful at this
> time, unless you happen to be in very close proximity to a 5G mmWave
> cell. mmWave 5G is primarily for wireless broadband service and IOT.

This kind of stuff really boggles the mind!

Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
white-/black-listing or similar silly business.

If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
not, it won't. Simple heh!?

I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
phone, done.

[1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.

On 1/19/2022 8:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.
>
> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.

You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
finance the phones to lock in subscribers.

It probably drives the phone manufacturers crazy as well, selling so
many different versions of the same base model.

On 19 Jan 2022 16:58:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.

Both Steve & nospam are more tuned to SIM card games than I am, but I would
like to purposefully helpfully say that in my experience (in the same
mountains in which Steve lives), my experience has been the same as that
which Frank describes.
a. You put the SIM card in the phone (if it fits).
b. Even if it doesn't fit, you can sometimes cut it down to fit.
c. It either works. Or it doesn't work.

That's how I've done it ever since I moved from Verizon to AT&T long ago.
A nice thing is T-Mobile has _never_ charged me for a SIM card even as I've
had many phones in the past decade on T-Mobile. They waive the fees.

> If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
> not, it won't. Simple heh!?

My experience, in the USA, has been the same as Frank's was in Europe.

> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.

I buy phones by the handful as stocking stuffers and then I set them up.
I've probably handled SIMs for dozens of phones in the past decade.
My experience on T-Mobile has been the same as Frank's experience.

Dunno what carriers Steve and nospam are using.
> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.

Here in the US, I last bought a locked Android phone on Christmas Eve in
2017 when I picked up a handful of $130 LG Stylo 3+ phones at Costco.

T-Mobile unlocked them after 40 days with no questions asked.

My next phone I bought was on Black Friday 2019 where Google had the Moto G7
on sale for $100 which came unlocked.

My current phone I got for free from T-Mobile so it _is_ locked but, in
essence, in my experience, it's easy to find unlocked phones in the USA.

I'm researching a new phone for a friend, for example, and it's $200
unlocked and that's how things should be but then there's the frequency
stuff (which nospam kindly explained).
a. There's an unlocked Moto G Power 2022 that is for all carriers
b. There's an AT&T "optimized" Moto G Power 2022 that has extra AT&T freqs.

Who knew?
Not me.

Now I do.
--
Ignorance can be cured (stupidity cannot).

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:07:47 -0800, sms wrote:

> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.

For those who don't know Steve only knows the Verizon-MVNO clusterfucks,
here, in the USA, it's _nothing_ like Steve says it is, at least for me.

Ever since I moved from AT&T to T-Mobile a decade ago, T-Mobile hasn't cared
one bit which phone I used, nor where I got it, nor whether it was locked.

My experience has been the same as Frank's experience in Europe.
a. You put the SIM card into _any_ phone & you power up that phone.
b. Instantly... it either works or it doesn't work.

All this complexity that Steve seems to believe exists must exist (why would
Steve lie to us) but since it only exists for _him_, perhaps the complexity
Steve complains about exists due to his vaunted Verizon MVNO clusterfucks?

On T-Mobile, in the USA, I don't see any of the clusterfuck Steve describes.

In article <ss9jgd.ocg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> white-/black-listing or similar silly business.

blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
used.

whitelisting has its roots to when carriers, not users, decided what
features cellphones would have, which often required back-end support,
thus the list of approved devices. it was also a form of lock-in to
keep customers from moving to another carrier. those days are long
gone, although verizon still uses a whitelist.

> If the phone has the right technology and band(s) it will work, if
> not, it won't. Simple heh!?

yep. same in usa, assuming it hasn't been reported stolen.

> I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> phone, done.

yep. same in usa, assuming it hasn't been reported stolen.

> [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.

what happens when they're financed?

without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
then use it on another carrier?

without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?

In article <ss9k1l$41t$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.

carriers want to finance phones because most people do not have the
funds to pay for it in full (or they don't want to), so they're locked
to prevent people defaulting and stealing it. once paid off, the lock
is released.

> It probably drives the phone manufacturers crazy as well, selling so
> many different versions of the same base model.

there aren't different versions for locked phones.

In article <ss9m7c$13jl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> All this complexity that Steve seems to believe exists must exist

it does not.

> (why would
> Steve lie to us)

because he's trolling.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:46:04 -0500, nospam wrote:

> They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
>> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.
>
> carriers want to finance phones because most people do not have the
> funds to pay for it in full (or they don't want to), so they're locked
> to prevent people defaulting and stealing it. once paid off, the lock
> is released.

This is not a rhetorical question.
It's a real question.

I have to assume Steve isn't just lying to us about the complexity he sees.
But I don't see _any_ of the complexity that Steve is complaining about.

None of it.
Hence the rational reasonable logical question to ask of folks here.

*Why is Steve experiencing immense complexity that I don't experience?*

What seems odd is Steve is apparently describing a clusterfuck that I don't
see with T-Mobile (and I've bought _dozens_ of phones in the past decade!).
a. You buy the phone from anywhere
b. You put the old T-Mobile SIM card into that new phone
c. It either works - or it doesn't work

The only "complexity" is mostly in the past where the SIM cards have to fit.
Even then, T-Mobile fedex's you (next day air, for free) a new SIM card.

a. In 2017 I bought a handful of "locked" Costco $130 LG Stylo 3+ stocking
stuffers & t-mobile unlocked them after just one billing cycle.

b. In 2019 I bought a handful of "unlocked" Google-Fi $100 Moto G stocking
stuffers & the T-Mobile SIM card just worked when I put it into the slot.

c. In 2021 I received a handful of free "locked" Samsung Galaxy A32-5G
phones, which also worked just fine when I put the old SIM in the slot.

Where is all this complexity that Steve keeps harping about?

The only "complexity" is a free phone is locked until the 2 years runs out.
Or, if I really care, I can pay ahead the amount they'd give me for free.

Why is Steve experiencing immense complexity that I don't experience at all?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:46:03 -0500, nospam wrote:

> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> used.

*When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*

This is not a rhetorical question.
I understand the need (and use) of blacklists.

But... my experience is that the SIM works _instantly_ in _any_ phone.

The fact the SIM works _instantly_ is why I ask _when_ they check IMEIs.

I've grabbed a friend's phone in the past and stuck my SIM card in that
phone and it works (as long as the phone can handle T-Mobile frequencies).

I've even swapped phones that I own (I have a drawer of them) with various
SIM cards, and they work instantly also.

Same with my iPads, where two of my iPads have a T-Mobile free-for-life
200MB/month SIM; so when I run out on one iPad, I swap SIMs for a refresher.

That all works.
I _know_ that all works.

Of course, _none_ of these devices are stolen.
But my point is that it all works _instantly_ so when/where do they check?

Certainly they _can_ check (as the IMEI isn't hidden from them).
But _when_ do they check?

For example, if the phone was stolen, would it instantly not work?
Or do they take a while before they run the IMEI check?

Do they even bother running that check is mostly where my question lies.

In article <ss9oam$58r$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> > used.
>
> *When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*

whenever the cellphone registers on the network.

another way is an eligibility check prior to activating a phone, either
at the carrier's web site or one of the various third party sites that
check for blacklisting.

> I've even swapped phones that I own (I have a drawer of them) with various
> SIM cards, and they work instantly also.

because they're not blacklisted. duh.

report one of them as stolen and see how that works out.

In article <ss9nmp$1qvc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> I have to assume Steve isn't just lying to us about the complexity he sees.

he very much is lying. it's what he does.

> But I don't see _any_ of the complexity that Steve is complaining about.

because it doesn't exist.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ss9jgd.ocg.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile in The Real World (TM), you can use any SIM (if the size
> > fits) in any unlocked [1] phone and it either works or it doesn't. No
> > white-/black-listing or similar silly business.
>
> blacklists are not silly because they prevent stolen phones from being
> used.

Ah, I see. So your petrol, oops, gas stations have lists of the VINs
of stolen cars, so they can't be used? Clever!

[More of the same deleted.]

> > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
>
> what happens when they're financed?

They're financed. That's it.

> without a financial eligibility lock, what's to stop someone from
> getting a 'free' phone, defaulting on payments (i.e., stealing it) and
> then use it on another carrier?
>
> without blacklists and financial eligibility locks, the market for
> stolen phones must be very strong. and you think that's a good thing?

Ah, I see, a technical solution for an administrative 'problem'.

Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/2022 8:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I've used my SIM in at least six phones and added an extra SIM of
> > another provider to my current dual-SIM phone. Insert SIM, turn on
> > phone, done.
> >
> > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
>
> You would think that with the end of CDMA, and the end of 3G, the U.S.
> carriers would be thrilled to be able to just sell service to whoever
> wanted it, regardless of the unlocked phone that they own, and you'd be
> wrong. They want to sell subsidized, locked phones, and they want to
> finance the phones to lock in subscribers.

Here many (most?) phones are financed as well and it's indeed a/the
method to lock in subscribers for the duration of the contract. But as I
said, the phones are not locked.

I don't know if those phones are still subsidized and if so by whom.
(We buy our phones.)

But some time ago there was legislation introduced which does away
with the "free phone" BS. Now they have to spell out what the phone
costs, what the financing costs and what the service costs.