In article <ssa0rb.ufg.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!

petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.

the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
that might affect its use on public roads.

car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.

police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.

> [More of the same deleted.]

because you don't understand any of it.

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

there is no attempt to stop the use of stolen phones? seriously?

> > 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'.

what alternative solution do you propose to stop people from using
stolen phones?

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

the bank will have a lien on the title until it's fully paid off, at
which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
property.

if you default, the loan will go to collections and the vehicle will
likely be repossessed, depending on specifics.

the default will also be reported to credit agencies, drastically
lowering your score, which means another car loan is going to be
difficult to impossible.

<https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/vehicle-repossession>
If you don¹t make your car payments on time, your lender could
have the right to take your car without going to court or telling you
first. Learn what can happen, and what you can do, if your vehicle is
repossessed.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:11:38 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> *When do the carriers check for the (stolen) IMEI?*
>
> whenever the cellphone registers on the network.

Thanks for answering the question, because my experience was that
a. Any non-stolen device _instantly_ works on the network
b. The moment I pop in a SIM and boot the phone up to the network
c. But I've never tested a _stolen_ device (nor am I likely to do so)

Hence, I appreciate your response since I trust that you know more than I do
on this subject so I will assume that your response is the correct answer.

(jk) Just to be clear, you've accused me of stealing MP3 files since the
dawn of time - but at least you've never accused me of stealing phones! (jk)

> 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.

What does that even mean?

I have popped the SIM card into _many_ phones (dozens) over the past few
years and I don't remember ever having to _activate_ the phone.

Of course, I've also popped in a _brand new_ SIM card (you know, the ones
that you pop out of a credit-card sized hunk of plastic), and _those_ do
need to be "activated" (I think) based on my experience.

My experience for dozens of SIM cards in the past decade has been
a. Pop in an old SIM into _any_ phone and there's no "activation" needed
b. Pop in a brand new fresh SIM into any phone and it does need activation

I will assume you simply meant "activating a card" and not "activating a
phone", but normally you're much more careful about your words; so maybe you
know something about activating a "phone" that I don't know (and that's OK).

>> 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.

Absolutely.

You accuse me of stealing from developers because all my apps are free, but
you're never gonna catch me on stealing phones (as I don't even know how to
get a stolen phone on the network so I'm out of my league on such things).

BTW, at the time AT&T wouldn't let "smart" phones have no data plan, and yet
AT&T would allow a "data block" on that plan, I was tempted to change the
IMEI number - and then you said, as I recall, I was stealing from them.

Now that changing the IMEI of my own phone on T-Mobile wouldn't change the
data plan one bit (everyone gets unlimited data) maybe it's time to revisit?

On 19 Jan 2022 20:56:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> 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.

It's fantastic when friends on Usenet bring up their personal experiences
especially since people like Frank are in Europe (and some in the UK too).

Hence, Frank is bringing up a good point that a "free" phone isn't always
truly free in the world, and perhaps never is actually completely free.

I can inform others only my experience with "free" phones, where T-Mobile
USA gave all postpaid customers who wanted it a free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

The terms & conditions were, as I recall:
a. The phone is free in that you pay nothing for the phone itself
b. But you have to pay local sales tax on the MSRP of ~$280 (~10% in CA)
c. And you have to stay on contract for 24 months for it to be freed off
d. Where if you leave the carrier before that, you pay what's left over

The only "real" additional costs were:
A. You must trade in any (and they mean any!) working phone gimmick
B. About seven dollars S&H (I talked them out of it for most of them)
C. $20 if you used the store or a person on the phone (online is free)

For most of the handful of free phones I received, I was able to talk them
out of all but the sales tax, but for the iPhone the charges were different.
a. You pay about half price for the 128GB iPhone 12 mini
b. You pay the local sales tax on the full mythical MSRP]
c. You pay the aforementioned S&H and in-person fees (if you used them)
d. Then you pay about $12/month for the next 24 months to pay it off
e. And, in our case, we had to trade in a working 32GB iPhone 6

In summary, other than tax, the 5G 64GB Android phones are truly free.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract

And the 128GB 5G iPhone 12 was less than half price at something like $350.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

And the unlimited 5G data plan upgrade was also completely free.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps* 5G speeds at home

In article <ssa3r0$1d53$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Hence, I appreciate your response since I trust that you know more than I do

roadkill knows more than you do.

> > 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.
>
> What does that even mean?

it means you type the phone's imei into a website, which will then
check to see if it's blacklisted. sometimes it will say why, such as an
fec lock.

> I have popped the SIM card into _many_ phones (dozens) over the past few
> years and I don't remember ever having to _activate_ the phone.

it happens automatically when the phone&sim first registers on the
network.

normally it works without issue. nothing is perfect and sometimes it
doesn't:
<https://discussions.apple.com/content/attachment/1e9c215c-39b2-446d-b34
7-423d67c66f7a>
<https://cdn.osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/activation-error-ip
hone.jpg>

> Of course, I've also popped in a _brand new_ SIM card (you know, the ones
> that you pop out of a credit-card sized hunk of plastic), and _those_ do
> need to be "activated" (I think) based on my experience.

next time, try to activate a new sim or swap an already active sim with
a blacklisted phone.

<https://www.beijingiphonerepair.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/problem_
iphone.jpg>

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:43:58 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> that might affect its use on public roads.

I can attest to the California DMV running a VIN as I once bought a used
German motorcycle from out of state and there were two things that struck me
as odd that certainly US states "can" do (because California _does_ them).

1. They physically check the odometer because if it has fewer than 7,500
miles on it, then it's _impossible_ to register in the state. Ever.

2. They physically check the VIN, which, for me, was a bitch because they
didn't like the way the Germans did their numbering system.

It was _weeks_ before they finally registered the thing (luckily the
previous owner allowed me to use his plates for that entire time as I had
gotten a one-way ticket to test it out and purchase it so I rode it home).

I also know of people whose cars were declared salvage because the insurance
company wrote them off. This means the owner has to get a _new_ title.

When they get that new title, they have to trade in the old plates and at
the DMV they have to register the vehicle as a _new_ titled vehicle.

The DMV personally checks all the visible VIN numbers (of which there are
many) on the car's body parts and runs a check to see if parts are stolen.

In addition you have to pass the brake standards for all new vehicles.
And you have to pass the external light tests for all new vehicles.

Only then can you ever register a vehicle which has been declared a writeoff
by the insurance company. Notice the part where they check the VINs above.

On 1/19/2022 12:46 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 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!

LOL, nospam doesn't understand that a Whitelist is not the inverse of a
Blacklist!

A Whitelist is a list of phone models that will work on a specific
carrier, in this case on AT&T.

A blacklist is a collection of IMEIs of stolen phones or phones where
the subscriber left the carrier without the phone being paid off
(essentially the same as stolen).

In article <ssa9g5$r0e$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> 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!
>
> LOL, nospam doesn't understand that a Whitelist is not the inverse of a
> Blacklist!

i never said it was. stop lying.

> A Whitelist is a list of phone models that will work on a specific
> carrier, in this case on AT&T.

at&t does not have a whitelist. full stop.

what at&t has is a list of phones that are *compatible* with its
network, in other words, has the lte bands at&t uses.

other phones will work to a limited extent, depending on which bands
they have. they will likely have coverage issues in some areas. none
are supported and at&t will not help you with any problems.

verizon is the only carrier that will not activate a phone that's not
on its whitelist.

<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
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.

> A blacklist is a collection of IMEIs of stolen phones or phones where
> the subscriber left the carrier without the phone being paid off
> (essentially the same as stolen).

that part is correct.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:30:42 -0500, nospam wrote:

> verizon is the only carrier that will not activate a phone that's not
> on its whitelist.
>
> <https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
> swered/>
> 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 this nice and naughty list for phones stuff is unknown to me.

Given I've plugged _many_ SIMS into _many_ phones and "they just work",
this is interesting that Verizon only let's "selected BYOD" devices work,
was I just lucky?

Or did it always "just work" on T-Mobile because T-Mobile doesn't maintain a
"naughty" list of phones they just happen to not like on their network?

Why?

Is it really to "ensure voice & data work properly" when T-Mobile voice and
data seems to "work properly" without that purposeful exclusion of devices?

Does this mean that a phone that _can_ "work properly" on the Verizon
network but which isn't in the Verizon "nice" list, won't work on the
Verizon network (even though there's no technical reason why not)?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ssa0rb.ufg.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!
>
> petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.
>
> the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> that might affect its use on public roads.
>
> car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
> purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
>
> police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
> action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.

<whoosh!>

Earth to nospam: It's an analogy. There's no 'lock' on *using* a
stolen car.

> > [More of the same deleted.]
>
> because you don't understand any of it.

Says the guy who doesn't even get the most bloody obvious analogy.

> > > > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
> > >
> > > what happens when they're financed?
> >
> > They're financed. That's it.
>
> there is no attempt to stop the use of stolen phones? seriously?
>
> > > 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'.
>
> what alternative solution do you propose to stop people from using
> stolen phones?

Why single out phones? (Hence the car analogy.)

These days one can finance most everything. And that includes small,
expensive, electronic, for outdoor use, devices, i.e. devices similar to
a (smart)phone.

So why single out phones? Just because they *can* be locked? Why
bother all legit users, just because 'the system' can be abused?

> > Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
>
> the bank will have a lien on the title until it's fully paid off, at
> which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
> property.

Ding, ding, we *have* a winner! We do the same thing for the financing
of all kinds of products, which happens to include phones. In our
country, there is a central office (BKR) where these financing contracts
are recorded on a per person basis.

Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
financed, just like anything else.

On 1/20/2022 11:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> financed, just like anything else.

Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.

The problem is that nospam doesn’t understand that a blacklist is not
the inverse of a whitelist.

A blacklist bans stolen phones or phones where the person is trying to
use a phone that was not paid-off under contract on another carrier.

The AT&T whitelist is, ostensibly, intended to not allow phones that
won’t work on their network, but they’ve left off a great many devices
that would work just fine on their network.

In article <sscgat$gg0$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > financed, just like anything else.
>
> Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> cannot be remotely disabled.

false.

<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-the-repo-man-can-remotely-shut-off-you
r-car-engine/>
In an effort to protect their assets and minimize delinquencies,
dealers and lenders are increasingly outfitting cars with starter
interrupt devices and GPS trackers. Given the euphemistic name of
"payment assurance devices," the technology allows the repo man to
shut down a car if a subprime borrower is even one day late in making
a payment.

> They are either physically repossessed,
> shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.

true, and why they're not much different than phones.

stolen phones are also often shipped out of the country or parted out.

the logic board is the only part that's blocked. everything else,
including the display, camera, battery and enclosure, are useful for
repairs of non-stolen phones.

> The problem is that nospam doesn¹t understand that a blacklist is not
> the inverse of a whitelist.

the problem is you don't understand what a whitelist actually is and
won't admit that verizon uses one.

> A blacklist bans stolen phones or phones where the person is trying to
> use a phone that was not paid-off under contract on another carrier.

correct.

what you don't understand is that a whitelist is a set of phones that
are approved to be used on the network.

> The AT&T whitelist is, ostensibly, intended to not allow phones that
> won¹t work on their network, but they¹ve left off a great many devices
> that would work just fine on their network.

at&t does not have a whitelist. full stop.

what they have is a *compatibility* list, which is not the same thing.

phones that are not on their compatibility list will usually work, but
may have issues, depending on various factors.

for example, if a phone doesn't support all of the lte bands that at&t
uses, coverage might be a problem in some areas. if the phone doesn't
support any of at&t's bands, then lte will not work at all, and it will
fall back to 3g, which is going to be shut down soon, at which point no
cellular connectivity can occur (2g has been gone for a while).

verizon has an actual whitelist and will activate phones that are on
it. sprint also did the same when it existed.

verizon and sprint originally used cdma, which does not use sims and
made a whitelist very easy. if the esn/meid was in their database,
they'd activate it. if not, they wouldn't. also, this was back when
phones were branded by carriers and had custom firmware by the carrier,
sometimes with custom features.

starting with lte, verizon and sprint began using sims. they still
block activation for non-whitelisted phones, but with verizon, it's
possible to swap an active sim into an unapproved phone. sprint, on the
other hand, not only blocked activation, but their sim (which was
actually a ruim) was linked to the specific phone, making it very
difficult to swap, often impossible.

<https://www.verizon.com/articles/bring-your-own-device-top-questions-an
swered/>
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.

note that it states 'are allowed' and not 'compatible'. that is key.

In article <sscgua.10p8.1@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!
> >
> > petrol stations don't register vehicles or limit their use.
> >
> > the department of motor vehicles (dmv) does, who will run the vin prior
> > to registering it to determine if it's stolen or has any other issues
> > that might affect its use on public roads.
> >
> > car dealers will run the vin of any used vehicle they are considering
> > purchasing from someone. private buyers should do the same.
> >
> > police will run the tags (also vins in some cases) and take appropriate
> > action if it's stolen or on a hotlist.
>
> <whoosh!>
>
> Earth to nospam: It's an analogy. There's no 'lock' on *using* a
> stolen car.

whoosh right back.

you're moving the goalposts. no surprise there.

there is a 'lock' on using a stolen vehicle because it can't be
registered, thereby making it illegal to drive. while you can
technically still drive it, if the police sees it, they will pull you
over and probably arrest you.

you technically can also 'use' a stolen phone, just not on the cellular
network because it will be blocked, which means it will be restricted
to wifi.

in some cases, you might not even get that far. activation lock on
iphones and android phones will block activation for anyone other than
the legitimate owner, leaving you with an expensive paperweight.

<https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_
US/icloud/ios15-iphone-12-pro-lock-screen-activation-lock.png>

<https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-leads-to-big-d
rops-in-smartphone-theft-worldwide/>
...A new report from Reuters found that iPhone theft dropped by 50
percent in London, 40 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in New
York. The drops represent theft activity as measured during the 12
months following Apple¹s introduction of the remote locking feature
in September 2013 as part of iOS 7.
....
Apple¹s Activation Lock requires a user to authorize a wipe or fresh
install using the existing iCloud credentials on record, ensuring
that a thief can¹t go ahead and just wipe the device easily to use it
themselves or prepare it for sale on the secondary market. Apple is
one of the first major manufacturers to switch to implementing the
system by default, rather than through user opt-in, which means it
should be present on far more devices.

<https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/googles-android-update-may-stop-your-ph
one-being-stolen.html>
The feature, called ³Device Protection,² acts as a kill switch on
devices with the Android 5.1 operating system. If a phone is lost
or stolen, it will remain locked until the owner signs in with their
Google account ­ even if someone resets the device to factory
settings.

Device Protection is Google¹s answer to Apple¹s ³Activation Lock,²
which requires an Apple ID to reactive the device.

> > > [More of the same deleted.]
> >
> > because you don't understand any of it.
>
> Says the guy who doesn't even get the most bloody obvious analogy.

says the guy who doesn't even get his own analogy, thereby forcing him
to move the goalposts.

> > > > > [1] Here (NL) we don't do locked phones anymore.
> > > >
> > > > what happens when they're financed?
> > >
> > > They're financed. That's it.
> >
> > there is no attempt to stop the use of stolen phones? seriously?
> >
> > > > 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'.
> >
> > what alternative solution do you propose to stop people from using
> > stolen phones?
>
> Why single out phones? (Hence the car analogy.)
>
> These days one can finance most everything. And that includes small,
> expensive, electronic, for outdoor use, devices, i.e. devices similar to
> a (smart)phone.
>
> So why single out phones? Just because they *can* be locked? Why
> bother all legit users, just because 'the system' can be abused?

they're not singled out and it doesn't bother legit users at all.

it appears you are confusing a carrier lock, which restricts a phone to
one carrier, versus a blacklisted phone and an fec lock, which prevent
its use on any carrier because it's stolen or has an unpaid financial
obligation.

as i said, phones will be blocked from use, stolen vehicles can't be
registered and real estate can be foreclosed.

there are people whose job is to find vehicles and other items to be
repossessed, known as repo men.

<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repo%20man>
: a man whose job is to take things from people who are not paying
for them

> > > Where's the lock on your financed cars and how does that work?
> >
> > the bank will have a lien on the title until it's fully paid off, at
> > which point the lien will be removed. the same applies for mortgages on
> > property.
>
> Ding, ding, we *have* a winner! We do the same thing for the financing
> of all kinds of products, which happens to include phones. In our
> country, there is a central office (BKR) where these financing contracts
> are recorded on a per person basis.
>
> Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> financed, just like anything else.

they can, but if someone defaults on their financing, the phone will be
blacklisted from being used on the cellular network. that means wifi
only, plus a baddie on your credit rating, making it difficult, if not
impossible, to finance anything else or get a credit card, at least
until it drops off your credit report (or is far enough in the past for
it to have minimal effect on the scoring).

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 11:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > financed, just like anything else.
>
> Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
> shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.

The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones. All the
rest are nospam's usual diversions (in this case mainly because he
doesn't get the analogies and fails to spot the irony/sarcasm). So the
point you raise, while true, is not relevant to the (non-)'discussion'
at hand.

Summary:

- Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.

(As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
- obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)

- Carrier-locking has disadvantages for the legit (no-yet) 'owner',
primarily the inability to use another (legit) SIM for (legit)
purposes.

Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
longer carrier-locked.

On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> Summary:
>
> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
>
> (As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
> - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)

That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?

It's not necessarily because I even want to move to a different carrier
that I want the phone to be unlocked, it's also to be able to use a
foreign SIM card when traveling outside the U.S., since a lot of prepaid
carriers don't offer international roaming at all.

However, there are still carriers or MVNOs that offer a discount of a
couple of hundred dollars on a new phone, without any financing or
monthly payments, and without any contract, and they lock the phone for
a period of time in exchange for that discount. I pointed out the
Samsung A52 5G which Samsung sells unlocked for $462.49 but you can buy
outright on Cricket for $234.99, locked for 180 days. Is that $227.50
savings worth six months of $30 service? For some people it is and for
some it isn't.

I believe that one reason for locking phones, despite the legal
financial commitment, is because the cost of going after someone who
defaults on their payments is too high and the chances of recovery are
too low, and if it goes to a collection agency the carrier would lose a
hefty percentage of any potential recovery. The carrier could always
just remotely disable the phone in cases of non-payment, but it still
would not get them the money that they are owed.

As to the original subject of this thread, I think that it relates to
the which 5G bands that phone supports. I know that the unlocked
versions of some Samsung phones are missing some of the Verizon 5G
bands, while there is a version being sold that supports those Verizon
bands. It also could be any phone that AT&T has whitelisted, even though
many phones that will work just fine on AT&T are not on the whitelist.

In article <sseouv.13to.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > Bottom line: Phones are nothing special. They can be stolen or/and
> > > financed, just like anything else.
> >
> > Phones _are_ a little different. A phone can be remotely disabled so it
> > no longer functions, at least in the country where it was stolen or not
> > paid off. Most cars that are stolen, or where the loan is defaulted on,
> > cannot be remotely disabled. They are either physically repossessed,
> > shipped out of the country to be re-sold, or parted out at a chop shop.
>
> The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones. All the
> rest are nospam's usual diversions (in this case mainly because he
> doesn't get the analogies and fails to spot the irony/sarcasm). So the
> point you raise, while true, is not relevant to the (non-)'discussion'
> at hand.

there re no diversions. you are simply confused about the various types
of locks and when they're used, which is why i explained it.

> Summary:
>
> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.

true. the carriers are for-profit companies and will lock their phones
to protect their property. in fact, they are *obligated* to do so when
it's financed. they are *not* altruistic entities who do what's best
for the consumer, some of whom have ill intent.

> - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)

that requires a carrier lock because the carrier owns a portion of the
phone until it's paid off.

what they do not want is someone to obtain a discounted or free phone,
default on payments, and then use it on another carrier or resell it
for profit, so they will take steps to prevent that from happening.

> - Carrier-locking has disadvantages for the legit (no-yet) 'owner',
> primarily the inability to use another (legit) SIM for (legit)
> purposes.

true, but as explained above, not doing so has a financial impact to
the carrier.

> Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> longer carrier-locked.

nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
reasons already explained.

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

> That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
> a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
> they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
> it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?

because someone can stop paying and then use the phone elsewhere or
resell it for profit.

a financed phone is partly owned by the carrier, who has every right to
protect its property.

> It's not necessarily because I even want to move to a different carrier
> that I want the phone to be unlocked, it's also to be able to use a
> foreign SIM card when traveling outside the U.S., since a lot of prepaid
> carriers don't offer international roaming at all.

in that case, they'll unlock it for international use but retain a
domestic lock until obligations are fulfilled.

> However, there are still carriers or MVNOs that offer a discount of a
> couple of hundred dollars on a new phone, without any financing or
> monthly payments, and without any contract, and they lock the phone for
> a period of time in exchange for that discount.

they will recover any discount from the fees for service.

the consumer pays one way or the other.

On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.

It actually provides a big advantage to the financier. Collecting from
an owner that defaults on financial obligations is a time-consuming and
costly process. An owner can just cancel the credit card used to make
the monthly payments and take the unlocked phone to another carrier.

Sure the financier can go after the owner, put negative information into
their credit file to ruin their credit, sue the owner, or turn the
account over to a collection agency, but the cost of collection can
easily exceed the amount they may eventually recover.

In the U.S. there have been attempts to decouple the sale of phones from
the cost of service (the very first iPhone was sold unsubsidized) but as
phones have gone up in cost there are a lot of people that believe that
they are getting a better deal by buying their phone at a discount from
the carrier in exchange for either a contract or mandatory financing.
Back in the very early day of cellular, California had a law that
prohibited requiring a phone purchaser from buying a plan through the
retailer. Retailers like Radio Shack, hated this law because someone
could buy a subsidized phone from them and take it somewhere else for
service and Radio Shack would not get the kickback from the carrier.

In the U.S., nothing stops someone from buying an unlocked phone from
the manufacturer. Apple, Samsung, etc., are happy to sell you an
unlocked phone at full retail, with 0% financing if you desire, and
there are multiple advantages to doing this (unlocked phone, no carrier
installed bloatware, an extended warranty provided by the credit card
company (in the U.S. you can get two extra years of warranty at no extra
cost with one Visa card). But carrier subsidized, locked, phones are
still a very popular option.

When I bought my iPhone Xr last year, the unsubsidized price, from
Apple, was $499 (apple is now no longer selling the Xr, though a lot of
MVNOs are still selling it). I paid $211.75 for the phone, locked for
one year. It was my choice. I could have went over to Apple and bought
it at full price (or had an employee friend get it for me for 10% off).
I was going to stay with the carrier anyway so the savings was well
worth it to me. I can pay the carrier to unlock the phone prior to the
year being up but it's expensive $150 minus $12 for every active month
of service. So after six months it would cost me $78 to get it unlocked.
Even right after I bought it, paying the $150 would still have been a
big savings versus paying retail at a store.

Also, if I want to use a different SIM card in a locked iPhone it's
pretty easy to do with an rSIM <https://www.ebay.com/itm/234251287321>.
I tried the free T-Mobile eSIM "Test Drive" by using an rSIM in the
physical SIM slot and it worked fine, though T-Mobile service at my
house was awful.

<snip>

> - Carrier-locking has disadvantages for the legit (no-yet) 'owner',
> primarily the inability to use another (legit) SIM for (legit) > purposes.

Definitely true. But the legit owner can choose to buy an unlocked phone
if they desire, they just won't get the subsidy from the carrier when
they do that.

> Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> longer carrier-locked.

Phone manufacturers and carriers in the U.S. would hate this. Hiding the
true cost of a flagship phone by offering phone subsidies in exchange
for a defacto contract (mandatory financing and phone locking) is an
integral part of their business model.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Summary:
> >
> > - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> > 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
> >
> > (As I mentioned, forcing the 'owner' to fulfil hir - mainly financial
> > - obligations, can and is done by administrative/legal means and does
> > not require a carrier-lock (i.e. a technical enforcement).)
>
> That's been my beef with locked phones. If I'm committed to service for
> a certain number of months in order to pay off a subsidized phone (that
> they require to be financed), then what is the justification for locking
> it, since I have to make the payments no matter what?

Exactly. That is *exactly* the point and that's why they're no longer
locked here (in NL (and other EU/European countries)).

> It's not necessarily because I even want to move to a different carrier
> that I want the phone to be unlocked, it's also to be able to use a
> foreign SIM card when traveling outside the U.S., since a lot of prepaid
> carriers don't offer international roaming at all.

A foreign SIM is (was :-() indeed my scenario for an unlocked phone.

> However, there are still carriers or MVNOs that offer a discount of a
> couple of hundred dollars on a new phone, without any financing or
> monthly payments, and without any contract, and they lock the phone for
> a period of time in exchange for that discount.

Yes, I had that for my (four :-)) Australian prepaid phones. Locked
for 6 months with only PAYG charges (and a smallish unlocking fee at the
end).

[...]

> I believe that one reason for locking phones, despite the legal
> financial commitment, is because the cost of going after someone who
> defaults on their payments is too high and the chances of recovery are
> too low, and if it goes to a collection agency the carrier would lose a
> hefty percentage of any potential recovery. The carrier could always
> just remotely disable the phone in cases of non-payment, but it still
> would not get them the money that they are owed.

As I mentioned, because of our administrative/legal methods and means,
we don't have that problem. Of course there are extreme exemptions, like
fleeing the country, but normally the financer will get their money
(i.e. upto impounding income and worse).

[...]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sseouv.13to.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
> Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones.
[...]
> > Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> > longer carrier-locked.
>
> nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
> reasons already explained.

Sigh! Exactly *which* part of "financed phones" didn't you understand?

In The Netherlands *financed phones* are *not* locked. So the US is
*not* the same. *That* was the whole point from the very start.

Now back to Reading for Comprehension 101 you go.

HTH. HAND. EOD. NL.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 8:02 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > - Carrier-locking provides no advantage(s) for the legit (no-yet)
> > 'owner' and provides no advantage(s) for the financer.
>
> It actually provides a big advantage to the financier. Collecting from
> an owner that defaults on financial obligations is a time-consuming and
> costly process. An owner can just cancel the credit card used to make
> the monthly payments and take the unlocked phone to another carrier.
>
> Sure the financier can go after the owner, put negative information into
> their credit file to ruin their credit, sue the owner, or turn the
> account over to a collection agency, but the cost of collection can
> easily exceed the amount they may eventually recover.

Here, the 'owner' who defaults will have to pay all costs, i.e. also
the collection agency's 'costs', which can be outrageous, legal fees,
court costs, etc., etc.. So unless the 'owner' wins in court - which is
very, very unlikely, the financier loses nothing.

[...]

> > Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> > longer carrier-locked.
>
> Phone manufacturers and carriers in the U.S. would hate this. Hiding the
> true cost of a flagship phone by offering phone subsidies in exchange
> for a defacto contract (mandatory financing and phone locking) is an
> integral part of their business model.

Phone+plan suppliers here hated it too, but they were overturned by
pressure from consumer organizations, etc.. No more 'free phone' BS
here.

In article <ssfa8v.108g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank
Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > The original issue was (not) carrier-locking financed phones.
> [...]
> > > Because of this, as I said before, phones in The Netherlands are no
> > > longer carrier-locked.
> >
> > nor are they in the usa, unless it's financed or discounted, for
> > reasons already explained.
>
> Sigh! Exactly *which* part of "financed phones" didn't you understand?

which part of carrier lock, financial eligibility lock and blacklist
being different things for different purposes do you not understand?

there is also sim locking, which i haven't mentioned because it's not
common, however it does exist.

> In The Netherlands *financed phones* are *not* locked. So the US is
> *not* the same. *That* was the whole point from the very start.

nobody said they were the same.

the fact that they're *not* the same is the issue.

what you are missing is that not locking financed phones makes it very
easy for criminals, who will finance them, stop paying, and then sell
them for profit, with the carriers being stuck with the losses.

> Now back to Reading for Comprehension 101 you go.

i'm not the one who is having difficulty understanding things.