Verizon Begins Locking Down Its Phones Again, Purportedly To 'Stop Theft'
from the fool-me-once dept
If you've been around a while, you probably know that Verizon has an adversarial relationship with openness and competition. The company's history is rife with attempts to stifle competing emerging technologies that challenged Verizon's own business interests, from its early attempts to block GPS and tethering apps so users would have to subscribe to inferior and expensive Verizon services, to its attempts to block competing mobile payment services to force users (again) onto Verizon's own, inferior products. And that's before you get to Verizon's attempts to kill net neutrality and keep the broadband industry uncompetitive.
In the earlier years, Verizon had a horrible tendency to lock down its devices to a crippling and comical degree. But with the rise of net neutrality, competition from carriers like T-Mobile, and open access conditions affixed to certain spectrum purchased by Verizon, the company slowly-but-surely loosened its iron grip on mobile devices. But let's be clear: the company had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new, more open future we all currently enjoy, where (by and large) you can install whatever apps you like on your device, and attach most mainstream devices (with some caveats) to Verizon's network.
That's why more than a few eyebrows were raised after Verizon gave CNET the early exclusive news (apparently in the hopes that they'd frame it generously, which they did) that the company will soon be locking down its smartphones as part of a purported effort to "combat theft." Carriers have been justly criticized (and sued) for doing too little to prevent theft, in part because they profit on both sides of the equation -- both when a customer comes crying to Verizon to buy a new phone, and when the user with the stolen phone heads to Verizon to re-activate it on a new line.
On its surface, Verizon's plan doesn't seem to have much of an initial impact on traditional users, who'll still get to have their phone unlocked after an unspecified amount of time. The only initial problems that could arise involve users who buy a phone, then head overseas to insert a local SIM to get more reasonably-priced service. Those users may have to contact Verizon before that phone will work, something that may or may not be a pain in the ass in real-world practice.
But it's more the precedent of the move that has people familiar with Verizon's handiwork on this front a little nervous. Especially given Verizon's recent successes in not only killing net neutrality, but gutting most state and federal oversight of ISPs entirely (something many haven't keyed into yet). For one, locking down its devices technically violates the "Carterfone" open access rules affixed to the 700MHz spectrum used in Verizon's network. Verizon was quick to insist to CNET that this shift back toward locking down devices does not violate the "spirit of the agreement":
"The move marks a broad reversal of its policy to offer all of its phones unlocked -- part of a deal with the Federal Communications Commission requiring it to unlock phones as part of its acquisition of the "C block" of 700 megahertz spectrum, which powers its 4G LTE network. One section of the deal specifically prohibits Verizon from configuring handsets to prevent them from working on other networks.
Avi Greengart, an analyst at Global Data, said the policy change appears to contradict the existing rules.
Verizon, however, argues it's still following the intent of the rule.
"This change does not impact the spirit of that agreement as it is designed to deter theft by those who engage in identity theft or other fraud," said a spokeswoman for Verizon. "It is not inconsistent with our obligations under the C Block."
Oh, ok then. The problem is that Verizon doesn't have very much (read: any) credibility on this front, something other news outlets were notably more blunt about:
"Verizon has peddled CNET the story that this is about preventing handset theft and fraud. No facts or figures are provided to back up that assertion.
The simple fact is this: Verizon believes it can get away with SIM-locking its handsets again. This creates confusion for consumers. "Can I take my Verizon phone to another network?" Goes from being answered with a simple "Yes" to "Well, probably, but first you need to contact customer service, ask for us to do this, give us your phone's serial number, wait a week, and make sure this software update comes through."
Again, Verizon's pretty damn ambiguous about the hard specifics of this new plan, only stating the handset lock down will expand over time. Verizon (like many large telecom operators) has a long, proud history of hiding anti-competitive behavior behind faux-technical jargon and a breathless concern over the safety and security of the network. So locking down phones "for security reasons" is great cover for what could be ballooning efforts to make it harder for wireless consumers to switch to competitors. After all, who's going to stop them, net neutrality opponent, former Verizon employee, and current FCC boss Ajit Pai?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fcc, locked phones, theft, unlocked phones
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unlocked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlocked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you a Verizon stockholder or executive, by any chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlocked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unlocked
One imagines these companies would have a different view of their customers trying to break contracts early.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlocked
Given their claim, it's on them to prove that this is the case, especially given their unlocking phones was a condition of an agreement. They have failed to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlocked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlocked
"Who is forced to use Verizon?"
People who can't get decent coverage with other networks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This doesn't happen. Even if it did you could just choose another carrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where I live, you're not going to get a useful signal from anyone other than Verizon.
Those "coverage maps" that all of the providers have, showing their areas of service? They're optimistic. Well, actually they're outright lies. If you don't live in a town or along a major highway, you're probably out of luck.
I have a Verizon phone so clients can get hold of me in emergencies. When I wouldn't pay for the "data plan", which cost twice as much as basic service, Verizon locked out the camera, mp3 player, video functions, and access to the SDcard out of spite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The story says there are '"Carterfone" open access rules'... it's not fully explained but Carterfone was a third-party phone, so "Carterphone rules" would allow third-party phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oops, now the carriers refuse to allow it on their networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oops, now the carriers refuse to allow it on their networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will it even stop theft?
Here in Canada if your locked phone is stolen, you can report it to Telus and give them the police incident number. They'll still cheerfully re-register the phone to whomever the thief sells it to.
As the article notes above, now they get revenue from two customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will it even stop theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spirit of the agreement
I'm on Verizon's side until the part where users will actually be getting locked phones. If it's locked in the warehouse, fine, but it needs to be unlocked before ownership is transferred to the customer. Not a few days later, and certainly not in any way that requires the customer to do anything (the agreement makes no exception for identity verification—don't give it to them until you've got the money or checked their identity or whatever; or take the risk).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon Begins Locking Down Its Phones Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Metro used to block port 80 if you tried tethering your computer, but that was easy to circumvent. All I had to do was log in to a VPN, and I could get cirumvent that, easy peasy.
What Metro did was this, they would detect you were using Windows or Mac, and then block it. However, using a VPN encrypted the connection, where the fact that I was using Windows was not detected.
Doing this did not break any laws, as there is nothing in either the DMCA or CFAA that prohibited me from signing on to a VPN to circumvent the anti-tethering measures they had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'd be exceeding your authorized access. Some courts have gone your way on this, but do you have the money to make that argument? And if the service's lawyers were feeling aggressive, they might note that blocking port 80 would've prevented you from accessing copyrighted material (web pages) and you circumvented that.
This presumes you even have access to a court. Many companies are trying to force people into arbitration these days. Luckily, they can't (yet) sentence you to prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I ran an online radio station, and ran a message board on my website, I always wiped the disk if I found a message that might be deleted, if it might be a problem.
This is why SESTA will not work for example. If I found any spam that had questionable adult links, I would delete it, and they securely the empty space on the hard disk, using one mode of KillDisk that wuold make it unrecoverable. This is so I would not become a "test" case, like a few sites have been.
If SESTA passes, expect sales of secure wiping products to go through the roof, as web sites move to protect themselves from civil and criminal liability
No evidence = NO CASE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except for the fact that destruction of evidence is itself a crime, so its catch 22 if the law decides to go after you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since this VPN was in Cuernavaca, Mexico, the operators of that VPN were not subject to United States laws, in any way. The operators were only subject to Mexican law, and no other.
It is just like when I ran a VPN, when I had my station, so that people could bypass workplace or school filters, to tune in.
Since my server was in the USA, I was not subject to the laws any other country. While laws regarding bypassing workplace filters are stricter in Britain, my VPN was not subject to any British laws, since it was in the USA.
If Britain had outlawed VPNs, I could have continued to allow British subject use my VPN, and would have been not subject to prosecution in Britain, becuase my server was in in the USA, and, therefore, only subject to USA laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And since the VPN servers I used were not in the United States, and not owned by any Americans, they were not subject to the laws of the United States.
When I did this a few years ago, when had to move, and it took a while to get Internet service installed, I used a VPN that was run out of Cuernavaca, Mexico
Being in Mexico, the operators of that VPN were not subject any Americans laws. That VPN was only subject to Mexican laws. So I only had to follow Mexican law, when using that VPN. And they were subject to the jurisdiction of any court in the United States, being they were in Cuernavaca, Mexico.
The only thing that sucked about having to use that VPN until could get Internet installed is that I could not watch Netflix, as Mexican IP addresses were blocked, because Netflix did not serve Mexico at that time.
But I was at least able to use that VPN to pay my bills, and do other things I had to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could unlock your phone yourself, without contacting verizon, and then just Verizon's sim card back in and just wipe the phone to get rid of any evidence that you did unlock your phone to use Cuban or North Korean sim cards, while in either of those countries.
Wiping your phone to hide the fact that you did that does not break any laws in the United States, so Verizon will never know.
Wiping your phone, before entering any of the "five eyes" countries is a good idea anyway. When I go on road trips, I always wipe my phones before crossing the border into either the USA or Canada, so I don't get into any trouble for anything I did not know was there. And wiping my phones before crossing through Customs does not break any US or Canadian laws when I to this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? I was in Cuba a few years back (the rest of the world can travel there quite happily), and I had to do no such thing and a friend who went there last year didn't mention anything about her having to do it. Is this a recent development, or is the US spreading false propaganda again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wiping your phone, before getting on the plane back to the United States does not break any laws. Wiping out any evidence that you illegally unlocked your phone, to use SIM cards in another country, does not break any laws in the Untied States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If that was your point, then why did you make the specific claim that Cuban laws required you to use one of their SIM cards? You were either mistaken (which is not a problem to admit, though you avoid doing so), you lied and/or you swallowed some false propaganda which is laughably easy to disprove. Which was it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful you don't skew your own narrative, Karl.
Is net neutrality a new and oppressive regulatory burden, hence its rise, or is it a well-embedded principle of the Internet's inner workings? Be careful about what claims you're making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Is net neutrality a new and oppressive regulatory burden, hence its rise"
What the hell do you think net neutrality actually is? Because what you just said is nonsense.
Net neutrality is the principle of every packet being treated equally on the internet regardless of content or destination. Rules were put in place to protect this principle in the US. Now, they've been removed to please the ISP monopolies.
That's it. If you think that it's anything else, or that this site has been saying anything other than the fact that this principle should be protected, I don't know what you've been reading. Karl was merely referring to the fact that once rules were put in place to protect net neutrality, Verizon were forced to compete and play fair for a short while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]