U.S. Investigating AT&T and Verizon Over Wireless Collusion Claim

[DrMacintosh]

Quote

The Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into potential coordination by AT&T, Verizon and a telecommunications standards organization to hinder consumers from easily switching wireless carriers, according to six people with knowledge of the inquiry.

Hmm, sounds like something I would not put past US telecomm companies from doing.

Quote

In February, the Justice Department issued demands to AT&T, Verizon and the G.S.M.A., a mobile industry standards-setting group, for information on potential collusion to thwart a technology known as eSIM, said two of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are confidential.

The technology lets people remotely switch wireless providers without having to insert a new SIM card into a device. AT&T and Verizon face accusations that they colluded with the G.S.M.A. to try to establish standards that would allow them to lock a device to their network even if it had eSIM technology.

Well that's bull. I should be able to change my carrier as long as all the proper paper work is filled out, putting software locks is carriers being ? One could argue that these carriers were being anti-consumer.

 

I should be able to switch carriers whenever I want, and if I'm not mistaken, at least in California, you have to let users unlock their phones if they want to do that. 

 

I have Sprint and we have not had any major issues with them, but they are a smaller carrier than AT&T and Verizon, aka two of the "Fat Cats" of US Telecomm and I am not surprised. 

Quote

The investigation was opened about five months ago after at least one device maker and one wireless carrier filed formal complaints with the Justice Department, two of the people said. The device maker was Apple, one of them said.

Hmm, interesting to see that Apple was the one to make the claim when Apple is itself potentially in some heat for the recent iPhone 8 screen debacle. This could be related to Apples' eSIM which they have put into their Cellular iPads to give consumers more flexibility in their carrier selection since Data only devices are generally not locked into anything. 

 

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/technology/att-verizon-investigate-esim.html 

 

 

[8uhbbhu8]

Good. So many accusations have been handed out regarding this sort of thing going on in the US. Glad to see something is actually being done.

[Mooshi]

Sounds like some tinfoil hat shenanigans. Dunno about AT&T, but the Verizon thing is a 30+ day cycle lock to prevent fraudulent activities. No one realistically just signs up for a carrier and then bails before the very first cycle completes. If you weren't satisfied within the first 14 days, you would have ceased service during the "worry free guarantee" period.

 

The only people this effects are those trying to cheat the system with a sale at Carrier A trying to move their device to Carrier B before they got their first bill. Things like that looks super suspicious. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Mooshi said:

Sounds like some tinfoil hat shenanigans. Dunno about AT&T, but the Verizon thing is a 30+ day cycle lock to prevent fraudulent activities. No one realistically just signs up for a carrier and then bails before the very first cycle completes. If you weren't satisfied within the first 14 days, you would have ceased service during the "worry free guarantee" period.

 

The only people this effects are those trying to cheat the system with a sale at Carrier A trying to move their device to Carrier B before they got their first bill. Things like that looks super suspicious. 

Well that is why there is an investigation now isn't there  

[Guest The Viking]

"Competition"

 

America, f*ck yeah.

 

time to regulate.

[Curufinwe_wins]

13 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Sounds like some tinfoil hat shenanigans. Dunno about AT&T, but the Verizon thing is a 30+ day cycle lock to prevent fraudulent activities. No one realistically just signs up for a carrier and then bails before the very first cycle completes. If you weren't satisfied within the first 14 days, you would have ceased service during the "worry free guarantee" period.

 

The only people this effects are those trying to cheat the system with a sale at Carrier A trying to move their device to Carrier B before they got their first bill. Things like that looks super suspicious. 

Or someone that uses multiple carriers because some have shitty service in different areas.

 

Just saying.

 

Like ting and project fi already smart swap between GSM and CDMA systems with and without eSIM.

 

The real reason for this is just for carrier lock in. Same with the old system of 2 year contracts.

[AlwaysFSX]

13 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Sounds like some tinfoil hat shenanigans. Dunno about AT&T, but the Verizon thing is a 30+ day cycle lock to prevent fraudulent activities. No one realistically just signs up for a carrier and then bails before the very first cycle completes. If you weren't satisfied within the first 14 days, you would have ceased service during the "worry free guarantee" period.

 

The only people this effects are those trying to cheat the system with a sale at Carrier A trying to move their device to Carrier B before they got their first bill. Things like that looks super suspicious. 

AT&T lets you unlock your device but you only get 5 tries to use the code and then it's permanently locked to their network. Even if the code they give you doesn't work.

 

At least that was my experience with it.

[Drak3]

48 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Or someone that uses multiple carriers because some have shitty service in different areas.

Then they're buying dual sim, which no carrier sells.

This only applies to carrier sold phones (which nearly all carriers now require a plan to buy from them) so realistically, no (smart) person is actually affected. I also agree that the carriers should be able to enforce the 30 day period.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Then they're buying dual sim, which no carrier sells.

This only applies to carrier sold phones (which nearly all carriers now require a plan to buy from them) so realistically, no (smart) person is actually affected. I also agree that the carriers should be able to enforce the 30 day period.

The whole point of eSim is that you don't and shouldn't need dual sim. In fact, the original design purpose for eSim was this exact usage.

 

I think you are completely missing the point. We aren't talking about preventing someone from canceling their service within x amount of days or whatever. I'm talking about using (and paying for) two services concurrently (well semi-concurrently because swapping networks is still a thing on most mutli-network implementations), which there is no good excuse for preventing.

[Drak3]

16 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

The whole point of eSim is that you don't and shouldn't need dual sim. In fact, the original design purpose for eSim was this exact usage.

 

I think you are completely missing the point. We aren't talking about preventing someone from canceling their service within x amount of days or whatever. I'm talking about using (and paying for) two services concurrently (well semi-concurrently because swapping networks is still a thing on most mutli-network implementations), which there is no good excuse for preventing.

These carriers aren't preventing you from doing that with phobes actually capable of it and compatible with the network.

They don't sell those phones. You buy them unlocked from the OEM or resellers like Best Buy.

[mr moose]

It's alright everyone, after a couple of hefty campaign donations,  the US government will realise it is a perfectly legal activity that promotes competition. 

[GDRRiley]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's alright everyone, after a couple of hefty campaign donations,  the US government will realise it is a perfectly legal activity that promotes competition. 

there going to need to shell out a few million. I would think that 10 million from each would convince them that its all good. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

there going to need to shell out a few million. I would think that 10 million from each would convince them that its all good. 

Is that all? they can afford to have a few laws/regulations rewritten as well then. 

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Is that all? they can afford to have a few laws/regulations rewritten as well then. 

well they got a lot of money last year, I don't know that they need that much more to win.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

well they got a lot of money last year, I don't know that they need that much more to win.

Some times I think political donations over a certain value should prevent politicians from voting or talking about anything related to the source of that donation.  E.G if an oil company donates X amount, then that politician/party can't table laws or vote on laws that related to fossil fuels or alternative energy sources.

 

I know that's a is far reaching ideal with many complications, but it encapsulates how I feel about the system.

[GDRRiley]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Some times I think political donations over a certain value should prevent politicians from voting or talking about anything related to the source of that donation.  E.G if an oil company donates X amount, then that politician/party can't table laws or vote on laws that related to fossil fuels or alternative energy sources.

 

I know that's a is far reaching ideal with many complications, but it encapsulates how I feel about the system.

lets just stop more than a certain amount every year from any company or organization. 

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Some times I think political donations over a certain value should prevent politicians from voting or talking about anything related to the source of that donation. 

While that would definitely make a lot of sense, it would probably lead to more under-the-table deals, which would cause the same problems but then no one would have any way of knowing a bias exists.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

While that would definitely make a lot of sense, it would probably lead to more under-the-table deals, which would cause the same problems but then no one would have any way of knowing a bias exists.

don't ruin my dreams with realities. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

These carriers aren't preventing you from doing that with phobes actually capable of it and compatible with the network.

They don't sell those phones. You buy them unlocked from the OEM or resellers like Best Buy.

They are explicitly trying to lock down eSIM phones. Which is the whole point of this article. eSIM is either on or not on the phone, Samsung/LG/Apple/HTC aren't making phones with and without them. Just one variant. 

 

Even "dual sim" models are the EXACT SAME PHONE with a different shaped plastic cutout tray. Only limitations are that which the carriers force via bloatware.

[Curufinwe_wins]

7 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

lets just stop more than a certain amount every year from any company or organization. 

But corporations are people and thus you can't limit free-speech like that.

 

God dammit Citizen's United 

[Master Disaster]

Here in the UK the problem of varying service depending on network was solved with one very simple ruling, our version of the FCC mandated that instead of networks all installing their own independent masts they should all share the same masts.

 

In this way it means that if there is mobile signal for anybody there is signal for everybody.

 

It's a very eloquent solution that took a while to implement but works.

[mikeeginger]

Finally