FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

Carrier locks and business models

• Many argue SIM locks primarily serve to increase switching costs and keep customers on high‑margin plans, not to manage technical constraints.
• Carriers bundle device financing with service, often obscuring true costs (“free phone” or complex credits), which encourages overbuying and ongoing overpayment even after phones are paid off.
• Some note that Verizon already unlocks after 60 days (per an earlier FCC agreement) yet still offers subsidies, undermining claims that unlocking destroys the model.
• Others worry mandatory rapid unlocking will reduce or eliminate handset discounts and promotional pricing.

Fraud, theft, and credit risk

• Pro‑lock arguments emphasize fraud: people obtain subsidized phones on credit with fake IDs, make one or two payments, unlock, then resell or export them.
• Several commenters say collections and credit reporting are inefficient and costly, with high loss rates, so locks are a key risk-control tool.
• Critics respond that carriers already have IMEI blacklists, credit checks, and can treat unpaid balances like any other loan; lock-based defenses are seen as weak or misdesigned.
• Some propose alternative mechanisms: remotely locking only when loans default, temporary “unlock until time T,” or IMEI-based “cannot be used” states.

Consumer impact and equity

• One camp claims locks + subsidies help low‑income users get expensive phones for little upfront cost, warning that stricter unlock rules may kill prepaid subsidies and small retailers.
• Others counter that enticing poor customers into $1,000 phones and costly plans is predatory, and that cheaper unlocked devices and separate financing already exist.
• There is concern that locked phones increase e‑waste and harm secondary markets, including charitable reuse for unhoused people.

International experiences and alternatives

• EU, UK, Canada, Finland and others are cited where SIM locks are banned or limited, phones are sold unlocked or with separate financing, and markets continue to function.
• Commenters note plentiful used/refurb markets and low‑cost unlocked Android phones as viable alternatives to carrier-tied flagships.

Technical aspects and broader “unlocking”

• Distinction is drawn between SIM unlocking, bootloader unlocking, and screen/device access.
• Some want regulation to also address carrier-locked bootloaders (e.g., Pixels sold by certain carriers), but others say this likely exceeds FCC scope.
• Carrier-branded firmware, delayed or missing security updates, and inability to OTA-update after switching carriers are major pain points.

Regulatory authority debate

• One side argues the FCC clearly has power to regulate communications equipment, citing historical precedents.
• Another invokes the “major questions” doctrine, claiming Congress must explicitly authorize such economically significant interventions.