T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

Carriers fight plan to require unlocking of phones 60 days after activation.

T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. "If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers—not providers—who stand to lose the most," T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing with the Federal Communications Commission.

The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs. T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival's network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers."

If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said. "A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets."

T-Mobile and other carriers are responding to a call for public comments that began after the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a 5–0 vote. The FCC is proposing "to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."

When the FCC proposed the 60-day unlocking rule in July 2024, the agency criticized T-Mobile for locking prepaid phones for a year. The NPRM pointed out that "T-Mobile recently increased its locking period for one of its brands, Metro by T-Mobile, from 180 days to 365 days."

T-Mobile's policy says the carrier will only unlock mobile devices on prepaid plans if "at least 365 days... have passed since the device was activated on the T-Mobile network."

"You bought your phone, you should be able to take it to any provider you want," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said when the FCC proposed the rule. "Some providers already operate this way. Others do not. In fact, some have recently increased the time their customers must wait until they can unlock their device by as much as 100 percent."

T-Mobile locking policy more onerous

T-Mobile executives, who also argue that the FCC lacks authority to impose the proposed rule, met with FCC officials last week to express their concerns.

"T-Mobile is passionate about winning customers for life, and explained how its handset unlocking policies greatly benefit our customers," the carrier said in its post-meeting filing. "Our policies allow us to deliver access to high-speed mobile broadband on a nationwide 5G network via handsets that are free or heavily discounted off the manufacturer's suggested retail price. T-Mobile's unlocking policies are transparent, and there is absolutely no evidence of consumer harm stemming from these policies. T-Mobile's current unlocking policies also help T-Mobile combat handset theft and fraud by sophisticated, international criminal organizations."

For postpaid users, T-Mobile says it allows unlocking of fully paid-off phones that have been active for at least 40 days. But given the 365-day lock on prepaid users, T-Mobile's overall policy is more onerous than those of other carriers. T-Mobile has also faced angry customers because of a recent decision to raise prices on plans that were advertised as having a lifetime price lock.

AT&T enables unlocking of paid-off phones after 60 days for postpaid users and after six months for prepaid users. AT&T lodged similar complaints as T-Mobile, saying in an October 7 filing that the FCC's proposed rules would "mak[e] handsets less affordable for consumers, especially those in low-income households," and "exacerbate handset arbitrage, fraud, and trafficking. "

AT&T told the FCC that "requiring providers to unlock handsets before they are paid-off would ultimately harm consumers by creating upward pressure on handset prices and disincentives to finance handsets on flexible terms." If the FCC implements any rules, it should maintain "existing contractual arrangements between customers and providers, ensure that providers have at least 180 days to detect fraud before unlocking a device, and include at least a 24-month period for providers to implement any new rules," AT&T said.

Verizon, which already faces unlocking rules because of requirements imposed on spectrum licenses it owns, automatically unlocks phones after 60 days for prepaid and postpaid users. Among the three major carriers, Verizon is the most amenable to the FCC's new rules.

Consumer groups: Make Verizon rules industry-wide

An October 18 filing supporting a strict unlocking rule was submitted by numerous consumer advocacy groups including Public Knowledge, New America's Open Technology Institute, Consumer Reports, the National Consumers League, the National Consumer Law Center, and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.

"Wireless users are subject to unnecessary restrictions in the form of locked devices, which tie them to their service providers even when better options may be available. Handset locking practices limit consumer freedom and lessen competition by creating an artificial technological barrier to switching providers," the groups said.

The groups cited the Verizon rules as a model and urged the FCC to require "that device unlocking is truly automatic—that is, unlocked after the requisite time period without any additional actions of the consumer." Carriers should not be allowed to lock phones for longer than 60 days even when a phone is on a financing plan with outstanding payments, the groups' letter said:

Providers should be required to transition out of selling devices without this [automatic unlocking] capability and the industry-wide rule should be the same as the one protecting Verizon customers today: after the expiration of the initial period, the handset must automatically unlock regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked or (2) the handset is fully paid off. Removing this barrier to switching will make the standard simple for consumers and encourage providers to compete more vigorously on mobile service price, quality, and innovation.

In an October 2 filing, Verizon said it supports "a uniform approach to handset unlocking that allows all wireless providers to lock wireless handsets for a reasonable period of time to limit fraud and to enable device subsidies, followed by automatic unlocking absent evidence of fraud."

Verizon said 60 days should be the minimum for postpaid devices so that carriers have time to detect fraud and theft, and that "a longer, 180-day locking period for prepaid is necessary to enable wireless providers to continue offering subsidies that make phones affordable for prepaid customers." Regardless of what time frame the FCC chooses, Verizon said "a uniform unlocking policy that applies to all providers... will benefit both consumers and competition."

FCC considers impact on phone subsidies

While the FCC is likely to impose an unlocking rule, one question is whether it will apply when a carrier has provided a discounted phone. The FCC's NPRM asked the public for "comment on the impact of a 60-day unlocking requirement in connection with service providers' incentives to offer discounted handsets for postpaid and prepaid service plans."

The FCC acknowledged Verizon's argument "that providers may rely on handset locking to sustain their ability to offer handset subsidies and that such subsidies may be particularly important in prepaid environments." But the FCC noted that public interest groups "argue that locked handsets tied to prepaid plans can disadvantage low-income customers most of all since they may not have the resources to switch service providers or purchase new handsets."

The public interest groups also note that unlocked handsets "facilitate a robust secondary market for used devices, providing consumers with more affordable options," the NPRM said.

The FCC says it can impose phone-unlocking rules using its legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act "to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing and regulations to require mobile wireless service providers to provide handset unlocking." The FCC said it previously relied on the same Title III authority when it imposed the unlocking rules on 700 MHz C Block spectrum licenses purchased by Verizon.

T-Mobile told the FCC in a filing last month that "none of the litany of Title III provisions cited in the NPRM support the expansive authority asserted here to regulate consumer handsets (rather than telecommunications services)." T-Mobile also said that "the Commission's legal vulnerabilities on this score are only magnified in light of recent Supreme Court precedent."

The Supreme Court recently overturned the 40-year-old Chevron precedent that gave agencies like the FCC judicial deference when interpreting ambiguous laws. The end of Chevron makes it harder for agencies to issue regulations without explicit authorization from Congress. This is a potential problem for the FCC in its fight to revive net neutrality rules, which are currently blocked by a court order pending the outcome of litigation.