Verizon Wastes No Time Switching Device Unlock Policy To 365 Days (droid-life.com)
- Reference: 0180630910
- News link: https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/26/01/21/0458212/verizon-wastes-no-time-switching-device-unlock-policy-to-365-days
- Source link: https://www.droid-life.com/2026/01/20/verizon-device-unlock-policy-365-days/
> When the FCC [1]cleared Verizon of its 60-day device unlock policy a week ago, we talked about how the government agency, which is as anti-consumer as it has ever been at the moment, was giving Verizon the power to basically create whatever unlock policy it wanted. We also expected Verizon to make a change to its policies in a hurry and they did not disappoint. Again, the FCC provided them a waiver 7 days ago and they are already starting to update policies.
>
> As of this morning, Verizon has [2]implemented a new device unlock policy across its various prepaid brands and I'd imagine their postpaid policy change is right around the corner. Brands like Visible, Total Wireless, Tracfone, and StraightTalk, all have an updated device unlock policy today that extends to 365 days of paid and active service before they'll free your phone from the Verizon network. Starting January 20, Verizon [3]says that devices purchased from their prepaid brands will only be unlocked upon request after 365 days and if you meet several requirements [...].
>
> What exactly is changing here? Well, if you purchased a device from Verizon's value brands previously, they would automatically unlock them after 60 days. Now, you have to wait 365 days, request the unlock because it doesn't happen automatically, and also have active service. [...] The FCC mentioned in their waiver that by allowing Verizon to create whatever unlock policy they wanted that this would "benefit consumers." How does any of this benefit consumers?
[1] https://slashdot.org/story/26/01/13/1845204/verizon-to-stop-automatic-unlocking-of-phones-as-fcc-ends-60-day-unlock-rule
[2] https://www.droid-life.com/2026/01/20/verizon-device-unlock-policy-365-days/
[3] https://www.tfwunlockpolicy.com/wps/portal/home/
I left years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
After year-over-year cost increases without any improvement in service (speeds, coverage, etc.), I got sick of Verizon's BS and jumped ship for an MVNO. My cost for comparable service is now 1/3 of what it had been. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.
I always buy my devices outright and bring them to the carrier, having learned the hard way decades ago that purchasing a device from the carrier is always a bad deal in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
What is funny is I use Verizon's own MVNO, pay annually and get the same exact service (this may not be true for you big city dwellers). My annual bill for 2 phones is exactly 3 months of service if I was still on my verizon plan.
It's crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
> purchasing a device from the carrier is always a bad deal in the long run
With Verizon, I haven't had to buy a new phone in a decade.
What's even more interesting is that this time Verizon let me keep my old "trade-in" phone that got me that deal in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
> With Verizon, I haven't had to buy a new phone in a decade.
You may not have bought it, but you certainly have paid for it - probably a lot more over the last 10 years than if you had bought something out of pocket. Verizon isn't offering you a phone "for free" out of the goodness of their hearts - they're doing it to make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where that profit is coming from.
I had prepaid phones for years in the 2000s and their service payments were designed to waste my money. I used prepaid phones to play with new phone technology before 4G LTE finally came out.
Since the 2010s I have had great experience with postpaid plans, free phones, no advertisements on my phones, reasonable service plan costs.
Am I the product? How?
I just don't get the hate.
And this is WHY.... (Score:3)
I buy all my devices unlocked from the word go...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, no lock in. I've been doing this for 10 years.
Buy full price, then (Score:3)
> "if you purchased a device from Verizon's value brands previously, they would automatically unlock them after 60 days. Now, you have to wait 365 days, request the unlock because it doesn't happen automatically, and also have active service. "
I must be missing something... If you choose to not outright fully buy a phone, but sign an agreement for a heavily discounted/subsidized phone, contingent on having service for X months or whatever, why should Verizon unlock it if the terms are not met? If you want the freedom to do what you want, then fully buy your own unlocked phone, right?
I do agree it should be automatic once the agreement is met, however.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you "bought the device on credit" rather than "renting the device", so the device is still yours to do with as you please.
Paying for service and using the phone with the service are two different things. You might want to use the phone with other services as well, especially if you travel.
It's none of their business what you do with the phone so long as you continue paying off the loan. If you don't pay off the loan as agreed then that's a breach of contract and they will chase you for that. The dev
Re: (Score:3)
> "Because you "bought the device on credit" rather than "renting the device", so the device is still yours to do with as you please."
Yes and no. Depends on the contract and the way it is worded.
> "The device being locked doesn't take the place of the contract, it's just an extra totally pointless burden on the customer."
The phone company is using the locking as a type of collateral to help assure the customer doesn't just stop paying on their obligation and move that phone, which is not "fully" theirs
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are missing some important details here that the original post excludes for some reason. These unlock requirements were imposed on Verizon as part of a deal in 2007 that gave Verizon an exclusive license to use the 700mhz C-Block spectrum nation wide. Previously the 700mhz band was used for the upper section of the TV broadcast spectrum, and parts of it were for free public use and emergency services. Because the 700mhz band has very good range and building penetration capabilities, Verizon agreed to th
Re: (Score:2)
> why should Verizon unlock it if the terms are not met?
That's how it works in civilized countries. I have a subsidized phone that I can use with a foreign SIM card when I travel. I still have to pay my phone. I'd have to pay it even if it stops working.
There is no valid reason for SIM locks. Just like if you lease a car from a dealer, you can still chose to fill it with gas from any provider. Are you suggesting it would be OK to lock it down to "Toyota gas" until it's fully paid for?
Re: (Score:2)
if you lease a car from a dealer, you can still chose to fill it with gas from any provider>
Shhh... you will give them ideas!
Here in the UK, we do not have locking. I bought a Samsung phone on contract, and shortly after bought an Oppo phone. I swapped the sim cards between them because it suits my use patterns better. No problems here. In the past, I have sometimes swapped phones with my partner, both keeping our sims, because one of us wants an upgrade when the other is due for one, but is happy w
Re: (Score:2)
Because it isn't a heavily subsidized phone? There's no such thing any more. You generally have a contract that requires you pay enough either by treating it as a loan and/or by paying absurdly high plan prices with an absurdly high charge for ending your contract early.
Regardless of how they've done it, in all cases you end up paying for your phone outright, often several times over. So, no, unless your post is the usual naive libertarian "Nothing is more moral than a contract, and a party has the right to
Never buy from the phone company (Score:2)
If you can't buy your phone direct, pick a different phone. I buy a new phone every few years, directly from apple. I pay cash. If I wanted android I'd do the same.
If I couldn't afford that phone, I'd pick a cheaper one.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that financing a phone is almost the same term as financing a car (24 months!) is crazy.
Easy fix (Score:2)
Don't "finance" your phone with your carrier. Buy whatever UNLOCKED phone you want/need and dispense with vendor lock from the beginning.
All the wireless carriers are slavishly trying to retain subscribers and avoid customer churn so the outcome was inevitable once the rules were relaxed.
Best,
Canada Proves It Works (Score:3)
Canada banned the sale of locked mobile phones in 2017. Since then, every phone sold in the country has been unlocked.
Did financing phones go away and make phones more expensive? No.
Carriers still finance phones, and tie them to plans, it is just decoupled from the device so while you may be paying off the device for 3 years, you can decide to sell it and/or move carriers whenever you want, by paying off the remaining balance.
Re: (Score:3)
The carrier generally isn't even worried that you'll abscond with the financed phone. The manufacturer often gives them a fat rebate to offset that cost. They are almost entirely focused on retaining the ongoing service fees and subscriber count. THAT is a critical metric for their leadership and "the street".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but this is always used as a red herring in the argument. Carriers say "if we are forced to sell unlocked it will make phones unaffordable" - my point is, this is a false narrative.
Privilege (Score:2)
I love all the folks that are "just buy the phone outright, unlocked, then this isn't a problem". Not everybody has the money to do that. So, you're saying that poor people should get screwed? That purchasing a phone on credit doesn't mean that you own it? Where are all the "products you buy are your products, not the manufacturer's" people?
This benefits no one but Verizon. This is explicitly anti-consumer.
Re:Privilege (Score:4, Insightful)
I think if you can't afford to buy a phone in cash, buying it on credit is a terrible idea as well. Buy a cheaper phone.
This is true with cars as well. Don't lease a BMW, buy a used Toyota.
But if you must use credit then I think Verizon should be issuing you a line of credit, not some in-between thing that acts like credit, but is tied to your service. Of course that would mean interest rates.
Re: (Score:2)
I've bought every single car I own in cash. I then take what would be a car payment and put it in a money market fund every month. The exception to this is my wife's Mazda which we bought new at 0% 3 years ago. I was going to pay cash, but they offered us 0% and when someone gives you a free loan and money market fund rates are 4% you take it. 36 months later that can is also paid off, every month we make a 'car payment' to the money market fund.
I'm currently thinking about buying a slightly used or new GMC
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they don't have the money is because of all the things they buy on credit. Sure, life might suck for 6 months, a year or two, but once you get over that hump of financing everything it gets so much better. Stop paying with credit, it costs you more money.
Re: (Score:3)
> Not everybody has the money to do that.
Typical phone bills are around $100 somehow, which I don't understand because I pay $35/mo for Verizon prepay. So get a $200 phone (Moto has several which are more than adequate) and get prepaid service. It's only about one month's contract additional to get started.
(VZ is terrible but all my other options here are also terrible, because I live in the sticks.)
Re: (Score:2)
> Typical phone bills are around $100 somehow
It blows my mind that people will throw money at Verizon directly when there are so many MNVOs out there, and with how easy it is to switch these days. Hell, I was able to get a new phone, access to Verizon's network, and home internet service for $60/month.
Re: (Score:2)
Which MVNOs should I look at which use their network, which is the best one in this area? Not that this is saying much. I currently pay $35/mo and I have about 11GB of internet use, which is more than I actually need given that I don't stream video on my phone.
Re: (Score:3)
I've only second-hand experienced Straight Talk and now Xfinity, both on Verizon's network. (Wife's phone plan) She has had minimal complaints on either recently. She did have some issues with MMS on Straight Talk, but that was a long time ago. I believe Straight Talk will use different networks depending on where you are, so it behooves to research. I have a feeling you're going to have a tough time beating $35/month, though.
Re: Privilege (Score:2)
I have the same feeling, but thank you very much for your reply anyway.
Re:Privilege (Score:4, Interesting)
> I love all the folks that are "just buy the phone outright, unlocked, then this isn't a problem". Not everybody has the money to do that.
Phones start from $100, new. If you can't afford that you have no business entering some tens of dollars per month (if not close to $100) multi-year contract to finance your phone.
And yes, I know well what's the experience with a $100 phone, I have a very close relative with a Samsung A13. Yes, it takes 5 minutes to boot (well, until it's fully up) if you need to restart it, it doesn't have a glass back and it can't compete with the sun if you want to watch videos at the beach. But that's about it, otherwise is fully usable and FULLY USED, beyond belief - it has installed every shopping app and messaging app you can think of, some TWICE (once in the normal profile and once in the "work" profile, just to be able to work with two different accounts at the same time). And on top of it Syncthing running twice (once in each profile) to grab the media from both sides.
For many things it's even better than flagships. It has a large more than full-HD screen, a big battery that's even better because of the weak CPU, it is dual-SIM PLUS microSD (yes, 3 slots), headphone jack and a good not-in-screen fingerprint sensor that works instantly and reliably. It's 3-4 years old and it'll hang on for 3 more I bet.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't afford to buy a house, you have no business entering some thousands of dollars per month multi-year contract to finance your house.
Re: (Score:2)
Very bad-faith reply. Roof over your head is different than mobile pron access. Then again as time passes your "hardware" house goes UP in real value, but a smartphone decreases rapidly in value ... like a car. And finally, for those true-Scotsman who actually can afford buying a house, the tax-relief on interest payments is a BIG DEAL. No such tax-relief exists for cells. So ... your argument really sucks collectivist dikk.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope much? What else should you buy in a multi-year contract just because it might make sense to buy a house? Full tank of gas? A loaf of bread?
And YES, the amount DOES matter. If you could buy a double-digit number of houses from a monthly salary (starting from minimum wage!), YES, it would be just as dumb to enter a two years contract to pay for it!
Re: (Score:2)
Needs vs wants. You don't NEED a $1,000+ smartphone when a $100 (or less) one will get the job done. You do need a place to lay your head down at night. And at least owning a home is generally a wealth-builder, where as an iPhone absolutely is not.
I get it. I've been poor as hell before, and the condescending "just quit spending money" absolutely grates on me because of it. Being poor sucks, climbing out of being poor sucks worse, and someone who's never actually done it will never sympathize. But that do
Re: (Score:3)
Some of these people have no internet or laptop and getting a smartphone is their critical devices for email, job hunting, etc. I don't think people should get things they can't afford, but to some this is a critical device that serves a lot of purpose and a dumb phone isn't capable of much for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
> I love all the folks that are "just buy the phone outright, unlocked, then this isn't a problem". Not everybody has the money to do that. So, you're saying that poor people should get screwed?
Poor people SHOULDN'T get screwed. They SHOULDN'T finance $1000 phones on 2 years. If you can't afford a $1000 purchase outright, you can't afford that phone.
Still, SIM locking should be banned. It works just fine in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does a "poor person" even THINK of buying a $1-K cellphone, when you can buy cells for under $100 ? I mean ... they would not even think of buying a $1-K pair of NIKE sneakers ... would they ... oh wait ...
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the "credit" is lease-to-own. So, no. They don't own the phone that they've "purchased on credit", they're renting their phone. A lot of times the rental payments are put on the credit card, so double whammy on the indebtedness. Anyways, my point is that unless you purchase outright, the prepaid phone is not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree that this is anti-consumer. That said, if you're signing up for a Verizon plan, you'll be paying in a month what a low end unlocked phone costs. Hell, you can buy a fairly nice Motorola for around 2-3 months of Verizon service.
I'm not sure that everyone here is arguing this from the point of view of "The law is just! Verizon should do whatever they want!" anyway, I think many think they're being "helpful" and others are advocating it as a "Stick it to the man" thing. Note how many of the sa
Verizon did buy nearly all its prepaid competitors (Score:2)
Verizon did buy nearly all its prepaid competitors a few years ago, though, so the unlock policy is significantly less meaningful now.
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't, there's a shit ton of prepaid companies around that compete with Verizon and aren't owned by them. Did you mean "Prepaid carriers that were its customers" maybe? As in "prepaid companies that use Verizon as their backbone"? Those weren't ever competitors per-se.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon did buy MVNOs (prepaid mobile phone companies) that did not use their network, TracFone being a prime example.
Verizon has since converted TracFone to to Verizon's network. It previously used all the big three networks.
God save us from Slashdot phone advice (Score:2)
I've been on Slashdot a long time. So back in the 2000s when iphones came out, we kept constantly seeing posts from Slashdotters saying "I just want a phone that's a phone". This lasted for several years. It was really annoying. So based on the posts here, now I know what has replaced it. Now it's "You need a cheaper phone if you can't buy it outright". Geez.
Re: (Score:2)
This is always a good one. The slashdot review for the iPod. [1]https://slashdot.org/story/01/... [slashdot.org]
[1] https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod
Who's the customer? (Score:3)
> The FCC mentioned in their waiver that by allowing Verizon to create whatever unlock policy they wanted that this would "benefit consumers." How does any of this benefit consumers?
If you're asking this, you're not the customer. You're the product.
Re: Who's the customer? (Score:2)
In the case you arenâ(TM)t paying for the product I could agree. When you are paying for the product, then itâ(TM)s simply double or triple dipping on their side.
Re: (Score:2)
When the product is a $30 Android phone, they definitely want you to believe they are losing money on it with a 60 day unlock policy. But given how slow those phones are I really don't know how much they could be losing.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The FCC mentioned in their waiver that by allowing Verizon to create whatever unlock policy they wanted that this would "benefit consumers." How does any of this benefit consumers?
> If you're asking this, you're not the customer. You're the product.
Then perhaps we should define who (or what) the actual consumer is. And then tax and fine appropriately.
After all, I'm just a product now. Not like I should be treated and burdened as some entity that matters.