Hacker News Reader

Comment by siskiyou | Hacker News Reader

Just adding a little bit of context about AT&T: I collect used cell phones, erase them, unlock when possible, and distribute them to unhoused people through several local food shelves, which allows those people to access benefits, housing, health care, jobs, etc which would otherwise be out of reach. With AT&T I can go to their website and unlock an old phone in minutes, allowing them to use a no-cost carrier like QLink Wireless. With T-Mobile or Consumer Cellular (or many others) they just give you the finger. The phone could be e-waste for all they care.

View on HN

Slightly OT, but as someone who escaped poverty this is the type of volunteering that is super helpful and makes a huge difference. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything like this in my local area, do you have any pointers on starting/finding a program like this to contribute to?

I really what you are doing, I have been looking for a way to give back now that I am in a financially secure position and that sounds more impactful than just giving money. If you would prefer, I can be contacted at my username at google's email service.

I would begin with contacting an appropriate state department that helps those people and seeing if they know of any similar organizations, or if they provide grants for non-profit organizations that can assist people in poverty that way. California had quite a bit of money allocated for that, which led to some abuse of the system by a few of them.

Many charities are very happy with money btw, our local food bank prefers it and cites a 3x factor in “value” compared to food donations due to discount s they get when buying bulk.

Just saying, don’t feel bad for “just” giving money.

If I donate time or things I’m more sure it will be used as I intended.

Donate all the time you can afford!

Regarding monetary donations, if you believe institutional misuse outweighs efficiency gain, then your area food banks are in a much worse shape than my local area, which I hazard to guess is merely average.

Food banks can do so much more with cash, such as buy fresh produce from local farmers, than they can with your unwanted groceries, usually canned goods. Or if you're buying food specifically intending to donate it, do you really think the average person reading this (and 50% of you reading this are below average) is a better shopper with their $100 than the food bank is with $10,000+? Instead of shopping, spend that time with them, and still donate the same amount you would have spent.

I was surprised when I spent my own time and found out how much further they can stretch each dollar, and often provide healthier food.

If I donate cash to a food bank I have faith it will be put to better use than my uninformed intentions ever could.

I stumbled into this because I volunteer at three food shelves around Burlington, Vermont doing food distribution. At the largest one there is a day shelter with outreach workers and a kitchen serving hot meals. I gave a few phones to the outreach workers that I got from family members, and found that there was high demand so I just started posting on community forums asking people for their old phones. In a few cases I have replaced batteries or screens but if the phone is usable I distribute it as-is after erasing it and applying any software updates. I buy cables and chargers in bulk so I can deliver a complete kit. Almost all the work is sitting down with the donor and erasing it.

This might be the first positive thing I've ever heard someone say about at&t. Mad props for distributing phones though! If you wrote up even a brief guide as to how to do this and common pitfalls I'd do the same in my area.

T-mobile refused to unlock a phone I bought. A complaint to the FCC got that fixed right away.

There's also huge e-waste and technological regression from shutting down the 2g and 3g networks. I have several perfectly good old phones that are now useless as phones. They were better phones than current ones, because they were smaller and used much less power, through the one weird trick of not containing what we used to call workstation-class processors. I don't understand why they couldn't make the current base stations (they are SDR anyway) serve multiple standards. I had thought that was possible.

Because radio spectrum is limited resource. They are going to reuse 2g and 3g frequencies for new protocols.

> I don't understand why they couldn't make the current base stations (they are SDR anyway) serve multiple standards. I had thought that was possible.

They can, but 2g and 3g are not built for sharing spectrum. They'd need to allocate a block of spectrum to each, and the minimum size blocks are too big. LTE and 5g can better share, so a block can use LTE compatible coordination with 5g for some slots and LTe for others. This should let LTE stay deployed for much longer (unless 6g can't be deployed in a compatible mode)

Is there a way to get phones to you or information about how to do this myself? I am sure I could find similar programs if I looked but it sounds interesting.

Would you be accepting any phone(s) if shipped to you or do you have a group you would recommend that accepts shipments of phones?

Thank you!

I’m in desperate need of a phone. My current phone has a very cracked screen and I can’t afford a replacement.

Not sure if you trolling or serious, but these folks here are actually trying to help people in need.

How do they distinguish you from a phone thief? Is there some kind of check with the previous owner?

Unlocking from being bound to a cellular network.

I imagine the phone's previous account having removed the device/cancelled service without filing any sort of loss/theft claim would help. And then a red flag would be the unlock call coming before the previous account adds a replacement phone/cancels service.

Locking the phone to a carrier is not an anti-theft mechanism. They're available in abundance on the used market with no special protections of any kind from the carriers, the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier.

Maybe you're thinking of the locking mechanisms built in to Android and iOS?

It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is: - get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years. - don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them. - You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone.

Carrier locking prevents this. If someone steals your phone on the train that’s a different problem with a different solution

sorry if this is a stupid question, but if you don't pay for the phone don't they repossess it or something?

No. They charge you and if you dont pay, they report your debt to credit agencies.

So your average phone costs $700-$800 retail new. Cost of repossession would be going to court, court costs, lawyer bills etc. I would end up costing $5000+ for a piece of used goods that is worth $300 if they are lucky.

That sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.

To be fair, that was an argument that was put forth by carriers years ago (at least in Canada). That said, I don't think it has popped up as much (or at all) in recent years.

It’s not speculation - this is literally why cell phone locking was invented. The imei blacklists were created much later specifically for theft, not to manage credit risk of customers getting subsidized phones.

You can literally just call your carrier to ask how to get your subsidized phone unlocked. There’s no need to speculate- it’s not a secret!

A) This isn't what OP was asking about. They're pretty clearly asking about stolen devices from a consumer, not consumers stealing devices from carriers.

B) Your take is complicated by the fact that there actually is a secondary market for locked phones [0], so this isn't just about people rent-to-owning a phone with an explicit installment plan.

[0] https://www.ebay.com/itm/186656753206

My point is that carrier locking is about managing credit risk and fraud, not an evil plot to trap customers, and not a mechanism for discouraging street theft.

It’s only complicated if people conflate issues or fail to understand the mechanics of carrier locking. You can just call up a carrier and ask to have the phone unlocked and they’ll oblige if its paid off. Sometimes people confuse carrier locking with imei blacklists, which is for stolen handsets. Sometimes people confuse phones with modems or firmware that only work with specific carriers as “carrier locked” but again, that’s not the same thing

They're essentially extending credit lines to people they know nothing about. Sounds like they should just stop doing that. Their "lock down the phone" solution should be illegal.

They’re not locking the phone for that, they’re adding a barrier to competition by adding friction being able to switch carriers.

That is a weird take which is not informed by an understanding of how business operates.

It is 100% an _exclusive dealing_ mechanism. (This is a term of art for a business strategy which may not be legal in the current context, by the way.) It was undoubtedly implemented because it's a way to make more money. Businesses love imposing exclusive dealing. It can reduce their competition and increase their margins. We have businesses all over the American economy doing it.

Now does this particular case of exclusive dealing also serve to reduce theft? Perhaps it does, a case can be made. But what is 100% certain is that anti-theft was not the motive for doing exclusive dealing. It's the other way around. The FTC recognizes that. Any nominally honest judge or business executive would recognize that. Anti-theft is an afterthought compared to the billions in profits at stake.

Back in 2012 there were international agreements which required us cellular carriers to enforce locking phones. Those may have been unwinded by now but it’s not a simple “just force the companies to do it” scenario

* citation needed.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/free-trade-agreements/korea

This is incorrect. You can pay off a phone early and simply ask that it be unlocked - the carrier will happily comply because you are no longer a credit risk. You can also just purchase phones unlocked by paying cash upfront. You don’t need to be a genius to deduce how this works.

The imei blacklists for theft were created much later and aren’t honored globally

Where are they not honored globally in the first world bar Romania and Africa/China?

iPhones are effectively rendered useless even with IMEI blacklisting due to the iCloud tie-in. When stolen phones end up there, the receivers on the Asian end try and guilt/shame/social engineer the original owner to unlock from iCloud - but there's basically no technical solution.

For those that claim 'oh but the OEM parts resale value only' need to keep up with the news:

https://www.tomsguide.com/phones/iphones/ios-18-activation-l...

> the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier

I mean, that’s honestly kind of a theft deterrent. One that’s distributed on average amongst the set of all stolen phones, but anything that reduces the average expected value of a phone thief is de facto a deterrent.

A theft deterrent that doesn't actual deter theft and solely benefits the carrier.

If I steal an $800 phone but can only sell it for $400 because it's locked to AT&T I've still sold it for a profit lol.

Plus what thief is checking your carrier before running away with it?

They just can’t make enough money off it, so find some other crime to do. Assuming it’s common enough.

The point is, it doesn't matter. They're selling a Locked iPhone instead of an Un-Locked iPhone.

Is the Locked Phone devalued because it is locked to AT&T or is the Unlocked phone at a premium because it is not?

It does matter, by depressing market value - if widespread enough to cause overall market value to be depressed.

Not sure what you’re getting hung up about.

You clearly already know what’s going on or you wouldn’t be able to write the last sentence.

Because carrier-locked phones to major carriers don't suffer a severely depressed price. AT&T has high market share it doesn't matter enough if a phone is locked to AT&T to prevent theft and depress resale prices.

If that was how these things shook out you two wouldn’t have anything to debate.

Honestly, I’m not even seeing the point of the debate. Even their argument implies they’re well away of it.

The point is that the cost of stolen goods is zero or near zero in this case.

The profit margin approaches infinity.

Opportunity cost and cost of consequences are far from zero.

Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.

It only appears to approach infinity if you ignore reality and consequences, which is often how criminals think. But it is not the actual truth, eh?

Not at all, no petty theft is deterred by the criminal thinking, “oh no, what if it’s locked!”

They aren’t making a wage at all. They are doing something else.

They are spending time trying to get money by stealing and fencing things.

If they can’t turn around and sell/fence it for much, that definitely deters the ‘business model’.

If someone is doing this for 12 hours/day and clearing $100/day (or less) all said and done, that limits who and where that will happen.

If they are clearing $2000/day, that expands the pool a lot eh?

You can definitely see it in areas with predominantly iPhones as phone theft just isn’t a thing since Apple did their remote bricking thing.

>Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.

I know people hate "Source?" as a reply but I think this claim really needs a source.

There is also the assumption that everyone has access to a job, which depending on where you are and what you're background is (we are very hostile to people with disabilities, physical "deformities" that people find unpleasant to look at, felony convictions, etc.) may or may not be true. A lot of folks turn to theft out of desperation.

It depends on what you mean by crime, income, etc. and what factors you consider - but as you note, people often start out desperate, and then escalate because crime doesn’t really solve the desperation. Some crimes do produce good income, relative to the same effort in a legal occupation, but most don’t. And in many (but not all cases) the people involved can’t actually get equivalent legal work. So it is difficult to compare.

However, [https://journalistsresource.org/economics/illegal-income-cri...] and [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723522...]

Are interesting reading.

For the most part, crime doesn’t pay when you add all the costs involved. Society works very hard to make it that way.

Unless you’re pimping, higher up in organized crime, etc.

If you can only sell it for $10 when it’s locked, it’s a deterrent.

$10 is a lot of money to some people. It was a lot for me at one point in my life.

Sure, and some places you’ll get mugged over $5 or worse.

But it’s a lot more likely over $5000 right?

Ding ding ding, that's the key. There are some people who will mug you for any amount > $0.00. You can't make crime disappear by lowering the value. As that value drops, though, fewer and fewer people will bother as the risk/reward ratio shifts. You'll still have crimes from people desperately sick with drug addiction who need something, anything, to get more, and they're notoriously bad and risk/reward calculations anyway. You'll have fewer crimes from people who'd otherwise think, hey, let's go out and boost some phones for spending money.

No.

An unlocked phone is indistinguishable from a locked phone until you attempt to sign it up for another network. That distinction isn’t made until the phone is already stolen.

If I’m a thief, I steal the phone either way. Sometimes I get a carrier locked phone and only make $10 (realistically more. Carrier locked phones sell at a discount around 20-50%), or I get an unlocked phone and make $400.

Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.

If the average selling price of a stolen phone drops, the incentive to steal phones does so too.

> Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.

People don't tend to carry cash any more. And you know what has stopped happening as often as a result?

But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525.

The carrier lock mostly just affects the owner of the phone, and the resale value when they are done with it. In completely unshocking news, TMobile also has a program to buy back t-mobile phones, unlock them, and sell them on.

Stealing a $400 phone vs stealing a $525 phone is irrelevant to the thief.

What DOES stop thieves is activation and firmware locks. Phone theft is way down since Apple effectively made it impossible to use a phone that hasn't been logged out of. Those phones are only worth what their unlocked parts are worth, which is not that much.

> But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525.

A reduction in average selling price is a reduction in incentive to steal, full stop. I'm not sure how you can argue with that. I'm not stating it's 100% effective, I'm not stating that it's worth the cost, all I am saying is that it is a disincentive.

Because my belief is that the number of thefts doesn't exist on a relatively linear curve, which would have to be true for your position to be correct.

My bet is that stealing phones is more like a thresh-hold. Does this crime pay > $x? Then I will do the crime. In this case I suspect that $x is well below the selling price of an unlocked phone. There isn't a gradual dropoff, at least not in the region between $400-$520.

I could also argue that carrier locked phones could have a paradoxical increased effect on theft. If the expected value of stealing a phone is lower, the average thief needs to steal more phones to make the same amount of money.

Phone theft in areas with predominately iPhones went from ‘very common’ to ‘non-existent’ because of Apple’s remote bricking.

In theory there may be a point you’re describing, but in SF for instance people just started looting cars instead of mugging (or snatch and grabbing) phones.

Carrier locking is not firmware locking! Carrier locking doesn't disable a stolen phone. It disables the use of non approved carriers on the phone, stolen or not.

That's my whole point. Carrier locking used to be standard, even on iPhones, and phone theft was very common too. Carrier locking wasn't a theft deterrent.

Firmware locking is a great theft deterrent. A stolen iPhone is basically just a few cheaper used parts, and all the expensive ones are useless.

Both of these tactics reduce the sale price of a stolen phone.

One is extremely effective. One is marginally effective. But that still means both of them are effective just to different degrees.

Yes, but one harms the consumer far more than any possible benefit from reduced theft (again, I would argue that carrier locks don't reduce theft), and the other causes no harm to the consumer while providing a huge benefit by reducing theft.

Ok?

So we have a measure that is, at best, “marginally effective” as a theft deterrent by your phrasing and actively harms consumers while actively benefitting the entities that artificially impose it.

The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.

You seem to think marginal == zero. Which is the part that is confusing me.

You seem to think that I have said there is a marginal reduction in theft due to carrier locks. I do not think that is the case at all, and I have said so.

I am arguing that the reduction in theft due to carrier locks is 0. You are arguing that it is small (marginal).

I am saying that no matter what, the actual cost of the carrier lock to the consumer (as demonstrated by used phone values on eBay), is far higher than whatever marginal benefit you are arguing for.

It is a massive net loss to the consumer, and the only guaranteed beneficiary is the wireless carrier.

Okay, but that isn’t what the discussion was about eh?

But it's not $10 because being locked to a major US carrier doesn't depress the price significantly.

Indeed. Anecdotally I’ve seen in a few places where the going rate for one carrier or another is actually a bit higher than unlocked because people aren’t that well-informed and think “I need a Verizon phone cuz I’m on Verizon.”

Which was pretty universally true in the USA 15 years ago.

Before Verizon stopped using pre-LTE, most unlocked phones wouldn't work on Verizon. I imagine you get burned by that once, and then you pay attention longer than necessary.

I was mostly asking because the comment I replied to wasn’t perfectly clear and I’ve read more than a few complaints about e-waste caused by people forgetting to release things from their account before tossing it. I think what they’re doing is a great idea and was curious how much hassle it involved.

This issue is about carrier locks. It doesn’t prevent a phone from being used, it just prevents a phone from connecting to a service provider that isn’t the original retailer’s

None of the carriers care if the phone is stolen, unless it's reported as stolen. They only care if it stays on their network. As a practical matter I have to work with the phone's previous owner to erase it (eg, an Apple phone that's been associated with an iCloud account, or a Samsung phone associated with a Samsung account). The carrier lock only matters after I've gone to the trouble of erasing it since I won't distribute a phone that hasn't been erased.

Reminded me of this YouTuber who bought 10 stolen iPhones for $1000:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26bdjJqWdCo (prepare for hundreds of jump cuts)

So far I have never handled a stolen phone as far as I know so I don't know much about that angle. What I get are peoples old iPhone 7's that have been sitting in a drawer for a few years. They are eager to donate them but have no idea how to get their personal data off them, so the work I do is sitting down with them and walking them through the process. I would say that's about 1 hour per phone including getting to and from the donor, teaching them how to reset their iCloud account password (or Samsung account, whatever) to erase the phone. When I get a carrier locked phone I sell it on eBay and buy an unlocked phone or a bunch of chargers and cables. I'm always happy when the phone is from Verizon or was bought unlocked, but AT&T is better than most.

Nice. I can imagine volunteering to do that. Or helping to wipe old hard drives or laptops. Sounds satisfying.

Do you also help teach them how to navigate the changes to each new version of iOS/Android? I would find that frustrating... so many "hidden affordances", and increasingly complexity.

At least on the 4g days there was such a thing as a lost and stolen device database that was shared between providers. When the phone presents its IMEI to the network the process that checkes it’s subscriber status also checks if it’s IMEI is on that block list.

In general they can't. They would only know if the IMEI came up as stolen in their database if it was reported.

It is carrier locked, not user locked. Just put in another sim card from that carrier.

This is such a nice thing that you’re doing! Bravo and thank you!

Upvoted in recognition of your activity, while "downvoting" the reality you report.

I should also mention that - while not directly accessible to homeless people - today it is quite easy to obtain new Smartphones, probably in bulk, which are quite usable with new version of Android and new apps, albeit not the most snappy, for something like 50 USD apiece (I just searched on AliBaba for example). I know such things can be quite legit technically, since I bought a a 75 USD smartphone individually, 10 years ago; and though it sometimes struggled a bit, it worked just fined. Only stopped using it because I was mugged, which was funny because the guy who took my phone was probably not happy he lifted something this cheap :-)

Anyway, that's an optional for buttressing your collection of used smartphones, to distribute.

How can I financially support you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com