Starting today, wireless carriers have to unlock your phone

Apple did not sell an unlocked iPhone 6 until last month, and I think they may have done the same locked-only-for-a-few-months thing with the 5s. I don't recall seeing earlier iPhones for sale unlocked at all, you had to do something illegal to them up till surprisingly recently -- maybe the 4, not sure?

I think the legislation is responsible for the easier access these days; I've wanted to buy unlocked phones since 2005, but haven't really been able to until this year.

Let's read from Verizon's "Postpay Device Unlocking Policy"

> ... We do not lock our 4G LTE devices, and no code is needed to program them for use with another carrier.

So I take this as "we don't have a subsidy lock that prevents you from moving this phone to another LTE vendor."

Indeed, they clarify later:

> “Unlocking” a device refers only to disabling software that would prevent a consumer from attempting to activate a device designed for one carrier’s network on another carrier’s network, even if that network is technologically compatible.

But these phones do ship with signed bootloaders, and it doesn't sound like Verizon provides the mechanism to replace it.

It doesn't sound like this re-legitimizes 3rd party businesses who offer unlocking services. TFA refers to FCC negotiations with carriers, and not the LoC changing policy. I'll wager that's the only thing that would let you install your own OS.

This guidance requires that phone companies allow their phones to join networks they are technically compatible with (i.e., have the radios and baseband support for). It's generally unrelated to the OS or bootloader, as this form of lock is often implemented at the baseband level.

The issue is that phones can be "unlocked" (made able to join another network at the baseband level) but non-configurable at the OS level, barring features requiring OS configuration, like MMS, from functioning. This doesn't seem to be specific enough guidance to prevent phone carriers from playing this trick, as they can continue to provide technically unlocked phones that don't work properly on other networks.

This doesn't really change much these days as the US market is gradually moving towards a financed (rather than subsidized) phone sales model where early termination fee arbitrage isn't possible and collections for broken contracts are more conventional. In general, carriers have less of an incentive to carrier lock their phones than they used to. Plus, some carriers (like Verizon) are already required to supply their LTE phones unlocked due to agreements made to acquire spectrum licenses, so this doesn't really affect them.

I'll note that this has been AT&T's policy for at least a couple of years now. I don't think anything has changed for them.

Why the "scare quotes"? It seems like consumers were actually protected by that scary government.

There's something going on in the baseband firmware that rejects domestic carrier SIM cards, but still allows international carriers when an international unlock is granted.

As an anecdote, I once stopped paying my bills to Vodafone and gave up on my contract obligations. At that time Vodafone demanded a 250 EUR interruption fee, which in the meantime became illegal in my country. Well, I told them to dare and sue me, because I have proof of unjust treatment and service disruption on their part and I did have that evidence. Basically they were assholes, they knew it and they gave up on any claims. I also unlocked my iPhone 3GS by myself and moved my business somewhere else.

Just like DRM, there is absolutely no valid reason for selling locked phones, other than lock-in, i.e. to prevent you from using other carriers while in roaming and thus suffer roaming charges. But even that is just annoying, because you can get unlocked feature phones for $30 without a contract, with a battery that lasts for a whole week and just use that.

We now pay more for less data than we did 3 years ago.

Some contracts can be nastier (e.g. no early termination, just pay the rest), but that may just be an unrelated local difference (I've seen the same thing with residential ISP contracts, where there isn't a SIM-locking equivalent).