If Verizon is claiming that having phones locked to their service will prevent theft. Is that like saying people wouldn't use a cheap/stolen phone if they have to use Verizon? "An S8 for $50? Sweet! Oh, I have to use Verizon? Never mind."
Ok, but if a user buys a Verizion phone it is locked can the individual user sue verizion, and then cannot many users create a class action regardless of the FCC involvement or not, because they are not following the contract they formed with the American peopel?
Pai-hole, O'Rielly and Verizon do circle jerk.
This title and thread are a bit of a mess.
Basically, Verizon wants to lock phones post-purchase to prevent theft and fraud. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, the length of time and other conditions of the lock may be an attempt to prevent people from switching service providers
The complaint of the article is that the FCC has given Verizon the verbal green light without doing due diligence
I’ve always thought it was insane that Verizon phones come unlocked without being paid off as it unsurprisingly opens the door to fraud. If verizon unlocks the phone once it’s paid off what exactly is the big deal here?
If you choose to use verizion, why would you ever debate that locking your phone into its primary use that you bought it for for any duration that in general wouldn't effect normal operation of the phone under the contract for which you just signed onto after you (signed) onto know that's what is going to happen. This title is click bate. The only people that would object to this are the ones who can no longer profit off phone fraud through verizon.