Carrier Rights to locking your phone
Two phones one paid one unpaid
Are you a victim of purchasing an unpaid phone?
Recent Tmobile News from the Un-carrier
FCC Fines T-Mobile $80M for Location Data Violations
-
Full Title:In the Matter of T-Mobile USA, Inc.
-
Document Type:Forfeiture Order
-
Bureau(s):Enforcement
-
DescriptionFCC fines T-Mobile USA, Inc. over $80M
for failing to reasonably protect its customers'
location information. -
DA/FCC #:FCC-24-43
Related Document(s):
News Release - FCC Fines Largest Wireless Carriers for Sharing Location Data
Case Study On Locking Phones
Does T-Mobile Really Protects Its Interest Locking phones?
Lets Take a deeper look and analysis of how a carrier might benefits when locking a phone. Does it prevent resale by the initial owner? What happens when a financed phone given at a deal is sold? Does T-mobile and other companies benefit when the phone is locked? Do they recoup their money?
Banks have the right to repossesses a car in the event its monthly payments are not received. Rightfully so, it is their car and justified to regain possession of this car in hopes of being able to resell the vehicle and recoup any losses created by the owner. However the owner is in no position to resell this car without the bank gaining all its money back, the remaining balance can go to the owner but only after the bank has recovered its finances. This is due to liens and a new owner will immediately be aware of a lien on the car through its title or a title search.
While a phone in this case might resemble a financed vehicle, there is absolutely no method provided by any telecom companies to conduct an imei search to check if a balance is owed on a phone.
When contacting T-mobile regarding a phone I purchased that had an unpaid balance in which T-mobile refused to unlock, a member of T-Mobile’s legal team Christopher muzio christopher.muzio@t-mobile.com sent me a screen shot of their online imei checker which stated that their system checker could not confirm the lock status of the phone.
The first issue with this screen shot on the left is the fact that their system which is only checking for lock status and not transferable status, it does not divulge on whether or not the phone is transferable or is capable of being unlocked. Muzio had used in this case the lock status as a means to prove it is not transferable . A phone locked and a phone thats allowed to be unlocked/transferable are two different statuses and not to be confused. We are unsure as to why Muzo has attempted to use the phones lock status which their site failed to confirm, with whether or not the device is transferable. Probably a shot in the dark to cause more confusion. An FCc complaint has been filed for this deceptive practice by Tmobiles hired legal teams.
Such practices are conniving and unethical and perhaps the FCC is to blame for allowing these tactics.
More measures should be put in place to prevent innocent consumers from buying phones with balance owed on them. A simple red flag on their site for any imei with an outstanding balance would suffice.
Or simply not allowing that phone to work on any other account than the original financers account. Preventing the sale all together. This seems to be the best option protecting T-mobile customers.
Currently T-Mobile allows the sale of a financed phone yet a new owner without knowing will find it impossible to unlock.
How does T-mobile benefit?
Currently we see no benefits in T-Tmobiles current unlocking policy as a different customer purchasing the phone with an outstanding balance had no intent on leaving the company, yet the original scammer that sold the phone can leave at anytime. Ways to combat this would be to allow these unpaid phones to only work with the original owner, preventing a sale all together.
Or send original owner to collections and eliminate the phone from this equation all together as it hinders and goes against an open free market.
Who’s to blame? Possibly the FCC and we foresee this practice is to be eliminated all together in the near future.