Poor, poor mobile networks. UK's comms watchdog plans to stop 'em selling locked-down handsets In 2019, few handsets come with the same level of network lock-ins that were endemic in the 2000s and earlier. Despite that, many networks — including BT and Vodafone — persist in this practice, limiting consumer choice and freedom. That'll soon change if Ofcom gets its way. In a statement of intent published today, the …
They SEEM cheaper upfront, but lock you into a contract that's much more expensive than justified by the service provider. The exact cost ratio depends on many usage factors and the handset itself, so I have no doubt that for a subset of users it IS cheaper.
But for all users in aggregate it's more expensive than your own phone + sim-only contract. Otherwise why would the networks make it their default model?
>But for all users in aggregate it's more expensive than your own phone + sim-only contract.
Depends on phone model and contract. In my recent purchase the contract model was circa £200 cheaper than phone+SIMO for the same phone + calls/data package over 24m. As I was upgrading the family, that saving quickly added up.
>Otherwise why would the networks make it their default model?
Well there is a difference between cost and price, clearly the contract model generates profits for the networks and resellers - you only need to look at the amount of cashback that gets offered (on contract deals compared to phone+simo deals) to get some idea of just how much of your monthly payment is margin. I also suspect that the contract model allows for a larger amount of financial juggling than the much simpler phone+simo setup.
Other than this, I suspect the reasoning is largely to ensure handsets worked out-of-the-box on their network, an example of this is Orange/EE where they will only guarantee WiFi calling will work on (specific) handsets supplied by them, this is because vendors will do regional variants of the same basic phone which don't always include the same feature (and/or radio) set. Aside: I suspect this proliferation of models and firmware variants is a major contributor to manufacturers only supporting handset updates for a very short period of time.
Offering part payment in advance and then getting it back over the contract is not a subsidy - it's leasing or hire purchase.
A subsidy is when someone else pays for part of something you buy or sell, and believe me, the phone companies are not in the philanthropy business.
Does not remotely seem to be an issue for Sky Mobile. Cost spread over 12:24/36 months interest free with swap options. Just aent a nigh on 2 year old iPhone SE back and got £56 credit for it towards an iPhone 11.
I even get an additional £5/month discount for being a Sky TV customer.
Agreed! While it's not for the masses, there's always the likes of Lineage OS etc. for us techie types.
Until it went buggerup Monday evening with the usual screen crapouts, I was running an LG G3 as my daily driver and for work.
The 'latest' stock from LG was a completely knackered heap of unusable turds. Lineage gave it life and usefulness again, but jeebus it was a ball ache just to get the bootloader unlocked.
The 'latest' stock from LG was a completely knackered heap of unusable turds. Lineage gave it life and usefulness again, but jeebus it was a ball ache just to get the bootloader unlocked.
With the way some of these companies behave - and Apple I am looking at you here as well - you'd think they still owned the hardware you'd just purchased. If it's my phone and I want to put something else on it, lineage for example, why should you be allowed to make that difficult for me?
I can perhaps understand carriers getting a bit edgy but the folks at Lineage are essentially just doing what all the manufacturers are by talking Android code and customising it for their kit.
"Phones will cost more" only if people pay the higher price, if they do not buy then the price will come down or the service providers will run out of customers and somone willing to take less profit will take their place.
Personally I do not care what the latest bling phone costs as a non-smart phone is more likely to my buying choice. Non-smart phones are £20 a time unlocked retail. if I want to browse I use a computer or tablet so I am thinking that what you really mean is a PAYG bling phone and to be frank buying from Europe is going to be more secure since they still have full fat GDPR.
I went with Carphone warehouse (back in the day when they were better) for the "unlocked" handset, and Vodafone for the sim contract... was cheaper than going direct to Vodafone with the locked phone.
It's a bit like complaining "but the restaurant will be more expensive to eat at if you ban/stop the maffia from breaking legs!"
Yes, totally true. But some things are worth paying more for, and in the long run, may come down in price once extortion is stopped.
Yep - I cancelled a contract and about six month later started getting unnamed (sender) letters through the door which I ignored.
Eventually started getting phone calls from some company I’d never heard of - which I hung up on.
Finally managed to get one of them to tell me what they were calling about *before* doing any security check.
Vodafone still think the contract is active and are pissed that I cancelled the DD.
And four months on, they still haven’t contacted me about it themselves.
I haven't had a network locked phone since about 2001.
I always buy my phones from local retailers or from Amazon. Waiting a couple of months usually saves you a lot of money as well. When a new handset, especially premium handsets, are launched, they are expensive. Wait 3 months and you can save up to 30%, wait 6 months and that can be around 50%.
My current phone launched at 999€, I paid 599€ 3 months later.
Yeah I think I dumped the contract route many many years ago.
Phone contracts are a mugs game.
My current Mate 10 Pro that I picked up in September last year cost me £360 new from Amazon. That was about 9 months after launch. I wouldn't have bought it if my 3 year old LG G4 had not given in suddenly to bootloop...
Also happy to report after just over a year the battery health is at 93%. I took note of the YouTube vids and stopped leaving it charging over night or at 100%. I now just charge it to 90% and then unplug.
Seems to work.
If you have a Sony -and they know a lot about batteries - they give you the option of an overnight slow charge that gets you close to 100% around your normal wakeup time - which you can override. If you unplug early it will be around 96-97%.
I do wonder what those fast chargers do to batteries.
The only problem with going SIM free, is that you have to be able to afford to buy a handset out-right.
If you've only got £20 in the bank, then getting a contract is your only way to afford a phone.
Of course, because you'll end up paying more, you'll find it harder to save up enough money to buy your own phone, so you'll have to contract your next phone as well, and so the cycle continues.
It's a modern example of the Sam Vimes' "boots" theory of socio-economic unfairness.
A couple of the UK networks have been selling unlocked phones for years. And most virtual operators do too. Its not something that's widely publicised though, so nice of ofcom to raise the profile and I suspect the "1 year needed to implement" by the other operators may come down somewhat as a result.
The separation of handset and airtime contracts and is definitely a growing trend already - the locked handsets being one reason, the other being that bundled deals are no longer attractive. This is largely driven by the maturing of the handset market with intense price competition between the different manufacturers.
Many people didn't realise they were locked in until they wanted to use their handset on another network.
More power to the consumer!
However, I do note that some UK operators still lock the handset to the network the airtime contract is with, so I suspect the 'separation' is more for accounting purposes.
Personally, I'm not too bothered about my handset being locked to a network and then being automatically unlocked when the airtime contract becomes up for renewal. Although, with the increasing availability of dual SIM phones, even from the UK operators, the 'benefits' of locking are reducing. What would be nice would be for the networks to do as Orange did way back and actually implement handset/IMEI barring so that stolen handsets could be disabled worldwide.
You're actually at liberty to buy an unlocked handset and sim-only contract right now.
I think if you want a £600 feature phone without paying £600 for it, going on a 24 month contract with a £25 a month charge for the handset is reasonable - same as if you can't afford anything you can pay for it over time on credit terms. I do think there are questions about the reasonableness of telling you that you must keep buying your airtime from them over that term, though, provided you keep up the payments on the phone I don't see why you should be forced to give them your other business. That's like a car manufacturer selling you a car on finance terms and insisting you only get it serviced at main dealer during it's warranty and finance terms...... okay, bad example.....
This is a stupid idea. Why do we need more regulation and more intervention when this is a solved problem? If you dont want a locked handset, dont buy a locked handset. And its not like there is any reason to buy locked if you dont want to, because there is an amazing choice of phones out there nearly all (if not all) unlocked.
Buying a locked handset is the method of purchase which is a choice and people should be free to make their own decisions.
Not a stupid idea, but yes not a major problem now in the UK.
Suspect what is really happening is that Ofcom are following the market and just putting a line in the sand: most of the networks already comply so no effort on their part, the others are clearly in the process of implementing it and will have completed by the time the Ofcom directive takes effect, Ofcom gets a (much needed) piece of positive publicity about how consumer friendly etc. it is.
The nice part about this is that Ofcom are made backsliding ie. a return to restrictive practises, much harder.
@Roland6
"Not a stupid idea, but yes not a major problem now in the UK."
So if its not a problem it doesnt need the regulation
"Ofcom gets a (much needed) piece of positive publicity about how consumer friendly etc. it is."
Aka does nothing useful.
"The nice part about this is that Ofcom are made backsliding ie. a return to restrictive practises, much harder."
Which is an awful idea. The lockdown practice was in response to market forces and the move away is due to market forces and so it would seem the guiding hand of regulation in this matter is nothing but a dumb fist doing nothing useful but potentially damaging.
What happens if through the future iterations of hand held devices that lockdowns become the solution again? What about people who may prefer their current lockdown arrangement? My must the control freak stick their nose in?
>Aka does nothing useful.
How uncharitable! (especially at this time of year) Someone in Ofcom has been able to tick a box, move a folder from the pending tray to the filing tray and feel good about it, all in time for Christmas!
>Which is an awful idea...
Possibly, but then remember these style of agreements do take time and probably have been going on for a few years, so not surprising if events have largely rendered the final agreement unnecessary. Which if you remember about EU roaming etc. has been the approach adopted by the EU: set out a direction of travel and a timeframe, allow operators to voluntarily change then implement the regulation to force the laggards into line.
However, looking across the pond, it does seem the market forces at work in the EU aren't active in the US. Given how much BoJo (and Farage) are in thrall to all things US, I'm happy for Ofcom to put another obstacle in the way of the wholesale adoption of all things US that may happen in the coming few years. Whilst Ofcom's rules won't stop change, they will help to keep it visible.
>What about people who may prefer their current lockdown arrangement?
Having difficulty seeing how a network locked device can be spun as an end user benefit. However, expect if it can, the operators will be selling it as a priced add-on. i.e. the device may be supplied unlocked, but for a fee and your peace of mind, your operator will lock it to their network.
What's really going on (shhhhh) is that without any revolutionary developments in the underlying phone technology, people have realised that this years model is simply last years model with a lick of paint.
Hence more and more people are hanging onto handsets, selling them on, or just handing them down. All of which is easier to do when unlocked.
I have a 4 year old Wileyfox Swift. The only thing it lacks that would make it complete is NFC. And that's not such a great pull I need to buy a new handset to get it.
Oh, and I just pay £5/month for a GiffGaff goddybag.
>Hence more and more people are hanging onto handsets, selling them on, or just handing them down.
Another reason to make todays phones even less maintainable/repairable.
In normal usage I see no difference between a phone that is 9.1mm thick with removable battery and one that is 7.9mm thick with non-removable battery, especially when the first thing many do is get a case.
Strange thing about contract phones - they seem to break about the same time as the contract expires, throwing memory capacity errors making it impossible to update your apps.
Is this coincidence?
I have a theory that the network sends 'nobble codes' (or excessively big updates to some of that indelible cruft - bloatware) to encourage people to take out a new contract and 'upgrade'.
I don't really have a problem with the networks locking the contract phone to their network. Personally, I think it makes business sense.
What I do protest with is the task of unlocking and Vodafone are the worst culprits.
Here's a scenario. Someone with an iPhone has completed their 12/24 month contract and they decide to sell the phone (as is) as they have now got an upgrade.
I purchase the phone but want it unlocked.
There are 4 major networks - O2, EE, Three and Vodafone. They all allow immediate unlocking (for a small fee) with no prior relationship with the network except Vodafone.
Vodafone require you, in fact they demand you to use their network for 30 days before they will do anything. Admittedly is a free unlock after 30 days but there is a cost to that 30 days and an inconvenience!
I feel their practise is unfair on the consumer - they should no longer have a relationship with the phone as the contract is now past. I even wrote to OFCOM 2 years ago about this unfair practise and they dismissed my complaint!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
