Only covers the network blocking scenario due to being reported lost or stolen.
For phones that are network or SIM locked then that wont tell you. A simple test for that is to put a SIM in the phone and see if it works. Could be a network activated one from another phone, or one of those $2 unactivated ones you can get almost everywhere.
Do you need to try that with 3 different SIMs, one for each network? I mean what if it is locked to e.g. Telstra and the SIM you try is also Telstra? Or is an encumbered device always locked to a specific SIM? (noticing the poster’s specific description of the problem)
My understanding is that the locking and therefore restriction is a combination of the unique hardware identifier, the IMEI, and the unique network identifier, which is the SIM card put into the device to make it work on a network.
A different SIM from the same network provider that sold the device as locked will probably not work. Unless you get a “blank” replacement SIM as I had to do once. But that was only available from the original network provider and on their instructions to fix my issue.
I do not understand the problem. A locked phone is a locked phone, prepaid or on plan. If it is about revenue the telco will have 2 years of 30 day or 365 day top ups and it works IFF the 2 years begins when the phone is first registered on ‘the’ network, not 2 years after manufacture or sale.
Maybe not automatically to keep it simple, but on request?
There are many prepaid phone users that don’t use the phones so they are on a prepaid plan the whole time. We have a family member that only uses the prepaid for specific uses…infrequently and only reactivates the phone when required. I have heard of some others doing the same thing (elderly or those on very low incomes).
Pardon, but I remain confused about how that relates to the feasibility of a 2 year unlock mandate. Perhaps you had not intended a linkage? My previously noted experience (AT&T, USA) included the ability to unlock after spending $50 (years back when $50 was not pocket change)… so an alternative to 2 years if revenue was the point?
For those who do sporadically recharge it might also be true that trying to manage them by keeping them locked outside a norm (whatever that is) costs more than just letting it unlock since those would be outliers in the scheme of mobiles.
The argument is the phone is paid for over the 2 years. With a free or near free prepaid phone, it assumes the phone is kept active for the whole 2 years…this isn’t always the case.
Possibly a better solution is after 2 years if fully active, the phone is unlocked. If not fully active over 2 years, a residual is paid to unlock a phone.
A minimum spend requirement resolves revenue issues. Some might reach the amount in months and others longer if ever but there should be right to have it unlocked after [2] years even with a specified reasonable fee in the original purchase paperwork.
There is a ‘protect the company and profits view’, and the ‘it is my property I want to use it as I see fit consumer view’. There are obvious ways to meld the two so it works for both and finding exceptions will not dilute the cause, just add a few provisos. Otherwise will mobiles become leased items always owned by the telco, and used at their whim (reminiscent of software licensing and agency sales arrangements)? …No need to follow that thought here
It is possibly bit like rent for keeps type businesses…where one doesn’t really own the purchase until it is paid off. If it isn’t paid off, it is owned by the company and can be repossessed if contract for purchase isn’t met by the consumer.
Maybe telcos should make it clearer it is a rent for keeps type arrangement and what is required to ultimately own of phone outright.
That’s a valid objection. I had in mind postpaid, where after 2 years one could reasonably expect that the device subsidy has been paid off. (If it isn’t then tough luck to the telco because the 2 year rule would be phased in in such a way that the telco can and must take it into account.)
That would lead to the question as to whether you can get a subsidised handset on a prepaid plan and if so how much of a problem it would be if the answer changed to “no”.
That would work - although I am sure there would be some customers crying poor at the end of the 2 year period.
It also raises questions as to how and whether that implied liability is transferred if the phone is sold to an unsuspecting buyer (which is one of the main problems relating to encumberance that started this discussion).
With the cooperation of Apple and Google, I am wondering whether encumbered phones could announce that prominently during boot and require user acknowledgement. So all you would have to do in order to do a REVs check on a phone is to reboot it. I’m sure noone is interested in implementing that, so it doesn’t really matter exactly how it would work e.g. offline v. online.
I think it would be easier if telcos were obliged to provide “blocked” and “locked” information in a highly timely fashion (near real-time) to a government web site that prospective purchasers can check.
A simple step would be to do a IEMI search for the particular phone to see if it is locked before buying second hand…if it is locked don’t buy…quite simple.
Like any liabilities, these most likely will stick with the original ‘purchaser’ of the phone (say like car encumbrances when buying and doing a VIN search).
Which would rule out purchasing the device sight unseen? An added inconvenience with charge backs or disputed products through the online retailers supposed 100% guarantees, T&C’s also to be considered. (caution in your choice of on line retailer).
A post above says that your link to the AMTA does not cover the case of “locked” (encumbered). It covers only the “blocked” case (stolen or lost).
Digressing, I believe that land tax works the opposite way i.e. if there is an outstanding land tax debt on a property and you buy the property then the debt is now yours to pay off. A conveyancer will seek to discover such a debt and ensure that it is an adjustment to the amount payable at settlement.
