>FCC said the Verizon rule “required one wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.”
Is there any evidence for the idea that 'phones are more likely to be stolen if they're carrier-unlocked.'
Seems implausible to me. Modern smartphones lock themselves well. Criminals can just buy cheap phones themselves for crimes. My understanding is that when they steal a phone and can't access it, they send it to Asia to be scrapped for parts (so it doesn't matter if it was carrier-locked). Are they confusing carrier-unlock with lockscreen-unlock? Or is the reason above just a pretext?
>FCC said the Verizon rule “required one wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.”
Is there any evidence for the idea that 'phones are more likely to be stolen if they're carrier-unlocked.'
Seems implausible to me. Modern smartphones lock themselves well. Criminals can just buy cheap phones themselves for crimes. My understanding is that when they steal a phone and can't access it, they send it to Asia to be scrapped for parts (so it doesn't matter if it was carrier-locked). Are they confusing carrier-unlock with lockscreen-unlock? Or is the reason above just a pretext?