The push for automatic phone unlocking has moved from industry filings to Capitol Hill. Phone locking is a software restriction that a carrier installs on a device so it will work only on that carrier's network. Insert a competitor's SIM card into a locked phone, and it simply will not connect, even though the hardware is fully capable of running on the other network.
Understanding the challenge, Senators Katie Britt, John Barrasso, Roger Marshall, Pete Ricketts, and Bernie Moreno wrote to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, urging the agency to establish a uniform national standard for unlocking mobile devices, such as 180 days, across all providers. They joined a coalition that includes SpaceX, the Rural Wireless Association, NTCA, and ACA Connects. When satellite innovators, rural broadband providers, and senators from five states all arrive at the same conclusion, policymakers should pay attention.
The problem is straightforward. Most mobile providers still lock their customers' phones, handcuffing the devices so consumers cannot switch to a more affordable provider. And by handcuffing the device, the provider handcuffs the customer, along with everyone on the family plan, keeping them tied to high fees without the carrier having to compete for their business.
The costs are real, and the public understands. Cost is the top consideration for Americans choosing a wireless carrier, cited by 67 percent of consumers, even ahead of reliability and coverage. Wireless prices have already fallen by 9%, and a uniform unlocking rule would build on the progress made by the FCC and the Trump Administration, empowering families to take advantage of lower prices and switch providers more freely. That is why unlocking has such broad public support: 92 percent of registered voters agree consumers should have the right to take their phones with them when they switch providers, a finding new polling this spring confirmed at roughly nine in 10. Almost nothing in American life polls at those levels.
Locking is not a technical necessity, and doesn’t even seem to be a business inevitability. Verizon unlocked its phones after just 60 days for more than 15 years under conditions attached to its 2008 spectrum purchase, and built the nation's largest wireless business while doing so. Canada has required automatic unlocking since 2017, the United Kingdom banned the sale of locked handsets in 2021, and both markets have seen competitive prices and healthy carriers.
The free-market principle here deserves to be stated plainly. In a genuinely free market, device manufacturers and carriers should be able to set their own rules, and consumers should be free to reward or punish them for it. But the government is already deep in this market, having imposed unlocking obligations through spectrum conditions and merger commitments on some carriers and not others. In January, the FCC waived Verizon's 60-day rule, and notably, Verizon justified the request by calling for a level playing field with its competitors, who lacked any unlocking obligation. On that point, Verizon is exactly right.
When government involves itself in writing the rules, its regulations must do one thing above all: treat every competitor equitably. The answer to an uneven patchwork is not zero rules for some and special burdens for others. One uniform 180-day unlocking rule for everyone will deliver the regulatory certainty the senators note the industry has long sought, reinforcing competitive pressures already bringing prices down.
Unlocking is pro-innovation. Locking functions as an artificial barrier not just to switching but to the new services trying to reach consumers. A locked phone cannot take advantage of a competing carrier's satellite direct-to-device offering, no matter how badly a rural family might need it. Locking likewise handicaps new entrants and creative business models, from competitive prepaid brands to flexible device financing, that must pry customers loose from artificial restraints before they can compete on the merits. Markets that require unlocking have seen innovation flourish, not falter.
A uniform 180-day rule also answers the carriers' best argument. Criminal networks do traffic in subsidized devices, and providers deserve tools to protect their networks and customers against fraud and theft. A 180-day window provides exactly that, giving carriers time to detect fraud and confirm payment while ensuring the lock comes off automatically once its legitimate purpose has been served.
The senators called unlocking a “pro-consumer, pro-competition issue.” Indeed, it is both, and pro-innovation besides. The FCC has the rulemaking open and the authority to act. It should bring the proceeding to a swift conclusion and adopt a uniform, automatic unlocking rule after 180 days that applies equally to every mobile provider, further ensuring savings for consumers.
One competitive market, one rule for all, and give consumers the freedom to do what consumers do best: choose.
Bartlett Cleland is Executive Director of the Innovation Economy Alliance & Institute.
