NEWS: Congress unlocks US cellphones

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:11:35 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 28 Nov 2006 20:35:19 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of cell phone fraud in the USA.
>> <http://www.nd.gov/itd/security/start/phone6.htm>
>>
>> ... a recent promotional message from a major wireless provider
>> stated that over one million cell phones were stolen in the U.S. in
>> 1999
>
>Maybe I'm missing something, but how is that a big problem for carriers
>in this day and age? Sure, it's a hassle for the consumers whose phones
>were stolen, but the carriers sell service. The cloning days are long
>behind us. How does it hurt Verizon, for example, if I activate a stolen
>Alltel phone on their service? To be completely pragmatic, it doesn't
>realistically even hurt Alltel- they probably just roped the victim into
>another contract to replace his stolen phone!

They lose revenue from the stolen service.

>> The cellular industry estimates that carriers lose more than $150
>> million per year due to subscriber fraud.
>
>According to your source, that loss is primarily from identity theft-
>starting new contract service in someone else's name and running off
>without paying a bill. How does subsidy-locking the phone combat this?

Rings of thieves sell fraudulently obtained cell phones for such things
as overseas calls by illegal immigrants. Huge bills can be run up
before carriers can stop them.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: NEWS: Congress unlocks US cellphones

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:55:01 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 28 Nov 2006 18:58:59 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
>> Point taken, but how does Cingular efficiently and cheaply check to see if
>> the unlocked T-mo phone in the customer's hand was stolen or not?
>
>They could, at regular intervals, trade stolen phone lists with other
>carriers.

There is a central database.

>(As an aside, other than for good public relations, does a carrier really
>care if a stolen phone is being activated as long as the bill is being
>paid?

What makes you think the bill is being paid?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Per John Navas:
>Rings of thieves sell fraudulently obtained cell phones for such things
>as overseas calls by illegal immigrants. Huge bills can be run up
>before carriers can stop them.

Won't that become moot vis-a-vis phones once everybody is GSM?

Seems like the phone's out of the picture then.... just the SIM card.

The same functional situation will exist - fraud.. but it will be because of the
SIM cards and not the phones.
--
PeteCresswell

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:27:34 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Per John Navas:
>>Rings of thieves sell fraudulently obtained cell phones for such things
>>as overseas calls by illegal immigrants. Huge bills can be run up
>>before carriers can stop them.
>
>Won't that become moot vis-a-vis phones once everybody is GSM?
>
>Seems like the phone's out of the picture then.... just the SIM card.
>
>The same functional situation will exist - fraud.. but it will be because of the
>SIM cards and not the phones.

Both are "in the picture" because a SIM card can't make a call without a
phone, and stolen phones are eventually blocked in the IMEI "blacklist".

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 29 Nov 2006 07:37:34 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >(As an aside, other than for good public relations, does a carrier
really
> >care if a stolen phone is being activated as long as the bill is being
> >paid?
>
> What makes you think the bill is being paid?

Because they shut you off if it isn't. My point was that having a phone
(regardless of how it was obtained) doesn't get you service. You still
have to procure that via credit check/contract, (where fraud is
difficult,) or prepaid, (where it's a non-issue.)

It's also a dangerous assumption that everyone with a stolen phone is a
"bad guy." Of the dozen or so phones I've purchased on eBay, for
example, I have no way of knowing their history. Unless a phone thief is
an eccentric collector, the likelyhood is the stolen phone will
eventually end up with someone else who may or may not know the phone was
stolen.

At 29 Nov 2006 07:36:20 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> > How does it hurt Verizon, for example, if I activate a stolen
> >Alltel phone on their service? To be completely pragmatic, it doesn't
> >realistically even hurt Alltel- they probably just roped the victim
into
> >another contract to replace his stolen phone!
>
> They lose revenue from the stolen service.

It's a different word than it was in 1999. Roaming rates are much lower
today, and carriers are less regional. The days of $3/day and buck a
minute roaming with a 60-day lag before reporting to a carrier are long
behind us. If I steal your Cingular phone, take it back to Denver with
me an use 1,000 minutes before you report it stolen, how is Cingular
hurt? I used their towers!

(And you didn't answer my question- how is carrier A hurt if legitimate
service is purchased for a phone stolen from a user of carrier B?)

> >According to your source, that loss is primarily from identity theft-
> >starting new contract service in someone else's name and running off
> >without paying a bill. How does subsidy-locking the phone combat this?
>
> Rings of thieves sell fraudulently obtained cell phones for such things
> as overseas calls by illegal immigrants. Huge bills can be run up
> before carriers can stop them.

Do you moonlight for the CTIA as a spokesperson? C'mon, how big a
problem is that in this day and age? First, most new cell accounts block
international dialing unless the customer specifically opts in for it.
Second, international rates by cell companies are very inflated for
profit (there's nothing wrong with that, except when a carrier whines
they lost $1000 in revenue for 1000 $1 minutes that cost them $0.08. In
that case their loss was $80, not $1000. Lastly, cellphones are more
common and more relied upon in this day and age. In 1999, you might not
know your phone was stolen for days until you checked the glovebox for it
and it wasn't there. Today, you'd know it when you realized you haven't
heard your "Oops, I Did It Again" ringtone in the last few hours.

Besides, how does a subsidy-lock prevent your hypothetical ring of phone-
stealing immigrants run up a huge bill? Obviously they're using the
window of time between the phone being stolen and being shutoff- locks
don't help when the original carrier is being used!

By the way, John, you should be in politics- you answered everything
except what I asked...

How does subsidy locking prevent account fraud? Your own citation said
revenue losses were primarily from fraudulently obtained ACCOUNTS, not
stolen equipment.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> > What kind of fraud are you referring to? Leaving a provider with a
>> > subsidized phone? That's already taken care of with termination
>> > penalties. Stolen phone? Phones can be deactivated by their ID
>> > (separate from the SIM identity).
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Point taken, but how does Cingular efficiently and cheaply check to
>> see if the unlocked T-mo phone in the customer's hand was stolen or
>> not?
>
> The same way they check to see if the locked Cingular phone in the
> customer's hand was stolen.


They would check their own billing system if it's a locked CIngular phone.
T-Mo phones are not invcluded in that database for a variety of very
obvious reasons. So to say they would check the same way is inaccurate.





> If the infrastructure isn't in place to
> disable the handset by its IMEI, there's nothing stopping the thief
> from (fraudulently or otherwise) just obtaining another Cingular
> account.

IMEI blocking is available- at the carrier level. There is no magic
crystal ball that allows this to occur between carriers.


>
> Once IMEI blocking is implemented (efficiently) carriers can share
> (possibly through law enforcement) each other's stolen handset lists.
>

Yep- with a new charge added to your account to maintain the list (think
WLNP). Of course, they could simply be bombarded with subpoenas everytime
a GSM is reported stolen, but I see a cost associated with that as well.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:47:33 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > What kind of fraud are you referring to? Leaving a provider with a
>>> > subsidized phone? That's already taken care of with termination
>>> > penalties. Stolen phone? Phones can be deactivated by their ID
>>> > (separate from the SIM identity).
>>>
>>> Point taken, but how does Cingular efficiently and cheaply check to
>>> see if the unlocked T-mo phone in the customer's hand was stolen or
>>> not?
>>
>>The same way they check to see if the locked Cingular phone in the
>>customer's hand was stolen. If the infrastructure isn't in place to
>>disable the handset by its IMEI, there's nothing stopping the thief
>>from (fraudulently or otherwise) just obtaining another Cingular
>>account.
>>
>>Once IMEI blocking is implemented (efficiently) carriers can share
>>(possibly through law enforcement) each other's stolen handset lists.
>
> There is a central database.
>

No there's not- there is no central industry-wide database of IMEI's.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:ekj8pa$t0g$1
@aioe.org:

> At 28 Nov 2006 18:58:59 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
>> Point taken, but how does Cingular efficiently and cheaply check to see
> if
>> the unlocked T-mo phone in the customer's hand was stolen or not?
>
> They could, at regular intervals, trade stolen phone lists with other
> carriers.
>
> Obviously they have a way to restrict use of stolen Cingular phones. How
> expensive would it be to trade/update that info with other carriers?
>
> (As an aside, other than for good public relations, does a carrier really
> care if a stolen phone is being activated as long as the bill is being
> paid?


They do when they are in court trying to recover the revenue from that
phone.


> Carriers are in a service business- the hardware is simply a means
> to that end. Does a gas station owner really care if the guy who just
> paid cash for $50 worth of gas pumped it into a stolen car?)

Apples and oranges- your example conveys a prepaid product.

>
>
>

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:44:42 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 29 Nov 2006 07:36:20 +0000 John Navas wrote:

>> They lose revenue from the stolen service.
>
>It's a different word than it was in 1999. Roaming rates are much lower
>today, and carriers are less regional. The days of $3/day and buck a
>minute roaming with a 60-day lag before reporting to a carrier are long
>behind us. If I steal your Cingular phone, take it back to Denver with
>me an use 1,000 minutes before you report it stolen, how is Cingular
>hurt? I used their towers!

It (not they) lost your revenue. You seem to be hung up on whether it
cost Cingular extra money or not, but that's irrelevant -- internal
network capacity costs real money too, and it's still a loss even when
there isn't a direct cost. Would you also excuse copyright infringement
simply because there isn't a direct cost?

>(And you didn't answer my question-

I'm under no obligation to answer any questions, any more than you are,
just as you're under no obligation not to argue endlessly.

>how is carrier A hurt if legitimate
>service is purchased for a phone stolen from a user of carrier B?)

Carrier A is hurt by fraud against carrier A.
Carrier B is hurt by fraud against carrier B.
The wireless industry is hurt by fraud against any carrier, which is why
they are cooperating on the problem.

>> Rings of thieves sell fraudulently obtained cell phones for such things
>> as overseas calls by illegal immigrants. Huge bills can be run up
>> before carriers can stop them.
>
>Do you moonlight for the CTIA as a spokesperson?

Do you always insult people when your case is weak?

>C'mon, how big a
>problem is that in this day and age?

A big problem, and by no means the only problem.

>First, most new cell accounts block
>international dialing unless the customer specifically opts in for it.

Easily gotten around.

>Second, international rates by cell companies are very inflated for
>profit (there's nothing wrong with that, except when a carrier whines
>they lost $1000 in revenue for 1000 $1 minutes that cost them $0.08. In
>that case their loss was $80, not $1000.

Not true (and irrelevant).

>Lastly, cellphones are more
>common and more relied upon in this day and age. In 1999, you might not
>know your phone was stolen for days until you checked the glovebox for it
>and it wasn't there. Today, you'd know it when you realized you haven't
>heard your "Oops, I Did It Again" ringtone in the last few hours.

This isn't just theft, it's also fraud. Pay closer attention to my
prior posts. And it takes time to respond to either theft or fraud.

>Besides, how does a subsidy-lock prevent your hypothetical ring of phone-
>stealing immigrants run up a huge bill? Obviously they're using the
>window of time between the phone being stolen and being shutoff- locks
>don't help when the original carrier is being used!

As I wrote (more than once), it sharply reduces the value of stolen or
fraudulently obtained cell phones, thus discouraging those practices.

>By the way, John, you should be in politics- you answered everything
>except what I asked...

By the way, Todd, you should be in an ethics class- you're excusing
serious thievery.

>How does subsidy locking prevent account fraud? Your own citation said
>revenue losses were primarily from fraudulently obtained ACCOUNTS, not
>stolen equipment.

Re-read my prior responses more carefully.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:23:55 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 29 Nov 2006 07:37:34 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >(As an aside, other than for good public relations, does a carrier really
>> >care if a stolen phone is being activated as long as the bill is being
>> >paid?
>>
>> What makes you think the bill is being paid?
>
>Because they shut you off if it isn't.

That takes considerable time, making it far short of a panacea.

>My point was that having a phone
>(regardless of how it was obtained) doesn't get you service. You still
>have to procure that via credit check/contract, (where fraud is
>difficult,) or prepaid, (where it's a non-issue.)

In fact fraud is all too easy; e.g., by means of stolen credit card
numbers.

>It's also a dangerous assumption that everyone with a stolen phone is a
>"bad guy." Of the dozen or so phones I've purchased on eBay, for
>example, I have no way of knowing their history. Unless a phone thief is
>an eccentric collector, the likelyhood is the stolen phone will
>eventually end up with someone else who may or may not know the phone was
>stolen.

Most people that deal in questionable goods know just what they're
doing.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 29 Nov 2006 17:57:17 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> I'm under no obligation to answer any questions, any more than you are,
> just as you're under no obligation not to argue endlessly.

Agreed, but quoting my question, then not addressing my point makes me
wonder why you quoted it at all.

> >Do you moonlight for the CTIA as a spokesperson?
>
> Do you always insult people when your case is weak?

A) Is being a CTIA spokesman an insult? I'm sure it's a perfectly
honorable professional position. B) Do you always play the "insult" card
when YOU don't have a tenable argument? I've seen you toss out quite a
few insults in your day as well, John.

My CTIA comment was made because you are parroting the industry's
position on fraud, which is valid, but tying in subsidy-locking of
handsets as a weapon against fraud (also as they do), which it doesn't
seem to be, at least in any fraud scenario offered here.

> >First, most new cell accounts block
> >international dialing unless the customer specifically opts in for it.
>
> Easily gotten around.

But not by subsidy locking!

> >Second, international rates by cell companies are very inflated for
> >profit (there's nothing wrong with that, except when a carrier whines
> >they lost $1000 in revenue for 1000 $1 minutes that cost them $0.08.
In
> >that case their loss was $80, not $1000.
>
> Not true (and irrelevant).

True and relevant.

Now, unlike you, I'll actually defend my terse retorts:

"Lost revenue" numbers are always worst-case scenario, similar to when
the recording industry claims that one million illegal song downloads
equals one million lost sales. Obviously not every illegal download was
a lost sale, since one could easily argue that many of those downloads
were acquired only because the "value" of the download equalled or exceed
the price point- in this case, zero. Just like every item sold at a sale
price isn't "lost revenue" when compared to the regular retail price,
since many, if not most of those purchases would NOT have been made at
full retail. (I'm not defending the downloaders, I'm just making the
point that the figures, and therefore the extent of the problem, are
exaggerated.)

> This isn't just theft, it's also fraud. Pay closer attention to my
> prior posts. And it takes time to respond to either theft or fraud.

Irrelevant (to the topic at hand- the mitigation of fraud by subsidy
locking.)

> >Besides, how does a subsidy-lock prevent your hypothetical ring of
phone-
> >stealing immigrants run up a huge bill? Obviously they're using the
> >window of time between the phone being stolen and being shutoff- locks
> >don't help when the original carrier is being used!
>
> As I wrote (more than once), it sharply reduces the value of stolen or
> fraudulently obtained cell phones, thus discouraging those practices.

If so, then why is phone theft a problem today? Virtually every phone
sold in the US is subsidy-locked. Are you arguing the problem has been
solved, or that it would be even worse if phones weren't locked? Do you
really credit petty theives with being cellphone experts that weigh the
value of every handset they steal? ("I'd have taken that Motorola, but
then I noticed it was a TracFone, and who wants to screw with reflashing
the firmware before I sell it for meth money...")

Every example of fraud discussed in this thread has been perpetrated
against the phone's own account/carrier, which obviously is not
preventable by subsidy-locking! The best point your argument could make
it that locking discourages phone THEFT (which, seeing that subsidized
phones are still stolen, seems to be, if not weak, at least inconclusive)
but that still doesn't make a case for locking preventing FRAUD-
certainly not to the degree that the inconvenience of locking (to
legitimate customers) outweighs it's usefulness in combating fraud.

> >By the way, John, you should be in politics- you answered everything
> >except what I asked...
>
> By the way, Todd, you should be in an ethics class- you're excusing
> serious thievery.

Hmmm... let me pull out a few Navas chestnuts here... how about "Do you
always insult people when your case is weak?", no, I've got it, this
calls for "pay closer attention to my prior posts..."

Where have I EVER excused or condoned theft? I did no such thing. I
presented a thesis that CARRIERS are not as concerned with handset theft
as they are account fraud, because handset theft is a loss to the CUSTOMER,
whereas account fraud is a loss to the CARRIER. That doesn't excuse or
condone either practice. Similarly, Wal-Mart is far more concerned with
shoplifting than if your Wal-Mart purchases are then stolen from your car
in the parking lot. The former costs them, the latter costs you. And,
cynically, the latter, just like a stolen phone, is actually also a
potential revenue opportunity since the stolen items now require
replacement! (Are you now going to accuse me of claiming cell carriers
are secretly in favor of phone theft?)
> >How does subsidy locking prevent account fraud? Your own citation said
> >revenue losses were primarily from fraudulently obtained ACCOUNTS, not
> >stolen equipment.
>
> Re-read my prior responses more carefully.

I can't read something you didn't write, unless I missed a cogent
argument hidden in one of your one-word responses like "irrelevant."

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:32:29 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 29 Nov 2006 17:57:17 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> I'm under no obligation to answer any questions, any more than you are,
>> just as you're under no obligation not to argue endlessly.
>
>Agreed, but quoting my question, then not addressing my point makes me
>wonder why you quoted it at all.

I guess you'll just have to live with the mystery.

>> >Do you moonlight for the CTIA as a spokesperson?
>>
>> Do you always insult people when your case is weak?
>
>A) Is being a CTIA spokesman an insult? ...

You clearly intended it as an insult.

>My CTIA comment was made because you are parroting the industry's
>position on fraud, ...

I'm actually expressing my own point of view of fraud, no matter what
you might try to call it.

>> >First, most new cell accounts block
>> >international dialing unless the customer specifically opts in for it.
>>
>> Easily gotten around.
>
>But not by subsidy locking!

That's not the point, as I'm sure you know.

>Where have I EVER excused or condoned theft? I did no such thing. ...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

>> Re-read my prior responses more carefully.
>
>I can't read something you didn't write, unless I missed a cogent
>argument hidden in one of your one-word responses like "irrelevant."

Being disingenuous doesn't help your case.

Since this has now degenerated to pointless argument, I'm going to leave
any last words to you.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:37:04 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Todd Allcock wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I believe the free market tends to work- if there was a "real" demand for
> >> unlocked/unbranded handsets, we'd see more retailers selling them. Since
> >> it's a "specialty" market, they are harder to find- but today even some
> >> mainstream retailers like Fry's and CompUSA carry them, as well as online
> >> retailers and independent wireless shops. This idea that some vast
> >> wireless conspiracy between carriers and handset makers prevents unlocked
> >> handsets from being sold in the USA is simply nonsense- even Nokia
> >> (supposedly part of the conspiracy!) sells a few models of their phones
> >> directly to consumers via their website. And certainly handset makers
> >> not favored by the carriers (like Panasonic, for example) would certainly
> >> try to get their foot in the door in the USA by selling unsubsidized
> >> handsets if they thought they had a reasonable chance of success, but
> >> they too realize there is a very small demand for unsubsidized phones in
> >> the US.
> >
> >I think this is the real reason behind the FUD over unlocked phones. If
> >the providers can restrict the market channels available to the
> >manufacturers to themselves, they have the manufacturers over a barrel,
> >so to speak. Not unlike the way WalMart can dictate terms to many
> >manufacturers.
>
> Except carriers don't have manufacturers over any barrel. Lots of
> channels are available to manufacturers (e.g., WalMart, Amazon.com).
> The problem is insufficient demand at non-subsidized prices -- carriers
> represent far greater volume.

They almost do. Most of these outlets sell phones bundled with plans.
When I was shopping for one (unlocked RAZR), Best Buy, Frys, and all of
the office supply electronics departments would only sell locked phones
with plans. There are a few mail order channels for unlocked phones. I
did finally buy an unlocked phone, shipped from Great Britain.

In the GSM market, the hardware standard makes it impossible for service
providers to actually refuse service to an unlocked phone. SIM cards
will work in unlocked handsets. So why would a carrier mislead customers
into believing that they must buy a locked handset? It would seem to be
counterintuitive to turn a customer away who had brought an expensive
handset in having switched from a competing service. The only reason I
can see is that the economics behind places a higher value on drying up
demand for unlocked handsets than it does for acquiring new
customers.

> >Not that Cingular is guilty of this behavior to the same extent as
> >others. But what do you think would happen if those 'others' couldn't
> >lock down phone features, Even those that should have nothing to to with
> >the network, like up/downloading phone data directly to a PC, or WiFi
> >protocols. These allow users to bypass equivalent services provided by
> >the carriers, for a fee of course.
>
> If that was really a big factor, then it would massively drive business
> to GSM carriers, and that isn't happening.

The sunk cost of an expensive CDMA phone keeps people from switching to
a GSM service. I'm not certain that a Verizon phone can even be switched
to another CDMA provider.

The GSM standard makes handset portability easy. The fear that unlocking
a GSM phone might make it 'unwelcome' on any system can provide the same
sort of barrier to switching carriers that other systems have. The
presence of unlocked phones on a system and the widespread knowledge
that they still work just fine renders that fear impotent.

> >I guess some carriers might consider giving the consumer some choices a
> >kind of fraud......
>
> Consumers clearly don't care about these issues, or the market would
> respond differently.

The market is operating on an imbalance of knowledge. Given that there
are some technically savvy people posting on this newsgroup with
questions about the unlocking issue, I thing the average consumer can
easily be frightened into avoiding the unlocked models.


> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

John Navas wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:22:02 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
>
> >> It takes time to respond and block the IMEI, by which time much harm can
> >> have been done, which is part of why fraud is such a huge problem for
> >> carriers. The point of locking is to discourage fraud in the first
> >> place -- a locked phone is of much less value, particularly to a less
> >> sophisticated thief.
> >
> >But how would that differ from someone stealing a credit card, buying a
> >(locked) phone with a plan (possibly prepaid) and using it without
> >shifting carriers until the theft has been discovered?
>
> Organized fraud (resale of phones) concerns carriers much more than the
> actions of some individual customers.

Reselling phones, unless they are stolen, isn't fraud. I can sell my
phone to anyone I want. If I could convince Motorola to sell me a
truckload of unlocked phones wholesale, I could resell them to anyone I
want to. That's not fraud, that's a free market.

> >No part of this scheme requires the perpetrator to switch plans. So
> >locking the phone provides no remedy.
>
> Read what I wrote more carefully and objectively.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer: Eight. Twelve if the light bulb is cross-threaded.