Verizon, one of the largest wireless carriers in the United States, has formally requested the Federal Communications Commission to waive a long-standing rule that mandates the unlocking of phones after a 60-day period following purchase.

This requirement, rooted in consumer protection policies and past merger conditions, has been a point of contention for the carrier, which argues that the rule is outdated and counterproductive in today’s mobile ecosystem. According to Light Reading, Verizon contends that the regulation “benefits bad actors and fraudsters” while imposing significant harms on consumers, competition, and the company itself.

The current FCC mandate stems from agreements made during Verizon’s past acquisitions and spectrum deals, where the carrier committed to unlocking devices after a short lock-in period to ensure customers could switch networks if desired. This policy was designed to foster competition and prevent carriers from trapping consumers into long-term contracts through locked devices. However, Verizon now argues that the mobile landscape has evolved dramatically since these rules were enacted. The rise of device subsidies, installment plans, and sophisticated fraud schemes has, in the company’s view, rendered the 60-day unlocking requirement obsolete. The carrier suggests that maintaining locked devices for a longer period—potentially six months or more—would better protect against theft and fraud, as devices are often targeted by criminals who exploit unlocking policies to resell stolen or fraudulently obtained phones on other networks.

Verizon’s petition highlights a broader tension in the telecommunications industry between consumer freedom and carrier control. On one hand, unlocking policies empower users to switch providers without being tethered to a single network, a cornerstone of competitive markets. On the other, carriers like Verizon argue that longer lock-in periods are necessary to recoup the heavy subsidies they offer on devices. A deeply discounted or free phone, often tied to a service contract, represents a significant upfront cost for the carrier, and early unlocking can undermine their ability to recover that investment if a customer immediately jumps to a competitor.

Critics of Verizon’s request, however, see it as a potential step backward for consumer rights. Advocacy groups and rival carriers are likely to argue that extending lock-in periods could limit customer choice and weaken competition, particularly for smaller operators who rely on unlocked devices to attract new subscribers. The debate also raises questions about the FCC’s role in balancing industry interests with public policy goals, especially as fraud prevention becomes a growing concern in the digital age.

As reported by Light Reading, Verizon’s push for a waiver is part of a larger call for a “thorough analysis” of phone unlocking rules across the industry. The carrier is urging the FCC to reconsider whether such mandates still serve their intended purpose or if they inadvertently enable criminal activity. For now, the outcome of Verizon’s request remains uncertain, but it could set a precedent for how device locking policies are handled in the future. Industry insiders will be watching closely as the FCC deliberates, knowing that the decision could reshape the delicate balance between carrier strategy and consumer autonomy in the mobile market.