**

Verizon, one of the largest wireless carriers in the US, is facing a significant backlash over its plan to extend the waiting period for unlocking phones beyond the standard 60 days. This move has sparked outrage among consumers, consumer advocates, and lawmakers, raising concerns about consumer rights, competition, and the overall future of phone unlocking practices. This article delves into the details of Verizon's policy change, the ensuing controversy, and the potential consequences.

Verizon's Extended Phone Unlocking Policy: A Detailed Look

For years, the prevailing standard among major US carriers – including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile – has been a 60-day waiting period before allowing customers to unlock their phones. This period allows carriers to ensure payment is complete and to potentially address any outstanding issues. However, Verizon's recent decision to extend this timeframe, in some cases indefinitely, has ignited a firestorm.

The specifics of the extended policy remain somewhat unclear, with reports suggesting the delay applies to certain phones, accounts, or payment plans. This lack of transparency has further fueled consumer frustration and uncertainty. Many are left wondering:

• Which phones are affected? The exact models impacted by the extended unlocking period haven't been clearly defined by Verizon.
• What constitutes a valid reason for delay? The criteria Verizon uses to justify the delay beyond 60 days remains largely opaque.
• How long could the delay last? The indefinite nature of the extended waiting period is the primary source of consumer anxiety.

This ambiguous implementation has led to widespread criticism, with many questioning whether the move is a blatant attempt to stifle competition and lock customers into longer contracts.

The Consumer Backlash: #VerizonUnlockMyPhone Trends

The announcement of Verizon's extended unlocking policy has been met with a swift and powerful consumer backlash. Social media platforms are buzzing with hashtags like #VerizonUnlockMyPhone, #VerizonUnlock, and #PhoneUnlocking, showcasing widespread frustration and anger. Consumers are voicing their concerns through:

• Social media campaigns: Organized efforts on platforms like Twitter and Facebook are pressuring Verizon to reverse its decision.
• Online petitions: Numerous online petitions are circulating, demanding greater transparency and a return to the 60-day unlocking policy.
• Contacting customer service: Many frustrated customers are directly contacting Verizon's customer service department to express their dissatisfaction.

The intensity of this backlash highlights the importance of phone unlocking for consumers, particularly those who wish to switch carriers or use their phones with foreign SIM cards.

The Legal and Regulatory Implications of Verizon's Policy

Verizon's actions are raising serious questions about the legality and fairness of its practices. Consumer advocacy groups and legal experts are scrutinizing the policy, questioning whether it violates existing regulations and consumer protection laws. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has historically played a key role in regulating wireless carriers and ensuring fair competition. The FCC's stance on Verizon's new policy will be crucial in determining its long-term viability.

The argument being made is that by delaying phone unlocking, Verizon is artificially extending customer lock-in periods, limiting consumer choice, and potentially harming competition within the wireless market. This could lead to investigations and potential regulatory action.

The Competitive Landscape and the Fight for Device Freedom

The debate around phone unlocking extends beyond the immediate impact on individual consumers. It's also a significant factor in the competitive landscape of the wireless industry. By making it harder for consumers to switch carriers, Verizon's policy could give them an unfair advantage. Smaller carriers and MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators) rely on attracting customers who can easily bring their own unlocked devices. Verizon's extended unlock times hinder this ability.

This situation underscores the ongoing struggle between carriers seeking to retain customers and consumers fighting for the freedom to choose their preferred network and device. This "device freedom" is a growing concern for consumers tired of feeling locked into contracts and limited choices.

What Happens Next? Potential Outcomes and Consumer Actions

The future of Verizon's extended phone unlocking policy remains uncertain. Several potential outcomes are possible:

• Verizon reverses its decision: Facing intense public pressure and potential regulatory scrutiny, Verizon may choose to revert to the 60-day unlocking policy.
• Regulatory intervention: The FCC or other regulatory bodies could intervene, forcing Verizon to change its policy or face penalties.
• Legal challenges: Consumer advocacy groups or individual consumers could file lawsuits against Verizon, challenging the legality of its extended unlocking policy.
• Continued consumer backlash: Regardless of the outcome, the negative publicity and consumer frustration generated by this controversy are likely to persist.

Consumers can take several actions to influence the situation:

• Continue to voice your concerns: Contact Verizon directly, use social media to spread awareness, and sign online petitions.
• Support consumer advocacy groups: Organizations fighting for consumer rights in the telecommunications industry can amplify the pressure on Verizon.
• Consider switching carriers: If you're unhappy with Verizon's policies, switching to a carrier with more consumer-friendly practices is a powerful way to express your discontent.

Verizon's decision to extend phone unlocking times represents a significant challenge to the principles of consumer freedom and fair competition in the wireless industry. The ongoing backlash serves as a stark reminder of the power of consumer advocacy and the importance of transparency and fairness in the telecommunications sector. The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining the outcome of this controversy and the future of phone unlocking in the US.