In a decision with wide implications for consumers, competition, and the secondary phone market, the Federal Communications Commission has granted Verizon a waiver that allows it to lock phones to its network for longer periods.

The move scraps a long-standing requirement that forced the carrier to unlock handsets 60 days after activation, a rule that had made Verizon phones among the easiest to take to a competing network.

The FCC’s decision is being framed as a blow against fraud. But beneath that rationale sits a more consequential shift: one that quietly strengthens the largest U.S. wireless carrier’s ability to hold onto customers at a moment when competition in the mobile market is intensifying.

For years, Verizon operated under stricter unlocking rules than its rivals. Phones sold on its network had to be unlocked automatically after 60 days, a requirement rooted in concessions the company made to secure valuable spectrum licenses and regulatory approvals for past deals. That obligation made Verizon an outlier in an industry where carriers generally unlock devices later and only upon request.

With the FCC now granting Verizon a waiver, that distinction disappears.

Going forward, Verizon will follow the CTIA trade group’s voluntary unlocking code, aligning its practices with the rest of the industry. In practical terms, this means prepaid phones can stay locked for up to a year, while postpaid devices may remain tied to Verizon until customers fully pay off contracts, financing plans, or early termination fees. Automatic unlocking is no longer guaranteed.

While the FCC emphasized fraud prevention and law enforcement concerns, the ruling also reshapes the economics of switching carriers, resale markets, and competition from smaller wireless players.

Switching just got harder

Unlocked phones are one of the primary tools consumers use to switch between carriers without purchasing a new device. When phones unlock quickly, customers can shop around for cheaper plans, promotions, or better coverage with minimal friction. When they stay locked longer, switching becomes slower, more expensive, and less predictable.

That matters in a market where growth increasingly depends on stealing customers from rivals rather than adding new subscribers. Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are all fighting for share, while cable companies such as Comcast and Charter have pushed aggressively into wireless by offering low-cost mobile plans bundled with broadband.

Those cable operators rely heavily on unlocked devices to attract customers. Longer lock periods, even if applied uniformly, raise barriers for people considering a move away from the big carriers.

The cable industry was quick to criticize the FCC’s decision. Its lobby group, NCTA, warned that delayed unlocking reduces consumer choice and affordability, arguing that faster unlocking saves billions across the mobile ecosystem by encouraging competition and device reuse. The group has urged the FCC to impose a clear, uniform unlocking deadline, rather than relying on a voluntary code.

Verizon has long argued that its unique unlocking obligations put it at a disadvantage. The company said being forced to unlock phones faster than competitors made its devices a preferred target for theft and international trafficking, particularly as 4G LTE and 5G handsets can be resold easily overseas.

The FCC accepted that argument, citing input from law enforcement groups that said stolen phones drain investigative resources and fuel black-market activity in countries that do not participate in global device-blocking systems.

But the waiver does more than address crime. It removes a regulatory constraint that limited Verizon’s leverage over customers. Locking phones longer keeps users tied to Verizon’s network, at least until financial obligations are settled, reducing churn at a time when carriers are spending heavily to retain subscribers.

That shift is especially notable given Verizon’s history. The company once sold phones unlocked by default, before seeking permission in 2019 to lock devices for 60 days. That initial waiver was justified as a narrow anti-fraud measure. The new decision goes further, eliminating the automatic unlocking rule entirely for new activations.

Consumer advocates sidelined

Consumer groups pushed back hard against Verizon’s petition, arguing that the company failed to show that extending lock periods would meaningfully reduce fraud. They said carriers already have tools to detect suspicious purchases, flag trafficked devices, and deny unlock requests without penalizing legitimate customers.

Those groups also highlighted broader effects. Automatic unlocking supports secondary phone markets, reduces electronic waste, and helps low-cost carriers compete. Removing it, they argued, primarily benefits large incumbents by making it harder for customers to leave.

The FCC rejected those concerns, saying the existing 60-day rule had not kept pace with the globalization of device resale markets and that law enforcement arguments tipped the balance in favor of a waiver.

A temporary fix or a lasting shift?

The FCC has described the waiver as an interim measure, saying it will remain in effect until the agency settles on an industry-wide approach to handset unlocking. That leaves open the possibility of future rules that could impose uniform timelines on all carriers.

Until then, Verizon emerges with greater control over when and how its customers can take their phones elsewhere. The company says this levels the playing field and undercuts criminal exploitation. Critics say it entrenches carrier power and weakens one of the simplest tools consumers have to vote with their feet.

Either way, the decision signals a recalibration in U.S. telecom policy. The emphasis is shifting away from fast, automatic portability and toward carrier discretion, with competition and consumer mobility taking a back seat to security and enforcement concerns.

When most new crypto projects launch, the story is the same: raise millions on a whitepaper, then try to build the thing that was promised. Often, it takes years. Sometimes, it never happens. Zero Knowledge Proof (ZKP) didn’t follow that script. It built the entire foundation before ever opening its token auction.

By the time ZKP launched its Initial Coin Auction (ICA), it had already spent $100 million of its own money. That included $20 million in live infrastructure and another $17 million to manufacture and deploy physical Proof Pods plug-and-play devices that handle AI validation across the network. This isn’t future funding. This has already been built, tested, and launched.

ZKP didn’t ask investors to fund a dream. It put the money first and let the market decide what that was worth. That changes the risk profile completely. Instead of speculating on whether a roadmap will get delivered, early participants are walking into a system that’s already up and running. And they’re getting in at early-stage prices not because the tech isn’t real, but because the price discovery phase is just beginning.

This disconnect between product readiness and token valuation is what makes ZKP unique. If the market later prices it like a working platform rather than a presale idea the early ROI could stretch into the 100x to 10,000x range. Not because of hype. But because the value is already there, the price hasn’t caught up yet.

Why This Timing Window Creates Real Asymmetry

Right now, ZKP is in an active auction. The ICA is live. Tokens are being distributed daily. Price discovery happens in real time. And yet, the core system is already operational — a full 4-layer blockchain built on Substrate, with Proof Pods shipping globally and on-chain validation already live.

This is a big deal. Investors aren’t buying into a vision. They’re buying into something that already exists at a time when it’s still priced like it doesn’t.

Most early crypto buyers take on two risks: technology and timing. ZKP has taken the tech risk off the table. Everything is live. The infrastructure is deployed. That leaves timing as the key variable. And with the auction designed to run on a fixed 450-day schedule, supply isn’t unlimited. There’s no chance of whales flooding in to grab 90% of the tokens on Day 1. There’s a hard limit of $50,000 per wallet per day. Price rises daily, based on actual market demand.

In other words, early buyers aren’t just getting in at lower prices. They’re getting in before the rest of the market has fully processed that ZKP isn’t a future promise. It’s a functioning platform. The pricing is temporary. The product isn’t.

That’s where potential ROI multiples start to make sense, not because the project is trying to go viral, but because it’s structurally underpriced for what it’s already delivering.

ZKP Didn’t Need Capital. It Needed a Price.

Crypto is full of startups chasing capital. ZKP didn’t go that route. It didn’t ask for VC backing. It didn’t hand out discounts to private investors. It didn’t sell a roadmap. It spent $100 million out of pocket, then opened the doors to the public.

That changes the psychology completely. The question isn’t “will they build it?” It’s “what is this worth now that it’s built?”

In most token sales, buyers take the biggest risk: they fund development, wait for features, and hope the team delivers. In ZKP’s case, that risk is gone. Buyers step into a system that’s already in motion. The auction is live. The rewards are active. The infrastructure is paid for.

This is where the opportunity lives. If a project like this had gone through typical funding routes, by the time it hit public markets, the price would be 50x higher and locked behind vesting schedules. Instead, ZKP’s pricing is being discovered in public at the same time the platform is running.

That mismatch won’t last forever. And for investors searching for the best cryptocurrencies to invest in while prices still reflect early-stage conditions, ZKP is already ahead of the curve, just not yet priced like it.

Price Is Temporary. Infrastructure Is Permanent.

Zero Knowledge Proof (ZKP) didn’t build hype. It built infrastructure. That’s what makes its auction different. The system is live. The Proof Pods are in circulation. The blockchain is running. It’s not a theory. It’s not a testnet. It’s real.

What isn’t real yet is the price recognition. That’s still forming, block by block, through the daily ICA. But once the wider market starts pricing ZKP based on what it is rather than what it might be, the entry window could close fast.

This isn’t about catching a trend. It’s about seeing a structure that doesn’t exist anywhere else in crypto right now. When something is already working, but still priced like a presale, the upside math isn’t a dream; it’s a delay. And that’s exactly the gap ZKP buyers are stepping into.

Find Out More about Zero Knowledge Proof:

Website: https://zkp.com/

Auction: https://auction.zkp.com/

X: https://x.com/ZKPofficial

Telegram: https://t.me/ZKPofficial

The U.S. government is taking an unusually direct role in shoring up its weapons supply chain, committing $1 billion to L3Harris Technologies’ expanding rocket motor business.

The decision is part of a broader and increasingly explicit policy shift in Washington, which has seen the federal government move from being merely a regulator and customer to becoming a direct investor in strategically important domestic companies.

At the center of the deal is a pressing military reality. Solid rocket motors are essential components for a wide range of U.S. weapons systems, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, Patriot and THAAD interceptors, and the Standard Missile family. Years of consolidation in the defense sector, coupled with surging global demand driven by wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and rising tensions with China, have left the Pentagon worried about supply bottlenecks and production speed.

“This is a fundamental shift in how we secure our munitions supply chain,” said Michael Duffey, the Pentagon’s under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. “By investing directly in suppliers we are building the resilient industrial base needed for the Arsenal of Freedom.”

Under the agreement, L3Harris will spin off its Missile Solutions unit into a new company focused on rocket motors and missile propulsion. The U.S. government will inject $1 billion through a convertible security that will automatically convert into equity when the new entity goes public, an IPO targeted for the second half of 2026. L3Harris will retain majority ownership and operational control, while effectively locking in long-term Pentagon demand for the new business.

Chief executive Chris Kubasik said the missile unit is expected to grow at a mid-to-high teens annual rate, reflecting what he described as sustained and rising demand for missile systems. Shares of L3Harris rose about 1% following the announcement, a sign that investors view the deal as a strong endorsement of the company’s role in U.S. defense planning.

The transaction, however, sits within a much larger policy context. The Trump administration has been openly critical of what it sees as high costs, slow delivery timelines, and excessive consolidation in the defense industry. Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order tying share buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation at defense contractors to weapons delivery schedules, sharply escalating pressure on the sector.

Direct equity investment is now emerging as another lever. The L3Harris deal follows the U.S. government’s decision to take a 10% stake in chipmaker Intel, a move aimed at rebuilding domestic semiconductor manufacturing capacity viewed as vital to economic and national security. Intel’s shares more than doubled after that investment was announced, reinforcing the administration’s argument that strategic government capital can stabilize and revive critical industries.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had previously signaled this direction, saying the administration was weighing equity stakes in major defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin. The L3Harris investment now makes clear that this is no longer theoretical. Washington is willing to put taxpayer money directly into companies it deems essential to national security, from chips to missiles.

For the Pentagon, the rationale is straightforward. By becoming a financial partner rather than just a buyer, it believes it can secure predictable production, negotiate multi-year procurement agreements, and ultimately lower costs. The Defense Department said the deal will allow it to pursue long-term frameworks for solid rocket motors, pending congressional approval, reducing uncertainty that has historically discouraged capacity expansion.

However, once converted, the government’s stake would make it a part-owner of a company that competes for Pentagon contracts, raising questions about conflicts of interest and fair competition. Northrop Grumman, which owns rocket motor maker Orbital ATK, is the only other major U.S. producer in this space. Analysts warn that rivals could be placed at a disadvantage if one supplier enjoys both guaranteed demand and government backing.

Duffey has pushed back on that concern, saying the Pentagon remains committed to open competition and will not factor its investment into procurement decisions. He also stressed that the department does not dictate which rocket motors are used in specific missile systems.

Still, the structure of the deal is highly unusual for the defense sector. Combining a government-backed convertible security with a planned IPO, while allowing the parent company to retain control, is likely to attract scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators concerned about market distortion and governance.

Supporters argue that extraordinary times justify extraordinary measures. Demand for interceptors and long-range weapons has surged far faster than the industrial base can respond, exposing weaknesses created by decades of outsourcing, consolidation, and just-in-time manufacturing. The administration sees direct investment as a way to reverse that trend quickly.

Kubasik framed the move as part of a broader reset. “Recent Trump administration actions have placed renewed emphasis on strengthening the defense industrial base and reinvigorating competition following a 30-year wave of consolidation,” he said, adding that the new rocket motor company will become a key long-term partner to the Pentagon.

If the IPO proceeds as planned in 2026, the government could ultimately profit financially from the investment, mirroring its experience with Intel. For now, however, the priority is strategic rather than monetary: ensuring that the United States can produce critical weapons at scale and speed in an increasingly volatile world.