T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates than others in the same business, e.g. Rent-A-Center. As I note downthread, `The total cost to buy a PS5 Slim is $500, the total cost to get a PS5 Slim through my nearest Rent-A-Center is $1,349.50.` You could introduce this pricing for iPhones for poor people too! This might even incentivize more people to use low-end Android hardware! But let's not act like this is 100% a good thing for everybody.

> The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates than others in the same business

How does it do that? Its a lock to force people to stick with a provider, and pay through the nose in other ways. Phone plan rates in the US are terrible, restricting peoples ability to change provider through artificial means doesn't provide better rates.

Because it greatly lowers the risk that AT&T will need to write off the debt for your phone and sell it to a collections agency for pennies on the dollar.

It’s the same difference as a home mortgage vs unsecured credit card debt: When the threat exists that the lender can repossess your home if you don’t pay… they don’t have to worry as much about you not paying your mortgage, so they can offer a much lower rate.

You buy a phone for $1k, but you do it through your carrier, along with a $50/month plan. Because you’re on this plan, the carrier offers $600 off the phone price, paid in account credit over 24 months ($25/month), so your total monthly bill becomes $67/month for 2 years, then $50/month at the end of 2 years.

If, 3 months in, you find yourself unhappy with your carrier, you can still pay the remainder of your phone cost ($875) to own your phone outright and walk away. In that time, you’ve saved $75 off the full price of the phone.

Arguing that US carrier prices are exorbitant is not relevant to whether carrier locks and phone discount credits are worthwhile or cost effective.

Maybe then they should put a lien on it and call it the phone title, not lock status.

I'm not sure what that has to do with locking your phone.

If you have a line of credit for the cost of a phone, then you have a line of credit for the cost of a phone. If you have a contract for service, them you have a contract for service.

If you try and terminate either then they will reclaim based upon your contract with them.

The cost to repossesses and resell a phone is going to greatly exceed its value in nearly every case, so this idea wouldnt work.

And the lock is collateral against a small, high-demand object that can easily be fenced. The phone lock is essentially the same as a hold against a car title until it’s paid off.

This would only be a real problem if there were no options to buy phones direct/outright without the lock. Instead, we’re likely to end up in some situation where carriers work with phone manufacturers to implement a sort of higher-level device lock feature that stipulates the device “belongs” to the carrier and can be functionally locked (a la the stolen device lock features that currently exist) if they ever go unpaid.

One of the main goal of a lien is to make sure that the debtor pays. I would say the locking mechanism helps that greatly.