←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
197 points LorenDB | 4 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
idle_zealot ◴[21 Oct 24 21:34 UTC] No.41908752[source]▶
Locking phones is not at all a requirement for carriers to offer subsidized deals. They could offer phones on installment plans conditional on an N-month contract. The buyer could switch carriers and keep the phone, but be on the hook to pay off the rest of the contract term. The only reason to use technological locks is to further trap a customer into a carrier relationship beyond the legal terms of their contract. It's yet another example of companies violating long-standing rights and norms and getting away with it because there's a computer involved.
replies(3): >>41908805 #>>41908851 #>>41908878 #
cwyers ◴[21 Oct 24 21:39 UTC] No.41908805[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>41908838 #
1. happymellon ◴[21 Oct 24 21:44 UTC] No.41908838[source]▶
> 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.

replies(2): >>41909247 #>>41909326 #
2. labcomputer ◴[21 Oct 24 22:29 UTC] No.41909247[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41909364 #
3. neodymiumphish ◴[21 Oct 24 22:40 UTC] No.41909326[source]▶
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.

4. itopaloglu83 ◴[21 Oct 24 22:47 UTC] No.41909364[source]▶
Maybe then they should put a lien on it and call it the phone title, not lock status.