←back to thread

197 points LorenDB | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.406s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.41908565[source]
This is a good way for Ars to generate clicks and a more honest headline probably wouldn't move the needle much, but it's worth being clear for HN that the objection here is not that locked phones are good for consumers, but that the subsidization deals locked phones enable are.
replies(11): >>41908581 #>>41908673 #>>41908679 #>>41908875 #>>41908906 #>>41909375 #>>41909380 #>>41909447 #>>41909558 #>>41911205 #>>41911215 #
marinmania ◴[] No.41908875[source]
I don't think that is a more accurate headline.

The potential regulation is about the government making phones unlock automatically after two months of purchase. The regulation isn't about banning discounts or sales.

replies(1): >>41908932 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.41908932[source]
If unlocking is made mandatory, the phone subsidies will end. People will be forced to pay full price up front, or else effectively pay more as interest (even if that interest is effectively "hidden" in the overall increased price). So yes, this regulation is exactly about that.
replies(4): >>41908986 #>>41909317 #>>41909585 #>>41909949 #
1. stevesimmons ◴[] No.41908986[source]
Or they buy the phone with a credit contract, as happens in the rest of the world.

If the major telcos only offer exorbitant interest rates, some other player will step in and offer the credit at better rates that fairly price the risk.

replies(1): >>41909378 #
2. skybrian ◴[] No.41909378[source]
The interest rate on a credit contract will depend on the default rate. Arguably, a phone company can offer loans on a locked phone for lower interest rates than anyone else could, because they can cut off service if the loan isn't paid, which is an incentive to actually pay it.

I'm not all sure this is a good thing, but I can see the argument for why it might result in lower interest rates on phones.

None of this is going to matter to people with good credit.