←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
204 points LorenDB | 5 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:31 UTC | HN request time: 1.268s | 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 #
jjmarr ◴[21 Oct 24 21:49 UTC] No.41908878[source]▶
What happens when the buyer says "no, I'm not paying" and sells the phone?

Instant money. Meanwhile the telecom company has to sell the debt at a massive discount to a collections agency or spend a ton of money collecting on it. That's assuming it can be collected on at all from someone that might just be running a scam.

With a locked phone, the phone just stops working and loses most of its value.

A rule forcing carriers to unlock phones after the term is up is fine. Forcing them to do it before is illogical. How many people are going to pay for two plans on one phone because they didn't like the first plan? I doubt it's more than those who will immediately abuse this rule and stop paying for the phone. I don't see the benefit to society here.

replies(4): >>41909002 #>>41909100 #>>41909115 #>>41909216 #
1. lancesells ◴[21 Oct 24 22:25 UTC] No.41909216[source]▶
> What happens when the buyer says "no, I'm not paying" and sells the phone?

This is just like any thing you get a loan for. It goes to collections and your credit gets hurt. Why would normal consumers have restrictions because of bad actors?

AT&T operating income for 2023 was $23.5B and T-Mobile was $8.3B. Carriers are doing just fine.

replies(1): >>41910212 #
2. crazygringo ◴[22 Oct 24 01:08 UTC] No.41910212[source]▶
The point is loans are generally secured with collateral. The bank can repossess your car or your house. It's worth it to go through the expensive repossession process because those items are high-value.

A carrier just eats the loss on a phone they provide but don't get paid for. The kinds of people who skip paying their cell phone bill generally have bad credit to begin with and couldn't care less if it goes to collections. The recovery rate for collections is pennies on the dollar.

And you know who will suffer if more people are able to basically keep phones for free? Not the carriers. They'll just jack up prices for everyone to offset the additional losses. You think they're just going to eat the cost themselves?

replies(1): >>41910629 #
3. aceofspades19 ◴[22 Oct 24 02:31 UTC] No.41910629[source]▶
Why would a carrier give someone a phone if they have bad credit? It's not like they are mandated by law to provide everyone the latest iPhone regardless of credit score.

I worked in customer support for Rogers(A Canadian phone carrier) for a very short period before it was mandated to have unlocked phones and people still stopped paying their bill even if the phone was locked. The vast majority of people want to pay their bills on time especially for something as critical as phone service. The people who don't, are going to not pay their bill no matter what sort of rules in place because they either simply don't have the money or they don't care.

replies(1): >>41914314 #
4. crazygringo ◴[22 Oct 24 13:55 UTC] No.41914314{3}[source]▶
> Why would a carrier give someone a phone if they have bad credit?

Because phone locking means they're much more likely to pay it off, and so an unprofitable customer segment becomes a profitable one. Everybody wins -- the carrier doesn't lose money, and more people get phones.

> The people who don't, are going to not pay their bill no matter what sort of rules in place

That's simply not true. If it were, then carriers would never have bothered with the administrative overhead of locking phones in the first place. People do respond differently to economic incentives like whether their phone will turn into a brick or not -- that's Econ 101.

replies(1): >>41921083 #
5. aceofspades19 ◴[23 Oct 24 02:15 UTC] No.41921083{4}[source]▶
> That's simply not true. If it were, then carriers would never have bothered with the administrative overhead of locking phones in the first place. People do respond differently to economic incentives like whether their phone will turn into a brick or not -- that's Econ 101.

Well its not like they have to individually lock each phone they sell by hand and your phone does not turn into a brick if its locked to a carrier. Yes definitely the functionality is drastically reduced but there are also people/services that will unlock your phone for you that don't work for the carrier. Maybe if the phone actually was unable to be used at all if it was locked and you didn't pay the bill, that would be a valid argument.

I can't really agree with just because they do it, it must work argument, I have, and I'm sure you have too, worked for a lot of companies that had policies or practices that did not work.

I worked in customer service for Rogers, a large telecom in Canada before unlocking was mandated. There were lots of customers that did not pay their phone bill despite their phone being locked. If people don't have the money (whether it be their fault or not) they aren't going to pay their phone bill no matter what sort of incentive you give them.