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

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.

Locked phones don't enable subsidized deals though. We still have subsidized deals in the UK but locking is a thing of the past. In fact they have started explicitly calling it like it is and breaking the price down into payments for the plan and payments for the phone, which stop once you've paid it off.

I have to assume that you ultimately pay more in the UK then, because what prevents users from stopping paying after the first month, and switching to a cheaper plan with another provider, and keeping the phone?

Companies aren't going to repossess your phone the way it's worth it to repossess your car or house if you stop repaying your loan.

So it raises the overall price because the companies charge more in order to offset the losses of people who effectively steal the phones they never finished paying for.

> because what prevents users from stopping paying after the first month, and switching to a cheaper plan with another provider, and keeping the phone?

Same as what stops you breaking a contract and not paying any other debt: They'll start the collections process on you.