←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
204 points LorenDB | 3 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.778s | 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 #
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 #
1. 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.

replies(1): >>41914725 #
2. happymellon ◴[22 Oct 24 14:34 UTC] No.41914725[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41915997 #
3. neodymiumphish ◴[22 Oct 24 16:30 UTC] No.41915997[source]▶
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.