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

It's a little more nuanced than you're making out. I spent way, way too long working out the totals from the various methods of getting a new phone and getting the free phone as part of a 24/36 month agreement ended up being cheaper than many alternatives, primarily because you're paying the monthly plan amount whether you take the free phone or not. I personally think upgrading my phone after three years is a reasonable timeframe, but of course everyone is different.

It wasn't cheaper than all alternatives. There were a bunch of virtual operators offering better monthly rates than the big networks but I've personally had bad experiences with network deprioritization on them. Depends very much on your individual circumstance, I'm in NYC and the network is clearly pretty saturated.

Try att prepaid. Its like 300$ a year you can’t beat that or at least not by much

> getting the free phone as part of a 24/36 month agreement ended up being cheaper than many alternatives

This is generally strictly true, but most people don't move on to the next deal once they've paid off their device, and end up paying more than they would have had they bought the device outright, device+plan cost considered.

Mint mobile for $180?

I got my whole family on Mint Mobile and they have never looked back. Everything else is ridiculously priced compared to Mint.

If their plan works in your area absolute steal

As soon as I drive outside of city limits I lose all practical cell coverage. One of the main reasons I stick to Verizon

> I spent way, way too long working out the totals from the various methods of getting a new phone

Did you add this time you spent into those totals? I think if you did, your math would come out differently. Personally, if I even feel the need to do any math like this, the answer is already "no, I can't afford this".

Verizon is really thin on the ground out West, their coverage just keeps shrinking as their LTEiRA partners shut down or get bought out by T-Mobile and AT&T.

Between Reno and Las Vegas it's pretty stark, huge holes in Verizon's coverage and a few 3G CDMA only towers, while AT&T has strong band 14 coverage, and T-Mobile has slightly better coverage than Verizon but also lets you roam onto AT&T.

Meanwhile in the San Juans the situation is dire on Verizon, with only one tower just on Orcas Island. AT&T has a handful of towerd, two on Orcas and then they force roam everyone onto T-Mobile who has dozens of local towers.

So long as you are on AT&T or T-Mobile with roaming you'll have the best coverage possible, but if your stuck on Verizon it seems your in for a rough ride these days.

I've done the same thing as you and buying the phone separately was cheaper every time. In a normal jurisdiction the phone payment is a clear component of your bill and it is patently clear you're borrowing the full sale amount and paying back a higher amount of money.

If this isn't obviously the case, the "normal" plans are subsidizing phone sales. This means that you're almost certain to be better off with a vendor that doesn't offer this or at least offers it in a way that isn't dishonest.

At the end of the day, even if what you say is true making use of this deal makes things worse for everyone because it is part of a larger strategy. Inevitably you will be squeezed for more money than you otherwise would, sometimes it just takes a while.

How can comparing different methods for a couple minutes be charged? Or rather, would it not be charged evenly to multiple options since multiple options are being researched, including the proposed "default" of buying a phone outright and then finding a plan that will actually provide suitable service while saving money.

To your credit, just stick with the subsidized phone deal, and then don't upgrade when it's paid off. At that point, your phone is now technically unlocked