←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
197 points LorenDB | 2 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.416s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[21 Oct 24 21:11 UTC] 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 #
627467 ◴[21 Oct 24 23:00 UTC] No.41909447[source]▶
Why do you need to lock the phones for this? If the point is to lock customer to a subsidizing contract just do that: use the contract to enforce the lockin. What do they care if I use another sim card on the phone if I'm paying the monthly service for the duration of the contract?
replies(2): >>41909494 #>>41909916 #
1. aeternum ◴[21 Oct 24 23:07 UTC] No.41909494[source]▶
It often comes down to enforcement. Cellphone debt is near impossible to collect, I believe statute of limitations is only 2 years in many states.

The contract is likely near worthless if sent to collections.

replies(1): >>41909775 #
2. markdown ◴[21 Oct 24 23:53 UTC] No.41909775[source]▶
Don't you have credit bureaus that serve as deterrents? ie. Nobody wants to get a horrible credit score over a phone.