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.

They aren’t though. Subsidized phones are like monthly car payments drive up costs and are targeted at people bad at math.

If consumers paid out of pocket for their phones then they would be more picky about upgrading and plan prices. It would also make upselling shitty plan features harder so the carriers would loose a lot of money.

I would agree with you (financing small purchases like a phone is a bad idea and causes people to spend money they shouldn't), but that doesn't make the clickbait acceptable. Ars Technica should accurately report the claims of the telco industry.

Most people don’t live in your affluent bubble where, apparently, a $500 to $2,000 expense is a “small purchase”.

I don't think GP meant that $500 to $2,000 is cheap, I think they meant a small purchase relative to something like a house.

A better distinction is not small vs. large, but appreciating assets vs. depreciating. Houses tend to increase in value, so it's usually okay to finance (pandemics and market crashes are the exceptions) because you often make a profit when it's time to sell. Phones tend to decrease in value after purchase, so financing it just means you're losing even more money at the end. Phones are also fragile so it's common to break one and still have to make payments.