←back to thread

197 points LorenDB | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] 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 #
marinmania ◴[] No.41908875[source]
I don't think that is a more accurate headline.

The potential regulation is about the government making phones unlock automatically after two months of purchase. The regulation isn't about banning discounts or sales.

replies(1): >>41908932 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.41908932[source]
If unlocking is made mandatory, the phone subsidies will end. People will be forced to pay full price up front, or else effectively pay more as interest (even if that interest is effectively "hidden" in the overall increased price). So yes, this regulation is exactly about that.
replies(4): >>41908986 #>>41909317 #>>41909585 #>>41909949 #
1. marinmania ◴[] No.41909585[source]
Even if that's true it's still a less accurate headline.

The rule is about unlocking, not deals.

The carriers say this is bad for consumers.

Both those can be true and the current headline captures that.