←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
197 points LorenDB | 4 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
nothercastle ◴[21 Oct 24 21:27 UTC] No.41908679[source]▶
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.

replies(7): >>41908735 #>>41908766 #>>41908828 #>>41909010 #>>41909194 #>>41909329 #>>41909562 #
afavour ◴[21 Oct 24 22:40 UTC] No.41909329[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>41909430 #>>41909664 #>>41910368 #>>41912899 #
nothercastle ◴[21 Oct 24 22:58 UTC] No.41909430[source]▶
Try att prepaid. Its like 300$ a year you can’t beat that or at least not by much
replies(1): >>41909734 #
from-nibly ◴[21 Oct 24 23:46 UTC] No.41909734[source]▶
Mint mobile for $180?
replies(1): >>41909768 #
1. Mistletoe ◴[21 Oct 24 23:53 UTC] No.41909768[source]▶
I got my whole family on Mint Mobile and they have never looked back. Everything else is ridiculously priced compared to Mint.
replies(1): >>41909881 #
2. nothercastle ◴[22 Oct 24 00:09 UTC] No.41909881[source]▶
If their plan works in your area absolute steal
replies(1): >>41909992 #
3. grepfru_it ◴[22 Oct 24 00:30 UTC] No.41909992[source]▶
As soon as I drive outside of city limits I lose all practical cell coverage. One of the main reasons I stick to Verizon
replies(1): >>41910999 #
4. simfree ◴[22 Oct 24 03:44 UTC] No.41910999{3}[source]▶
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.