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”.

You don’t need to pay $500 to $2000 for a phone. I don’t think I have ever paid that much.

I used to buy $200 Android phones. I never had one last more than 18 months. I'm talking dead, not just annoyingly slow. I now have a 3.5 year old iPhone that I expect to get at least another 1.5 years out of. $200/yr compared to $133/yr but I'm generating less waste and getting a better overall experience the entire time I own the phone. For me it was absolutely worth it.