←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
197 points LorenDB | 1 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
1. krageon ◴[22 Oct 24 10:23 UTC] No.41912899[source]▶
I've done the same thing as you and buying the phone separately was cheaper every time. In a normal jurisdiction the phone payment is a clear component of your bill and it is patently clear you're borrowing the full sale amount and paying back a higher amount of money.

If this isn't obviously the case, the "normal" plans are subsidizing phone sales. This means that you're almost certain to be better off with a vendor that doesn't offer this or at least offers it in a way that isn't dishonest.

At the end of the day, even if what you say is true making use of this deal makes things worse for everyone because it is part of a larger strategy. Inevitably you will be squeezed for more money than you otherwise would, sometimes it just takes a while.