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.

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.

Try att prepaid. Its like 300$ a year you can’t beat that or at least not by much

Mint mobile for $180?

I got my whole family on Mint Mobile and they have never looked back. Everything else is ridiculously priced compared to Mint.

If their plan works in your area absolute steal

As soon as I drive outside of city limits I lose all practical cell coverage. One of the main reasons I stick to Verizon