[HN Gopher] T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked p...
___________________________________________________________________
T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good
for users
Author : LorenDB
Score : 161 points
Date : 2024-10-21 20:31 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| afavour wrote:
| > claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it
| possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers
|
| Weird, because they seem to have the same prices as Verizon.
| olliej wrote:
| did they say explicitly who it's cheaper for?
| whatever1 wrote:
| With TMobile when I upgraded they gave me 1000$ incentive in 24
| month increments.
|
| So yes they do offer "cheaper phone prices" but of course you
| are locked to their expensive plan for years.
| afavour wrote:
| Verizon offer the exact same thing. They just unlock phones
| after 60 days (in fairness they have to, but still, they seem
| to be doing just fine)
| ToxicMegacolon wrote:
| why do they have to? is it just verizon or do others have
| to do unlock it after 60 days too?
| Whatarethese wrote:
| Verizon does but over 36 months.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _> claiming that locking phones to a carrier 's network makes
| it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers_
|
| And somehow an iPhone today isn't cheaper than when it first
| came out and there was no subsidy from Cingular.
| dmonitor wrote:
| Getting AT&T to unlock an iPhone (or buying one unlocked from
| Apple) is little more than a formality. It's the $50 pre-paid
| phones you can pick up from Wal-mart that they don't want to
| unlock.
| al_borland wrote:
| Going to Apple's site, where it allows the user to pick a
| carrier or choose unlocked, they are all the same.
|
| I thought all the major carrier did away with phone subsidies
| years ago so they could advertise lower monthly service fees,
| when those prices were becoming too high.
|
| My phone is still subsidized, but it's through work, so I'm not
| the one paying the monthly bill. I didn't even think that was
| still an option for the average user buying on their own.
| Before switching my phone over to work, I had been buying
| unlocked phones at full price for a few years.
| Gys wrote:
| What is good for our shareholders is also good for our users.
| Because they should buy our stock.
| Spivak wrote:
| T-Mobile's filing is shorter than the article:
| https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1017178290200/1
|
| > T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example,
| would see subsidies reduced by 40% to 70% for both its lower and
| higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone
| 12.
|
| This is such a confusing line, you're in control of that. Also if
| that were true this would be great for you. Don't you want to be
| making more money? But in practice can you not just enforce this
| by contract? You must make a 12 month commitment to T-Mobile to
| qualify for discounted phones.
| cwyers wrote:
| In the pre-paid market niche, you have people who really
| struggle to put together the money for an iPhone 12 all in one
| go, and T-Mobile has essentially worked to create a
| razors/blade model with some obfuscation. It's possible that
| disaggregating phone plans from installment pricing would
| benefit consumers in the long run, but let's not act like
| everybody would be prepared to transition to that world
| immediately. (I don't think T-Mobile is exactly concerned for
| their customers, but this subsidy regime exists for a reason.)
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| I buy prepaid specifically so that I can own my own unlocked
| phone and be able to do what I want with it without thinking
| about the carrier. Price isn't the issue, ownership is.
| tptacek wrote:
| OK, but you are in a tiny, tiny minority of customers that
| care about that distinction.
| mikeocool wrote:
| I am betting you are a fairly unique prepaid customer.
| toast0 wrote:
| There's hundreds of us! I pay $15/month (+tax) for my
| service which has more than enough for my use most of the
| time. I don't get all the cross-promotional stuff, and I
| don't get a phone subsidy, but I think the lowest
| advertised price for all that stuff us $40/month. Saving
| $300/year gives me plenty of phone allowance, and I can
| buy my own tacos or whatever.
|
| I don't have to pay for 'activation' when I move the sim
| from my phone into a new phone either, even though I hear
| about that happening still.
|
| I don't have to try to get all my family lines on the
| same carrier either, so if the three of us are in a car
| stuck on the side of the road, we have a better chance of
| one of our phones working to get assistance.
| labcomputer wrote:
| But you can do the exact same thing with a postpaid plan.
| Spivak wrote:
| That actually makes some sense and (I assume) you can let the
| service lapse and keep the phone if you don't have the money
| right now?
|
| It seems in both cases T-Mobile is making a bet that you'll
| continue to use their service in one form or another. Is
| there a reason if it was unlocked you would immediately
| switch?
| jacobr1 wrote:
| >Is there a reason if it was unlocked you would immediately
| switch?
|
| If there was a better price or promotional discount
| available from a competitor?
| cwyers wrote:
| Yeah, you can let the service lapse and resume it, you just
| can't take the phone elsewhere. T-Mobile is taking on some
| risk there, to be sure.
|
| As far as why you would immediately switch -- T-Mobile is
| not losing money on these phone subsidies in the aggregate
| (they are in some cases, to be sure). They're pricing the
| subsidies into their carrier rates. If this went through,
| they'd likely have to cut the subsidies and engage in pure
| competition on pre-paid mobile rates. I know some HN
| readers read that last line and go, "good," but the fact of
| the matter is that people who are buying subsidized phones
| on pre-paid plans are generally poor credit risks generally
| and phones lose a huge amount of their value the second you
| open the shrink-wrap so they're not very worthwhile as
| security for a secured loan, so by unbundling these two,
| T-Mobile starts to compete with everybody else on rates for
| service and somebody else steps in to handle the leases on
| phones, and if you look at that market segment, the answer
| in the US as to who is most prepared to take over that
| business, the answer is _Rent-A-Center_. The total cost to
| buy a PS5 Slim is $500, the total cost to get a PS5 Slim
| through my nearest Rent-A-Center is $1,349.50. Again, I am
| sure that T-Mobile is not advocating for this out of
| charity, but I'm not as convinced as some around here that
| this form of unbundling would be an unmitigated good thing.
|
| EDIT: And to your point of, well wouldn't pre-paid
| operators all switch to a contract model, I don't think
| "you can't get phone service without a contract" is what
| people who are advocating for this reform want, and the
| primary customer for a pre-paid plan is someone who is too
| large a credit risk to get a 12-month contract through
| someone else. I said primary customer, if you want to tell
| me you're a great credit risk but you're on prepaid as an
| ideological stance, just pretend I already know that about
| you.
| nothercastle wrote:
| That's a good thing people would stop overbuying phones.
| chasil wrote:
| Then AT&T and T-Mobile will have no problem in providing firmware
| that is comparable to the duration achieved by LineageOS, with
| significant punishment should they fail.
|
| Even with a network lock, that product would be far more valuable
| than what is currently sold.
| eagerpace wrote:
| I'm willing to accept the risk
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| There should be a shortcut through our legal bureaucracy to
| punish obvious BS like this. The amount of time wasted to
| evaluate such stupid claims is surely huge.
| double2helix wrote:
| Well said.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| It's all part of the proceedings. Even on the SCOTUS the
| dissenting option is allowed to be posted for why they went for
| the other decision.
|
| Also, I don't think this response is really the same as an
| appeal. It's just another legal footnote to keep in mind
| if/when other parts of the court comes in to block this (as
| they are so likely to do this year. Can't let the working class
| have good things).
| IronWolve wrote:
| I guess it makes sense if you have not paid off the phone, but
| after you paid off the phone and own it, its yours, and should be
| able to use it with any carrier.
|
| But I dont see how its good for users, locked phones only help
| the business.
| SirMaster wrote:
| I'm a fan of the large discounts I get from the carrier. If I
| have to be locked to the carrier for the duration of the
| agreement for that discount, then that's fine with me.
|
| I mean unless they would keep those discounts without being
| locked, but I don't ever see that happening.
|
| How about just offering it both ways. Discounts if you are OK
| being locked to the service for the duration, or no/lesser
| discount to be able to leave the service early. That way everyone
| is happy?
|
| I mean, you can already just forgo the rest of the discount and
| get unlocked whenever you want, so I don't really see the problem
| I guess.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| You can get the discount and an unlocked phone by purchasing
| directly from Apple and utilizing a carrier deal
| exabrial wrote:
| If they hadn't abused this feature, they wouldn't be in this
| situation. I can totally understand carrier-locking a phone until
| the loan is paid off. But that's not what they used it for and
| now they're suffering hilarious regulatory attention.
|
| tsk tsk. I _almost_ feel bad for them.
| xahrepap wrote:
| I was already an existing TMobile customer. I bought myself and
| my wife an iPhone 11 in cash when the phones were brand new.
| Never had a contract. Already had an LTE plan, didn't change
| that plan at all. Just bought two new phones from TMobile and
| had them slap the sims in.
|
| Fast forward to a couple months ago, I happened to notice while
| browsing my TMobile account that my phone was being reported as
| "Carrier Locked" with subtext that said "This phone is not
| eligible to be unlocked". Not my wife's though, hers was listed
| as "Unlocked". It took over a month of being yanked around by
| TMobile reps telling me they had to "escalate but the issue
| will be fixed within a week". It never was.
|
| They would ask me why I wanted it unlocked. I would just
| respond something respectful but firm along the lines of
| "Because it's my phone. I paid for it. You have no business
| locking my device"
|
| The way I see it, it was either theft or false advertising,
| plain and simple. Either they stole the phone from me after I
| bought it. Or, they sold me a device as unlocked but never
| realized that promise. It should have NEVER been locked. It
| makes me mad just thinking about it. I don't understand why a
| carrier even has the power to remotely lock a phone that was
| never theirs to lock in the first place.
|
| This is all to say: I agree with your observation. They deserve
| heavy handed regulation because they have proven they will
| abuse any inch you give them.
| triyambakam wrote:
| Do you mean that your phone remains locked?
| xahrepap wrote:
| Ah, sorry. I forgot part of the story :)
|
| No, after over a month of them saying "it'll take a week
| for it after I escalate" and then me calling a week later
| and starting the whole conversation over, one day it
| finally was unlocked. And I moved to a new carrier.
| fourteenfour wrote:
| I tried to get T-Mobile to unlock my far out of contract
| iphone 6s a few years ago, which should be super simple. The
| first time I talked to a rep and confirming everything they
| said it should show as unlocked in a few days. A month later
| and it wasn't unlocked. I called again and went through the
| same steps with another rep, they said it would be unlocked
| for sure this time. Nope. Luckily my friend gave me their old
| unlocked iPhone and I switched carriers. That 6s is still
| locked, T-mobile is scummy.
| irunmyownemail wrote:
| This made me nervous, I used their web site under accounts
| check unlock status. It shows unknown for ours. We bought our
| Android phones on Amazon. I guess that's why the status shows
| as unknown for ours.
| tptacek wrote:
| 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.
| metacritic12 wrote:
| Ars has gone down the ragebait rabbit hole, which is perfectly
| rational, though they do it with technical stories, which
| people don't expect so much baiting.
|
| Basically the carriers are making the standard libertarian
| argument, which makes sense. If you block locking, you already
| know what happens: we already know cell phone prices unlocked.
| The cell carriers are in essence capital providers and they
| know how to collect money from their customers.
| sofixa wrote:
| > standard libertarian argument, which makes sense
|
| It really doesn't. Libertarian arguments only make sense if
| you don't think about it too much, or are ignorant about the
| context and details, or you have a vested interest.
|
| You can compare phone prices with countries where there is
| healthy competition and there is no or very limited blocking
| (France is a good example - you can buy phones outright, or
| get them on a payment plan that locks you on a more expensive
| monthly payment compared to the classic 20EUR everything
| included including 20-150GB internet depending on the
| provider plan; after the initial period is over, you can do
| whatever you want). If you bother to look into the topic a
| little bit more than surface level, libertarian arguments
| usually fall apart easily.
| tptacek wrote:
| The complaint they have isn't that unlocked phones exist;
| they're asking to be able to sell (or serve) unlocked
| phones alongside subsidized phones. Most people commenting
| on HN from the US are probably using unlocked phones on
| major carriers. I sure am.
| reissbaker wrote:
| France allows companies to have more onerous locking
| policies than the U.S. is proposing. French telecom
| companies are allowed to sell locked phones, require
| customers to request unlocks (rather than auto-unlocking,
| like the U.S. proposed rules), and the companies are
| allowed to take up to 3 months to respond to unlock
| requests, rather than requiring immediate unlocks after the
| first 60 days pass.
|
| I like unlocked phones, and I buy my phones unlocked. But I
| agree with the sentiment here that we already know what the
| prices are for unlocked phones: manufacturers will sell
| them to you at that price, and telecom operators in the
| U.S. will universally allow you to bring your own, unlocked
| device free of charge. What the companies offering locked
| phones offer is an optional subsidy in exchange for a
| locked phone; while I'm sure there are reasonable arguments
| around e-waste that result in wanting _some_ limits to
| locking, there is an obvious tradeoff in that the value of
| the subsidy diminishes as the allowed lock time diminishes.
| Mandating short limits to phone locks raises prices for
| poor people who can 't afford unlocked phones. It's not
| always bad to do that -- sometimes companies are taking
| advantage of poor people -- but it's pretty true that will
| happen.
| makapuf wrote:
| Keep in mind that prices in France are WAY lower than in
| the US according to this site.
| https://www.cable.co.uk/mobiles/worldwide-data-pricing/
| (edit: bad autocorrect)
| pkaye wrote:
| Are people paying $6/GB on average in the US?
| IshKebab wrote:
| Locked phones don't enable subsidized deals though. We still
| have subsidized deals in the UK but locking is a thing of the
| past. In fact they have started explicitly calling it like it
| is and breaking the price down into payments for the plan and
| payments for the phone, _which stop once you 've paid it off_.
| tptacek wrote:
| That is a perfectly reasonable argument. My point was that
| Ars' headline was deliberately misleading. Note that the
| article doesn't go into any real depth about alternative
| financing plans.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| If you really don't like the article, you can always read
| the FCC statement instead:
| https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1017178290200/1
|
| But I know linking to a PDF will put some people off. It's
| a fairly short response this time as well.
|
| ----
|
| >handsets that are free or heavily discounted off the
| manufacturer's suggested retail price.
|
| You do it by increasing contract prices and being able to
| collect a phone if you don't stay with the often 2-year
| contract for stuff like this. The final price is also much
| more expensive than buying outright.
|
| This is a bit silly in am age where phone tech has
| plateaued and you can often get last year flagships for
| half the price at launch. Consumers don't need the newest
| phone at all.
|
| >T-Mobile's current unlocking policies also help T- Mobile
| combat handset theft and fraud by sophisticated,
| international criminal organizations.
|
| All androids and iphones have built in find - my - phone
| features these days, as well as the ability to wipe
| remotely. Phones are one of the least useful things to try
| and steal these days as a result, up there with a credit
| card. You can still get info and pawn off a wiped phone,
| but I don't see what T-Mobile does to prevent that further.
|
| >because the proposal would force providers to reduce the
| line-up of their most compelling handset offers. T
|
| Sprint already was reducing lineups, even before the
| acquisition. And they don't really subsidize anymore.
| That's why I started buying my own phones. The T-Mobile
| store was just the Galaxy/IPhone store, featuring overly
| expensive otter cases.
|
| >T-Mobile maintains that the Commission lacks authority to
| adopt the proposed rule
|
| They really pulling off the Chevron defense (assumedly,
| it's in another document) with no hesitation, huh? I guess
| we'll see how that goes. I'm not going to pretend I know
| the full ramifications of how it will affect the FCC.
|
| >however, a provider subject to FCC-imposed asymmetric
| regulation on handset unlocking seeks to modify its
| commitments
|
| Sounds like a horrible loophole to extend the policy as
| long as possible. So, no. They don't even provide much of
| an argument for when and where and what should be modified.
|
| -----
|
| Clickbait or not, I'm not really liking the arguments
| either way.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I have to assume that you ultimately pay more in the UK then,
| because what prevents users from stopping paying after the
| first month, and switching to a cheaper plan with another
| provider, and keeping the phone?
|
| Companies aren't going to repossess your phone the way it's
| worth it to repossess your car or house if you stop repaying
| your loan.
|
| So it raises the overall price because the companies charge
| more in order to offset the losses of people who effectively
| steal the phones they never finished paying for.
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| > because what prevents users from stopping paying after
| the first month, and switching to a cheaper plan with
| another provider, and keeping the phone?
|
| Same as what stops you breaking a contract and not paying
| any other debt: They'll start the collections process on
| you.
| lbourdages wrote:
| Yep, same in Canada. A phone contract shows up on your
| credit report (since you pay at the end of the month for
| the service received during the month) and if you were to
| not pay the penalty, the outstanding debt would show up
| there.
| nothercastle wrote:
| 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.
| christophilus wrote:
| Monthly car payments can be good, though, as opposed to
| paying cash, assuming you can get a reasonable rate of return
| by conservatively investing the cash in a fairly liquid
| investment.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| They type of people they target don't even have money saved
| for an emergency. Let alone money to invest.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Current (risk free) 5 year TIPS real yield is 1.65%... Not
| sure if there are many car loans offered at a lower rate.
| If you were thinking a different investment, you'd of
| course need to adjust it for risk, inflation, and liquidity
| before comparing to the car loan.
| i80and wrote:
| There are economic environments where this is true, but I
| think they tend to be the exception, not the rule. Car loan
| rates right now are quite steep.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| 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.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Most people don't live in your affluent bubble where,
| apparently, a $500 to $2,000 expense is a "small purchase".
| Always42 wrote:
| You don't need to pay $500 to $2000 for a phone. I don't
| think I have ever paid that much.
| Symbiote wrote:
| As you are probably aware, popular phones like the iPhone
| 15 and Samsung Galaxy S24 (#1 and #2 in the USA) are in
| that range, costing $700 and $1300 for the 'basic'
| models.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Somehow the rest of the world gets by with much cheaper
| phones.
| givinguflac wrote:
| I love this take-
|
| Sure, let's just ignore the disastrous adware, bloatware
| etc that also "subsidize" these cheaper phones, to say
| nothing of the actual capabilities or user experience of
| said devices.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Popular or not they are luxury goods, and a modern iphone
| can be had for a couple hundred bucks used (SE 2nd gen)
| nothercastle wrote:
| That's because subsidized plans don't encourage shopping
| for the lowest price. Consumers just see free phone and
| optimize to buy the most expensive free phone available.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Cheaper phones have a way higher value/$ ratio. Instead
| of financializing expensive phones the market should
| encourage cheaper phones through increased demand.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Who will fund R&D into new innovations then?
|
| Cheaper phones by definition have slimmer margins.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I'm not saying all phones should be cheap. The market for
| premium phones has and will continue to exist. And who's
| to say finding ways to reduce the cost to produce phones
| isn't innovation?
|
| I find that markets that are financialized where the
| price of the good is obfuscated are less efficient. This
| is because efficient markets rely on price discovery.
| Healthcare is an excellent example of this.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I think it's impossible to buy a phone from any of the
| major carriers online without seeing the full upfront
| price at least a few times on screen.
|
| And in store there's clearly the price tag right beside
| the demo model.
|
| So hard to see how its obsfucated like healthcare.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I buy cheap phones for projects so have experienced
| exactly this. If you go on any prepaid WISP site and look
| at their device selection ordered by lowest price there's
| always an asterisk and the quoted price is based on some
| kind of contract.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| The prepaid phone models available are usually the
| cheaper phones?
|
| Or is there some carrier that sells the expensive $1000+
| phones on prepaid plans?
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Typically the $1000+ premium phone market is for unlocked
| phones sold directly from the manufacturer.
|
| The locked phones are usually sub $250 and have some kind
| of finacial gimmick to get the sticker price lower. Often
| it will be some carrier specific model name. Just sort by
| price low to high and you'll find them.
| unsignedint wrote:
| You don't need to go for the cheapest phone, but I find
| the midrange, around $300-$400, to be the sweet spot.
| Sure, you could opt for something more expensive, but
| unless you have a specific need, the benefits won't be
| that noticeable. I'd rather put that extra money toward
| upgrading a PC instead. I chose a midrange Samsung for
| its practical customization options over stock Android,
| plus it comes with 4 promised updates. While it's not as
| long as the 7 years of updates from a Pixel,
| realistically, the battery will likely swell like a
| pillow before it even hits the 7th year anyway.
| brewdad wrote:
| 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.
| fragmede wrote:
| compared to a car (medium) or house (large)?
| solardev wrote:
| In my world, >$100 is a large purchase. A car is a huge
| purchase that happens maybe only 2-3x in a lifetime, and
| purchasing a house is something I hear about in history
| books, when apparently there used to be a middle class.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I guess it will really depend on the user or need. I
| won't consider putting down a down payment for anything
| under 4 figures without some absolutely worthwhile plan
| (credit cards can do that for me at that range). At that
| point I need to weigh between if I really need it or not.
|
| I even paid straight up for my current Laptop, some
| $2700. The only things in my life I threw a down payment
| on are furniture: my bed, my kitchen chair setup, and my
| patio furniture.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| I don't think GP meant that $500 to $2,000 is cheap, I
| think they meant a small purchase relative to something
| like a house.
|
| A better distinction is not small vs. large, but
| appreciating assets vs. depreciating. Houses tend to
| increase in value, so it's usually okay to finance
| (pandemics and market crashes are the exceptions) because
| you often make a profit when it's time to sell. Phones
| tend to decrease in value after purchase, so financing it
| just means you're losing even more money at the end.
| Phones are also fragile so it's common to break one and
| still have to make payments.
| qwertox wrote:
| If you know that you'll be buying a new phone every 3-4
| years, you might as well start saving towards it,
| regardless of it costing 200EUR, 500EUR or more. It's
| harder to do that with a car or a house.
| nine_k wrote:
| You speak as if a phone is gold bullion, which has no other
| value than to store value. Also note that time is also
| valuable, and can't be easily bought.
|
| There may be a really good reason for a not well-off family
| to get a new and advanced phone from the phone company, for
| a small monthly payment. They can't afford the upfront
| cost, and will pay more for a depreciating asset. On the
| other hand, they now may have a phone with a great camera
| to record their kid's school graduation, or other such
| event that only occurs once. Or they may finally use a
| smartphone with 4G / 5G to have good-quality video calls
| with some faraway friends or kin, which were a pain with
| their old phone. Etc.
|
| This still beats buying a new phone with a credit card, at
| 29.95% APR.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| I don't know, my phone carrier charges me zero interest to
| "buy" my phone on a 36 month loan because of it. It's not a
| huge financial windfall by any means, but it's absolutely
| money in my pocket.
| actionablefiber wrote:
| My family (parents, siblings) are asking me "How did our
| T-mobile phone bill balloon so much in the past decade?"
| and I can point to the slow creep and the plan changes they
| made that (without them knowing or anyone telling them) un-
| grandfathered them out of a favorable promotional plan. For
| instance my sister needed to increase her data cap about a
| few months before they moved our data to unlimited. It
| pushed her out of the promo and now the family plan costs
| $35/mo extra even though her line is getting the exact same
| things as mine, which is still on the promo pricing.
|
| Then I tell them they'd be better served by switching to an
| MVNO offering significantly better rates and they come back
| and tell me they're locked in for a while because they just
| financed new devices.
|
| I'm souring on the ways we create systems where you have to
| be super savvy and walk on eggshells with how you use the
| service and utter the right incantations or else you get
| hosed.
| treyd wrote:
| > I'm souring on the ways we create systems where you
| have to be super savvy and walk on eggshells with how you
| use the service and utter the right incantations or else
| you get hosed.
|
| These systems rely on intentionally leaving people in the
| dark to manufacture legitimacy under the guise that well-
| educated consumers can avoid the hidden fees and
| restrictions. It's the expected end state when these
| shady schemes are allowed to exist.
| tkluck wrote:
| Yes. It's the canonical (and, I think, original) example
| of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly .
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| That's assuming they stop collecting on that loan once it's
| paid off. When I worked at TMobile we'd have accounts with
| phones that were eligible to be unlocked, and which were
| eligible to be moved to a cheaper plan, and the policy was
| just to leave them as-is unless they said something.
| Retric wrote:
| In a competitive market 'free' interest deals just mean
| higher monthly premiums for basic service.
|
| AT&T's prepaid plans start at is 25$/month for unlimited
| calls & text, "Unlimited" data (After 16GB it degrades to
| 1.5mbps) + 10Gb tethering. Meanwhile their cheapest regular
| plan is 50$/month for worse service (4GB data).
|
| Sure they don't offer the best plans prepaid, but that's
| basic price discrimination.
| nine_k wrote:
| Hey, it's the cost of credit.
|
| With a prepaid plan, you credit the operator, because you
| pay upfront, and the service is rendered after it, and
| ceases if your balance goes below zero.
|
| With regular plans, the operator credits you, and you can
| be late with your payment for many days before the
| operator ceases servicing you.
|
| So it's a month worth if credit, plus a different risk
| profile.
|
| Also, it's market segmentation: the prepaid plan is the
| gateway drug %)
| brewdad wrote:
| I had one of those deals for 3 phones. I was paying $272 a
| month all in. Once I paid off the phones, I switched to an
| MVNO on the same carrier. I get the same level of service
| for $105 per month. My "free" phones cost me $168 x 24
| months = $4032 for phones that cost about $3000 combined at
| retail pricing.
|
| Never again.
| tedunangst wrote:
| There's a multitude of false claims that phone companies can
| make, but we should still expect journalists to report those
| claims accurately.
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| I've had a couple of people who are decidedly good at math
| (engineers) explain to me that, at least here in Canada, for
| at least one carrier, for at least one kind of phone (recent,
| high-end model iphones) _if_ you get out of the carrier
| contract the moment you can (2 years I think), you do get the
| phone for less than if you bought it outright and went on a
| market rate prepaid plan right away. Not even considering the
| interest free "instalment plan" that they are essentially
| buying it on.
|
| I guess the carriers still make money because once
| habituated, especially if they've never done the port-number-
| to-new-carrier thing, people stay in the high priced plan
| longer than necessary. Like the three years until they've
| truly paid the above-market price for the phone, and are now
| eligible for another "free" phone which they may not even
| take advantage of.
|
| For what it's worth, carrier locking phones has been illegal
| here for some years (and any phone from the locked era had to
| be unlocked for free for the asking after the law was
| changed) and it hasn't changed anything in terms of these
| rent-to-buy type carrier plans. So I don't know what the fuss
| is about. A contract is a contract.
| afavour wrote:
| 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.
| marinmania wrote:
| 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.
| crazygringo wrote:
| 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.
| stevesimmons wrote:
| Or they buy the phone with a credit contract, as happens in
| the rest of the world.
|
| If the major telcos only offer exorbitant interest rates,
| some other player will step in and offer the credit at
| better rates that fairly price the risk.
| skybrian wrote:
| The interest rate on a credit contract will depend on the
| default rate. Arguably, a phone company can offer loans
| on a locked phone for lower interest rates than anyone
| else could, because they can cut off service if the loan
| isn't paid, which is an incentive to actually pay it.
|
| I'm not all sure this is a good thing, but I can see the
| argument for why it might result in lower interest rates
| on phones.
|
| None of this is going to matter to people with good
| credit.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| ...alternatively, the cell companies will just sell
| unlocked phones with the subsidies, since you're still
| locked into the same 1-or-2-year contract that was paying
| for the locked phones. This won't stop them from making
| those precious fractions of a cent from bundled shitware.
| They'll still make their money.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Ars Technica has been downhill ever since Conde Nast bought
| them. So has Wired - sometimes the stupidity is just
| unreadable.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| They can still lock the user in with early termination fees
| roymurdock wrote:
| thanks for creating a meaningful dialogue here, wish ars would
| try to do the same
| darknavi wrote:
| Can't they do the same thing with statement credits? I got a
| Pixel on Google Fi that was $X and over the next 24 months I will
| get a statement credit of $X/24, so after two years it will be
| "free" if I stay with Google until then. Otherwise, I paid the
| difference.
| wmf wrote:
| Consumers, especially lower-income ones, mostly look at the
| sticker price. Paying upfront and getting a discount later is
| the opposite of what they want and carriers know this.
| neodymiumphish wrote:
| What do you mean? This is what they're doing. "Switch to
| [carrier name] and get the iPhone 16 Pro on us!" Then it's
| explained that it's all statement credit to cover the
| purchase price over X months.
| wmf wrote:
| The deal here is that if you commit to paying $xx/month for a
| year they will give you $yyy off a phone. It's not unreasonable
| but it's phrased in a deliberately confusing way to trigger
| cognitive biases in customers. Letting people break the contract
| after two months breaks this business model, so they simply won't
| offer it any more.
| iluvcommunism wrote:
| I used to have ATT for a little over ten years. I upgraded many
| phones with ATT next, etc. The final straw for me was when they
| said they never got the phone I sent back and billed me 1k or
| something. I saw the tracking number show it was delivered to a
| warehouse. Their organization/inventory is a joke.
| adolph wrote:
| Lock or not, the main story is that there is no OSS baseband.
| Locking would not be possible if people had the ability to choose
| the baseband software that best fit their needs.
|
| https://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/ProjectRationale
|
| https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64337/do-cell-p...
| renewiltord wrote:
| In the sense that being unable to discharge student loans is good
| for users, I presume.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Something something unfair to those who paid. Something
| something economy.
|
| Well life isn't fair and it's about time the not-rich
| benefitted from that sentiment.
|
| And I wonder if part of the US deficit comes from this horrible
| model of non-bankruptable loans given in the tune of 6 figures
| per individual that can never reasonably be paid off by most
| jobs. It's sure not like the public sector (you could at one
| point also provide 10 years of labor to pardon a loan) didn't
| fall into the same crap shoot of today's job market. So even
| that's not guaranteed way to stimulate labor.
|
| I paid my loans off in 3 years. I'm all for a reset to this
| model and forgiveness to those stuck in it.
| focusgroup0 wrote:
| >Wolf, coyote oppose pasture rule, claim cramped coops are good
| for chickens
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Locking phones is not at all a requirement for carriers to offer
| subsidized deals. They could offer phones on installment plans
| conditional on an N-month contract. The buyer could switch
| carriers and keep the phone, but be on the hook to pay off the
| rest of the contract term. The only reason to use technological
| locks is to further trap a customer into a carrier relationship
| beyond the legal terms of their contract. It's yet another
| example of companies violating long-standing rights and norms and
| getting away with it because there's a computer involved.
| cwyers wrote:
| The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier
| relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on
| consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates than
| others in the same business, e.g. Rent-A-Center. As I note
| downthread, `The total cost to buy a PS5 Slim is $500, the
| total cost to get a PS5 Slim through my nearest Rent-A-Center
| is $1,349.50.` You could introduce this pricing for iPhones for
| poor people too! This might even incentivize more people to use
| low-end Android hardware! But let's not act like this is 100% a
| good thing for everybody.
| happymellon wrote:
| > The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier
| relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on
| consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates
| than others in the same business
|
| How does it do that? Its a lock to force people to stick with
| a provider, and pay through the nose in other ways. Phone
| plan rates in the US are terrible, restricting peoples
| ability to change provider through artificial means doesn't
| provide better rates.
| labcomputer wrote:
| Because it greatly lowers the risk that AT&T will need to
| write off the debt for your phone and sell it to a
| collections agency for pennies on the dollar.
|
| It's the same difference as a home mortgage vs unsecured
| credit card debt: When the threat exists that the lender
| can repossess your home if you don't pay... they don't have
| to worry as much about you not paying your mortgage, so
| they can offer a much lower rate.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Maybe then they should put a lien on it and call it the
| phone title, not lock status.
| neodymiumphish wrote:
| You buy a phone for $1k, but you do it through your
| carrier, along with a $50/month plan. Because you're on
| this plan, the carrier offers $600 off the phone price,
| paid in account credit over 24 months ($25/month), so your
| total monthly bill becomes $67/month for 2 years, then
| $50/month at the end of 2 years.
|
| If, 3 months in, you find yourself unhappy with your
| carrier, you can still pay the remainder of your phone cost
| ($875) to own your phone outright and walk away. In that
| time, you've saved $75 off the full price of the phone.
|
| Arguing that US carrier prices are exorbitant is not
| relevant to whether carrier locks and phone discount
| credits are worthwhile or cost effective.
| jjmarr wrote:
| What happens when the buyer says "no, I'm not paying" and sells
| the phone?
|
| Instant money. Meanwhile the telecom company has to sell the
| debt at a massive discount to a collections agency or spend a
| ton of money collecting on it. That's assuming it can be
| collected on at all from someone that might just be running a
| scam.
|
| With a locked phone, the phone just stops working and loses
| most of its value.
|
| A rule forcing carriers to unlock phones after the term is up
| is fine. Forcing them to do it before is illogical. How many
| people are going to pay for two plans on one phone because they
| didn't like the first plan? I doubt it's more than those who
| will immediately abuse this rule and stop paying for the phone.
| I don't see the benefit to society here.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Being able to use a second carrier without cancelling a
| contract with the first is useful for international travel;
| the 'roaming' rate is often much higher than the normal rate
| of other countries' local telcos. Plus, mixing-and-matching
| plans can be advantageous to the user in certain situations
| even within one country. For example, data-only plans are
| typically cheaper than data+calls, but one might still want a
| very modest calls plan for infrequent use - sometimes, better
| value can be attained by combining two separate contracts. Of
| course, whether or not telcos ought to allow such use of
| their contract handsets is another question entirely!
| neodymiumphish wrote:
| If there's a big enough market for this use case, I suspect
| at least one carrier would do so. I'd imagine this would
| include some sort of payment in escrow, temporary unlock
| feature, or an optional add-on.
|
| Otherwise, folks in this position should just buy the phone
| outright and unlocked so they don't have any issues like
| you're describing.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| The carriers getting screwed is the point here. The sooner
| their anticompetitive behavior backfires on them the sooner
| they'll stop doing it.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Simple. Since the major carriers these days offer "interest
| free installments" on phones, with subsidies or billing
| credits to make the TCO cheaper... then when this happens,
| the carrier: 1) loses no interest payments, 2) may lose
| installment payments, but this is a credit risk anyway - onus
| is on them to assess risk to a point of acceptability to
| them, and 3) get to not pay out the subsidies or billing
| credit.
|
| All this amounts to is an additional layer of securing a
| loan. And pre-emptively so. "You cannot unlock this device
| because others may abuse this."
|
| Assess identity and credit risk better.
|
| I have little sympathy for the carriers, after having to
| fight Verizon over the claim that I, living in Seattle, and
| being an AT&T customer for a decade with 4-6 lines and
| devices, somehow decided to go to El Paso and buy a phone at
| a Walmart on Verizon, run it up making international calls
| and let it go to collections.
|
| After supplying their (onerous, tbh) info around identity,
| police report, current utility billing and such, VZW said "We
| are still satisfied that the debt is valid and belongs to
| you, after reviewing your documentation with documentation
| that was supplied when the account was opened". When I said
| "well, given that you have verified my identity, and given
| that you state that the documentation you have from the
| account says that it was I who opened the account, I'd like
| to see that documentation". Verizon: "We cannot provide that
| data to you as it may violate customer privacy". Schrodingers
| account holder. It's me when they want to collect money, it's
| not me when they're concerned about sharing "someone's" info
| or billing records...
| lancesells wrote:
| > What happens when the buyer says "no, I'm not paying" and
| sells the phone?
|
| This is just like any thing you get a loan for. It goes to
| collections and your credit gets hurt. Why would normal
| consumers have restrictions because of bad actors?
|
| AT&T operating income for 2023 was $23.5B and T-Mobile was
| $8.3B. Carriers are doing just fine.
| yoduhvegas wrote:
| dude i am in africa right now. i want to give my phone to the
| security guard and it is locked by t-mobile. it is annoying to
| unlock. unlocked phones are already common, let's make them
| ubiquitous.
| advael wrote:
| Of course they do. Every company doing predatory shit has some
| slick liars on payroll to come up with a story about how their
| lock-in policies and kafkaesque contract terms and surveillance
| and "opinionated design decisions" (or, "attempts to
| technologically control their users' behavior" for those who
| prefer plain English) are for your own good, actually, and any
| attempt to corral their behavior is an attack against their users
|
| The messaging of companies in regulatory cases has become rote
| and predictable as the sectors they occupy have grown more
| concentrated. There is no reason to heed it at all in the present
| environment
| stalfosknight wrote:
| The moral of the story is never buy your phone from the carrier.
| Buy it direct from the manufacturer and you won't have to deal
| with this drama.
| dylan604 wrote:
| That's like telling someone to pay cash for a car, or not to
| finance their home. So many people can afford a monthly fee,
| but not the large one time payment.
|
| It's not your finances, and it's not your place to tell someone
| else how to spend their money.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I'd argue that you should be seeking a used car if you're
| cost sensitive. That's sort of outdated advice in this absurd
| market, but the monthly payments for a car off the lot (new
| or used, if that's a thing) will probably be worse than
| saving that monthly payment yourself for 6 months and buying
| a beater to hold you over.
| neodymiumphish wrote:
| These are the same people often trading in a perfectly fine
| iPhone [n-2] for the latest iPhone n.
| 8xeh wrote:
| Or better yet, buy your phone from the used market. Get a phone
| in perfect shape that was $800 two or three years ago for $200.
| Put a new battery in it.
|
| Though I'm seriously considering going back to a $50 flip phone
| and enjoying the 2 weeks of battery life and general
| indestructibility. My current phone spends most of its time
| sitting on my desk doing nothing. It's hard to get excited
| about a newer and much BIGGER phone for $500 that will also
| spend most of its time sitting on my desk, doing nothing.
| xyst wrote:
| Even more of a reason to advocate for it.
| puppycodes wrote:
| Considering AT&T is basically an arm of the US government at this
| point i'm sure theres some infighting going on.
| puppycodes wrote:
| This is a calculated distraction from the fact they are
| monopolies.
| kelnos wrote:
| I generally don't have a problem with the trade where a customer
| gets a free or subsidized phone, and the carrier gets a more-or-
| less guaranteed customer for some agreed-upon time period. But:
|
| * The phone needs to unlock the instant the agreement/deal ends.
| Automatically, without the need to phone home to the carrier to
| get it done.
|
| * If the phone is on a payment plan, that shouldn't have anything
| to do with this; it should be unlocked from day one, and if the
| customer decides to switch carriers, they're still on the hook
| for paying out the rest of the payment plan, just like any other
| credit arrangement.
|
| * Carriers must be agnostic to the devices on their network. They
| should not be permitted to refuse to allow you to bring your own
| phone, as long as that phone has been certified by whatever
| relevant regulatory body as being compliant with the various
| mobile radio standards.
|
| I don't really get why there's so much consternation around this.
| If people want free or reduced-price things, sometimes they have
| to give something else in return.
|
| If they don't want to, they can buy a full-price, unlocked phone.
| As long as that option remains, I don't see the problem with
| carriers offering alternate terms.
|
| For once I do agree with the carriers here: if they're going to
| be required to unlock phones within that time period, it may no
| longer be financially tenable for them to offer free or
| subsidized phone deals anymore. And that may actually make it
| harder for some people to get a new phone as often as they're
| used to doing. On the Android side of the house, this does
| matter, since many Android phone manufacturers stop supporting
| their devices after only a couple years.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-21 23:00 UTC)