Never buy a phone from your carrier, they will do some evil shit to try and force you to stay
So the story is ‘if they have to be unlocked, we can’t offer discounts on the phones’.
Okay fine but uh, the last time I used a post-paid subsidized phone, I signed a contract. That stipulated how much I’d pay for however many months, and what the early cancellation fee was, as well as what the required buy-out for the phone was if I left early.
In what way is that insufficient to ensure that a customer spends the money to justify the subsidy?
Yes you signed a contract. That contract has a certain value to it, and that value offsets the cost to them of the phone.
On your side, the fact that this contract came with a subsidized phone made it worth it to you.
What the carriers are saying is that this set of interrelated contracts won’t be available, and so these terms won’t be worthwhile to the parties involved, leading to a change in future contracts. Namely, the service contracts will have to be more expensive to them, which will make them less valuable to you, which will make them less likely to happen.
Bonus points: In Germany all phones come unlocked, regardless if you get them with a contract or not, and we still get much better discounts on the phones than in America.
Often times the total cost of the 24 month contract ends up being cheaper than buying the phone without a contract, so you essentially end up with a free phone plan
This is not me defending any telecom, but locking subsidized phones during the contract period, is one of the only reasonably legitimate use cases for carrier locking.
And the reason is simple, fraud. Carrier locked phones that have been reported for fraud/nonpayment, can’t be used off network. It doesn’t help recover the cost for the carrier, but it does deter that type of fraud.
Whereas unlocked phones can just be taken to another network, which means they’re resale value is worth the effort to steal in the first place.
Now, all that is true, but that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of it, or that telecoms have ever made unlocking fully paid phones easy, they haven’t, so fuck them.
And before anyone points it out, yes, I’m aware locked phones still have have value for fraud, but that fraud typically has a higher threshold for entry, as it involves having the contacts who can leverage overseas black markets.
Not even unlocked phones can be used on another (us) carrier if reported stolen, all IMEIs associated with the device are blacklisted across all legal carriers in the country.
No, they are not. Blacklists are per carrier, at least when dealing with American primary carriers, and not MVNOs.
No, it’s nationwide, all carriers and mvnos are signed on to the US Block Status since IMEI became standard. It’s a separate list from the global GSMA and not all carriers in the US report to the GSMA like they should,but if a device is reported lost or stolen in the US it cannot be activated by a US carrier until resolved.
Except I have used unlocked IMEI blacklisted devices on different carriers, so if one exists in theory, it doesn’t appear to be there in practice.
That’s exactly right. Users will have to purchase phones on credit like we do for every other major (and sometimes minor) purchase. This doesn’t change the relationship between carriers and their customers at all. It only changes their accounting.
Accounting is a relationship. When the government prevents a specific type of relationship — one consenting adults are regularly choosing to enter — the result is a change in relationships.
It’s just a lie. I don’t think it’s meant to hold up to scrutiny, it’s just meant to be repeated.
What are you saying is a lie? What claim exactly?
Missing in this thread, courts are not known for their technological literacy. So companies just lie to them. Like, all the time. This isn’t meant to withstand consumer scrutiny.
Are you suggesting that there are some lies involved in this? If so, you shouid be specific about which lies you’re referring to. Without the specifics this just seems like FUD.
Locked phones are what led me into the rabbit hole of purchasing phones from manufacturer, since the carriers not only lock phones but hobble the OS.
It did mean understanding what was necessary for a phone to qualify for given carriers, but I can tech when I need to, and I tech for my friends when they need it.
In 2024, T Mobile and AT&T (and Verizon) have all demonstrated they do not engage in good faith commerce, and so right now they’re being sniveling little shits (quote me please) because the FCC and DoC are escaping regulatory capture.
That is to say, the end users are tired of their shit. Apple and Google, too.
What exactly is “good faith commerce”?
That doesn’t seem to register as a coherent concept, considering good faith has to do with considering the whole of the interaction instead of one’s own side, and business is when each person handles only their own side of the equation.
Seems like an empty phrase to me, unless you can enlighten me.
My T-Mobile phone that’s been unlocked and moved over to Google Fi has the T-Mobile image whenever you start up the phone. I’ll only buy phones directly from the manufacturer now.
“Taking away peoples freedom is whats best for users! It’s the American way!”
The FCC is the one taking away people’s freedom here, by preventing users from entering the kind of contract that T-Mobile and AT&T are offering.
Consenting adults are happy to sign up on those terms, and the FCC is proposing to prevent that arrangement.
The carriers make an excellent point that without that lock-in, the sale of the phone is less valuable to them. This means they won’t be able to offer the heavy subsidies on phones any longer.
This is the government preventing contracts between consenting adults. The government is reducing freedom here.
For my past 3 phones I just bought straight from the manufacturer.
I recommend it and hope phone unlocking gets pushed through despite their whining
I’ve done this almost from the very beginning (back in the 90s) and always had very small mobile communications costs because I could easilly change providers and plans and even do things like use a local SIM card whilst abroad to avoid roaming costs.
Near monopolies say monopolistic behavior is good for you and does not only benefit them. More bullshit at 11.
You know what the difference between a near monopoly and an actual monopoly is?
In one scenario there’s competition and in the other one there’s not. Basically one’s a monopoly and the other isn’t.
If near monopolies agree to rules sets with one another, they can effectively monopolize. That’s why there are regulations in place to prevent that behavior but we’re consistently seeing the lack of enforcement of those rules. Sure there are still other telecoms other than these two, but in the US each of the major telecoms are guilty of this sort of behavior, and while phone unlock is allowed they create unnecessary barriers to make it more difficult for consumers to do this, at the benefit of themselves. It’s similar malicious compliance to providing an ability to cancel a subscription but making it difficult to do so for consumers so they give up trying.
