“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.
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?
It’s just a lie. I don’t think it’s meant to hold up to scrutiny, it’s just meant to be repeated.
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.
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
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.
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.
“Narcissistic domestic abuser claims the exit doors that are locked from both sides are just for the protection of their spouse and its in their best interest to be secure”
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 haven’t financed a phone since 2008. I copped a fee for ending a 24 month contract a day early.
I just buy a cheap outright handset, flash a community ROM and avoid everything my telco offers past a $20 basic service. Handsets with community support go for years past what the manufacturers support.
Is there a technical term for when a company or corporation makes a statement that is a blatant bad faith argument like that?
If none exists, I’d call it “Corporate massturbation”. Because they’re trying to jerk everyone off.
Edit Here’s another one: “Corporate Anal Ostriching.” Because they’re shoving their heads up their own asses
It’s always the same argument. “This objectively bad thing for consumers is actually good for consumers because it allows us to offer a lower price!”
No, dipshits, you are choosing to make your product shittier than necessary and charging customers to undo your shittery. That’s not some external thing, it’s something that you chose.
