"prison warden advocates for locking everyone up for their own safety"
The network providers know full well that the market is saturated and that they have to make a better offer if they want to gain market share. The only thing device lock in does is improve their bottom line since they can force you into a shitty contract for longer. It has NO benefit for the consumer whatsoever.
"consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers."
I can’t stress this enough: It’s almost always cheaper to pay full price for a phone, plus a pay-over-time fee through your credit card if needed, and use a prepaid MVNO instead of a major carrier.
So what they really mean is “we risk losing profits on our inflated rates if we can’t trap customers in our overpriced plans and play games with their bills.”
Honestly, it is such an obvious lie, too. Can companies really just lie in their filings to the FTC?
They can, they do and they won't stop.
They will also lie right to your face
They lie when advertising
Companies lie. They need to lie. If they don't lie, and actually told the truth...they wouldn't be in business anymore.
Here in the UK, it generally used to be 1 year, then moved to 18 month, then two year "contracts" (that are essentially paying for the phone). They will of course (if you don't realise) continue to charge you the increased price after you've paid for your phone...
Recently I was looking at upgrading, almost clicked confirm on a price that seemed suspicious. Until I saw "48 month contract"
Nope. Bought the phone outright, interest free credit over 1 year (I'm done with that in 3 more months). A few months later, swapped to one of the "virtual" networks we have here. £8 per month (first 3 £3), unlimited/unlimited/30GB data (I don't need much), plus roaming to Europe (a frequent destination of mine) included.
100% here it works out a LOT cheaper not to buy through the provider. I have no doubt it's the same pretty much everywhere too.
If a business wants it, then it isn't good for the consumer.
Also, the only time a business should be talking to Congress is to explain why they did something, not for new laws. Last time I checked, Congress was supposed to serve the people, not businesses, but I know that has t been true for a long time.
Business is people, money is speech, war is peace.
so good, in fact, I buy my phones on eBay! they're unlocked, debloated, and rootable.
I prefer swappa, it is a used market just for phones and I have had good experiences with it.
This is the way.
I have never bought/rented a phone through a carrier. And I've always used no bullshit prepaid plans. For exactly the same reasons.
We need another flavor of the 1980s telecom antitrust. All phones should be sold 100% unlocked. All carriers should not be allowed to sell phones with custom software configurations (Verizon is the worst for this) or neutered basic band support that makes the phone difficult if not impossible to use on competing carriers. All phones should be as interchangeable as they are currently capable of. Predatory carrier financing deals should be heavily regulated. No more trapping people in multi-year financing pyramid schemes. Basic communications methods for voice, image, video, text, video call, data should be forcibly standardized on all brands.
These companies were given a long leash, and they just abused it.
Some good ideas, but check out my comment for some counterpoints, I'm not writing it out twice. 😉
Unlocked phones are what people want. Unlocked phones are good for customers.
This is true, but there's far more to it than that. I'm going to preface my story by saying at one time in my past I was technically a part of the massive, glaring problem that gave rise to locking, unlocking phones.
Many years ago! The Samsung Galaxy S3 came out & it was awesome. I think the carrier & other places were trying to sell it for $300 with a fucking 2-yr contract, or $700 street, etc. Now it's important to note that this was 2012, when the USD was worth at least half a damn & money was harder to get. So $700 outright is $953.78 today, no small fee. And a 2-yr contract?? Get fucked, my guy.
So I hop on Craigslist & I see this guy selling a brand new SGS3 for $300. Too good to be true! Or is it? I asked all kinds of questions, basically confirmed it was legit. Then I'm about to go meet him & he asks me, what color do you want? And I was like wtf?? How do I get choice? I think I got blue, idk? He asked if I wanted more phones, again I was flabbergasted, and I said sure my dad could use one... He'll want white.. He said he'd explain everything when we met, just bring $300 cash for each phone. And he did explain.
Turns out the guy was a bum. He was jobless, soon to be homeless, wanted fast cash & didn't care how he got it. These phones were easy to obtain, and he worked out a system where he could basically get infinite plans & infinite phones under his name. Once the phone passed hands...it became mine. And there was nothing the carrier could do about it.
He bought all his phones via a credit card, and he just racked up a huge-ass balance that he had zero intention of paying off. He's selling these brand new "under contract" phones for cold, hard cash. Thousands of dollars. Eventually everybody would get wise, his CC debt would default, he'd absolutely RUIN his credit. But he didn't care & he was planning to disappear.
Unethical behavior. If everyone acted the way he did, things wouldn't work. But at the time it really helped me, and my dad, and a few of my friends immensely. This is also back when smartphone upgrades were huge & actually meant something. We justified it as such: if we didn't buy the phones, he'd just sell them to somebody else. So why shouldn't we benefit?
Do you think this bum was the only guy that figured that out, that worked the system in such a manner? Nah. Who knows how much money the cell carriers & CC companies were hemorrhaging...and on bums, no less. ¯\(°_o)/¯ Lo & behold, a year or two later they rolled out cell phone/carrier locking. Your very expensive phone was locked down...until it was paid off in full. I'm sure it was in part because of the smartphone hustlers.
Now I am well aware this is Lemmy, the land of socialists, communists who want handjobs & $30 cutting edge smartphones for everybody. T-Mobile, AT&T, & CC companies be damned. But any costs or thievery done to these companies will eventually be passed on to the honest consumers to foot the bill. So...no. Unlocking phones for people who haven't paid off their contracts in full would not be good for the consumer. Because of thieves & bums.
That is a ridiculous take. All you're talking about really is changing the amount of debt that guy racks up before the end - he can still do the exact same thing with non-contract unlocked phones, just has to pay the $700 with the CC and not sign a contract. It really has nothing to do with locked or unlocked phones. It doesn't even have anything to do with phones, dude could have done the same thing with anything with decent resale value - I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of things for sale "NIB" on ebay aren't the same situation.
The phone companies were not "hemorrhaging" money over this, they got paid by the bank. Banks issuing credit cards, maybe, but only so much money as they were willing to loan out in the form of a credit limit. That risk is there for them with every CC they issue and has nothing to do with phones.
Carrier locking phones is about keeping consumers prisoner, same as the predatory contracts. I have a cabinet full of old Sprint phones from about a decade on their plans that they would never unlock, well after their contracts were up, because they wanted me to just keep renewing... Please don't stan the most obvious monopolies of our time...
Lies lies lies lies lies, as always
How about the government subsidizes the cost of the phone for needy customers rather than the reseller.
Are there any other industries where a product or service is subsidized by the reseller? What if, like dental insurance, there were a cell phone insurance company.
I mean, locking phones is stupid to begin with but if it's for a small segment of people who want $0 / cheap AF phones, maybe there's other options. I'm on ATT's site and see a Moto Razr with a retail price of $1k and a payment plan of $6/month for 36 months ($216). The Ts & Cs to get there are lengthy and questionable. The whole industry needs more regulation for the protection of consumers - especially given how critical having a cell phone is in the 21st century.
I believe we already have this to some extent in the States via the SafeLink programs.
At the federal level: https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers
How about the telecoms STFU and let people use loans/credit cards if they need them. Using a phone plan to buy a phone costs dramatically more than just financing one through normal means and US phone plans are insanely expensive. I'm in Spain right now, my phone plan is 5€/mo and it has plenty of data.
If you believe that mobile phone pricing is equal to the price that you get at the operator's store, then by all means remove the network lock. But it isn't and you should know that.
Overall, US operator's have overpriced their services. That is the issue that should have your focus.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.