Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

androidauthority.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 286 posts

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#21

Post by Shakahs »

486sx33 wrote: post #3
jalk wrote: post #2

Can't the operators just sell unlocked phones with monthly installments instead? The installment plan will then include free service for some amount of data/minutes. If the user chooses to switch operator, they are still bound by the installment contract to pay off the phone.

Yes, but let’s just say you got a 1200 device and only made the first two payments… jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier?

Currently the carrier will publish the phone's IMEI to a central blacklist, so the phone can't be used with any carrier that subscribes to the blacklist. Also iPhones can be activation blocked via Apple, which is entirely independent of the IMEI block done by carriers.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#22

Post by sp527 »

op7 wrote: post #20

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recove…

This argument has so many holes you could drive a Cybertruck through it.

There are ample used phone markets selling iPhones and top-of-the-line Android devices (e.g. Back Market). No one needs to be on the latest and greatest. I still use an iPhone 13 and I have friends on phones as old as iPhone 11. None of us are part of the "American lower class". Smartphones are a highly mature technology and the improvements being made year on year are now vanishingly incremental, at best.

Further, there is no shortage of financing models available to American consumers. If anything, Buy Now Pay Later might be *too* available as an option.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#24

Post by thisislife2 »

op7 wrote: post #20

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recove…

> people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore

And that's good - those who are financially constrained shouldn't be getting (enticed) into debt-traps by buying a brand-new high-priced device when really cheaper alternatives are available. Note that the article points out that Verizon already unlocks all their phones after 60 days due to a previous agreement with the FCC. So this has already been "tested" in the marketplace and Verizon hasn't wound up this business model of payment plans. The article also points out the consumer benefit of this FCC policy - once Verizon unlocks its phone, their customers have more freedom to try other services through trial eSims, while customers of AT&T and T-Mobile can't because of their (longer duration) locked phones.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#25

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

cogman10 wrote: post #12
jalk wrote: post #2

Can't the operators just sell unlocked phones with monthly installments instead? The installment plan will then include free service for some amount of data/minutes. If the user chooses to switch operator, they are still bound by the installment contract to pay off the phone.

The point is to lock the user into a contract with the carrier. By binding the phone to there service they make it unlikely that a user will switch providers as that would need a new phone while still paying off the old phone. That's why they'll offer these phones at low or no interest plans, so they can pull in the $50/month subscription for the years that the phone is being paid off.

What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month,

compared to a plan which costs $50 less per month, and a BNPL plan attached to the carrier which costs $50 per month?

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#26

Post by mystified5016 »

op7 wrote: post #20

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recove…

So your argument is that a cell carrier can't be profitable without entrapping poor people into long contracts with debt.

Therefore we must legally protect the rights of businesses to exploit people.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#27

Post by cherryteastain »

op7 wrote: post #20

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recove…

UK banned carrier locked phones outright [1] and poor people can afford phones just fine.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54692179

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#28

Post by ukoki »

op7 wrote: post #20

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recove…

You know people can finance just about any purchase right?

People buy cars on finance all the time without needing to buy their cars through BP and signing an exlusive gas purchasing agreement with them. There's no reason for the phone to be tied to the carrier.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#29

Post by toast0 »

486sx33 wrote: post #3
jalk wrote: post #2

Can't the operators just sell unlocked phones with monthly installments instead? The installment plan will then include free service for some amount of data/minutes. If the user chooses to switch operator, they are still bound by the installment contract to pay off the phone.

Yes, but let’s just say you got a 1200 device and only made the first two payments… jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier?

Credit reporting and collections.

There's a reason carriers pull credit reports for post paid accounts and 'free' phone promos right?

Although, personally, I prefer to be on the prepaid side of the carrier. I'm not getting a promotional phone, and I'm not paying for it in my monthly rate, so if my phone works for more than two years, I'm saving money. And I don't really need to use secret handshake financing... I'd rather pay $17/month for my plan and pay for a phone when I need it.

That said, T-Mobile tried being the 'uncarrier' and charging fairer prices for service and financing phones directly, and it must not have worked as well as carrier norms because they reverted to secret handshake financing.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#30

Post by FireBeyond »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #25
cogman10 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to lock the user into a contract with the carrier. By binding the phone to there service they make it unlikely that a user will switch providers as that would need a new phone while still paying off the old phone. That's why they'll offer these phones at low or no interest plans, so they can pull in the $50/month subscription for the years that the phone is being paid off.

What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month, compared to a plan which costs $50 less per month, and a BNPL plan attached to the carrier which costs $50 per month?

> What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month

That phone is generally not given away - the only phones "given away" are generally low end. $1200 flagship phones come at the cost of a contract on the line AND a monthly payment for the device that pays for it in full.

Post reply on HN