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

281–286 of 286 posts

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

#281

Post by dghlsakjg »

lazide wrote: post #280
dghlsakjg wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we have a measure that is, at best, “marginally effective” as a theft deterrent by your phrasing and actively harms consumers while actively benefitting the entities that artificially impose it. The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.

You seem to think marginal == zero. Which is the part that is confusing me.

You seem to think that I have said there is a marginal reduction in theft due to carrier locks. I do not think that is the case at all, and I have said so.

I am arguing that the reduction in theft due to carrier locks is 0. You are arguing that it is small (marginal).

I am saying that no matter what, the actual cost of the carrier lock to the consumer (as demonstrated by used phone values on eBay), is far higher than whatever marginal benefit you are arguing for.

It is a massive net loss to the consumer, and the only guaranteed beneficiary is the wireless carrier.

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

#282

Post by night862 »

lazide wrote: post #279
night862 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the cost of stolen goods is zero or near zero in this case. The profit margin approaches infinity.

Opportunity cost and cost of consequences are far from zero. Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage. It only appears to approach infinity if you ignore reality and consequences, which is often how criminals think. But it is not the actual truth, eh?

Not at all, no petty theft is deterred by the criminal thinking, “oh no, what if it’s locked!”

They aren’t making a wage at all. They are doing something else.

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

#283

Post by Forgeties79 »

lazide wrote: post #279
night862 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the cost of stolen goods is zero or near zero in this case. The profit margin approaches infinity.

Opportunity cost and cost of consequences are far from zero. Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage. It only appears to approach infinity if you ignore reality and consequences, which is often how criminals think. But it is not the actual truth, eh?

>Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.

I know people hate "Source?" as a reply but I think this claim really needs a source.

There is also the assumption that everyone has access to a job, which depending on where you are and what you're background is (we are very hostile to people with disabilities, physical "deformities" that people find unpleasant to look at, felony convictions, etc.) may or may not be true. A lot of folks turn to theft out of desperation.

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

#284

Post by lazide »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #283
lazide wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opportunity cost and cost of consequences are far from zero. Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage. It only appears to approach infinity if you ignore reality and consequences, which is often how criminals think. But it is not the actual truth, eh?

>Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage. I know people hate "Source?" as a reply but I think this claim really needs a source. There is also the assumption that everyone has access to a job, which depending on where you are and what you're background is (we are very hostile to people with disabilities, physical "deformities" that people find unpleasant to look at, felony convictions, etc.) may…

It depends on what you mean by crime, income, etc. and what factors you consider - but as you note, people often start out desperate, and then escalate because crime doesn’t really solve the desperation. Some crimes do produce good income, relative to the same effort in a legal occupation, but most don’t. And in many (but not all cases) the people involved can’t actually get equivalent legal work. So it is difficult to compare.

However, [https://journalistsresource.org/economics/illegal-income-cri...] and [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723522...]

Are interesting reading.

For the most part, crime doesn’t pay when you add all the costs involved. Society works very hard to make it that way.

Unless you’re pimping, higher up in organized crime, etc.

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

#285

Post by lazide »

night862 wrote: post #282
lazide wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opportunity cost and cost of consequences are far from zero. Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage. It only appears to approach infinity if you ignore reality and consequences, which is often how criminals think. But it is not the actual truth, eh?

Not at all, no petty theft is deterred by the criminal thinking, “oh no, what if it’s locked!” They aren’t making a wage at all. They are doing something else.

They are spending time trying to get money by stealing and fencing things.

If they can’t turn around and sell/fence it for much, that definitely deters the ‘business model’.

If someone is doing this for 12 hours/day and clearing $100/day (or less) all said and done, that limits who and where that will happen.

If they are clearing $2000/day, that expands the pool a lot eh?

You can definitely see it in areas with predominantly iPhones as phone theft just isn’t a thing since Apple did their remote bricking thing.

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

#286

Post by lazide »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #281
lazide wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think marginal == zero. Which is the part that is confusing me.

You seem to think that I have said there is a marginal reduction in theft due to carrier locks. I do not think that is the case at all, and I have said so. I am arguing that the reduction in theft due to carrier locks is 0. You are arguing that it is small (marginal). I am saying that no matter what, the actual cost of the carrier lock to the consumer (as demonstrated by used phone values on eBay), is far higher than…

Okay, but that isn’t what the discussion was about eh?
Post reply on HN