4 ms·

It would be great but it won't happen. Humans are genetically predisposed to wanting things that are free (even if, in reality, they only seem free). Number po

It would be great but it won't happen. Humans are genetically predisposed to wanting things that are free (even if, in reality, they only seem free). Number portability means carriers can't offer phones at steep discounts without the contract. People figure "I'm going to have a cell phone for the next 2 years anyway, I might as well just pick one carrier and get it for free."

joshhart 17y ago
Not sure about that entirely. Remember when computers were given away free with 3 years of AOL sign up in the late 90's? That fad only lasted a while.
- brg 17y ago
  At that time the subscription fees did not cover the cost of the hardware. Subscription fees were also falling due to decreasing barriers of entry into dialup and internet providers. Alternatives such as advertising did not cover the cost of the net-pcs either. For cellular phones, the $200-300 hardware cost is easily recouped over two years on a $70.00 monthly plan.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Not only that, AOL didn't last long after that.
laut 17y ago
It is already reality to a certain degree outside of the US. The difference can likely be explained by how some combination of the economics, regulation, politics, culture, geography is different in the US.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  As has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, the fact that there are multiple cellular radio standards in the USA (GSM and CDMA), combined with the fact that network coverage in the USA is so spotty (my colleagues in the Bay Area can't stop complaining about the poor AT&T coverage, whereas my AT&T coverage north of Boston is fine) means that you effectively don't have much choice of carrier. Once you choose a home and a phone you're very nearly stuck with one carrier. So unless you see yourself switching your service on and off over time, or you enjoy switching hardware more often than once every 24 months, there's no real disadvantage to signing the evil contract.
  - doron 17y ago
    I will admit first ignorance on cellular radio standard, but i'm quite sure its possible to build a CDMA and GSM all in one phone, that are activated based on availability and carrier. I would love to get a droid phone that does just that.
dagw 17y ago
Give people the choice between a free phone and $60 a month or the same contract for $30 a month and no free phone, and I see no reason why many people wouldn't choose the second option. Personally I prefer to optimize my finances to minimize my monthly bills, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
- orangecat 17y ago
  Give people the choice between a free phone and $60 a month or the same contract for $30 a month and no free phone, and I see no reason why many people wouldn't choose the second option. That's because you have a basic understanding of math and finance, unlike an alarmingly large percentage of the population.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Right. Most people pay more taxes than they need to on purpose out of each pay check so they get a refund at the end of the year. People who are so bad at savings that they want the government to hold their money are taking the contract.

joshhart 17y ago

Not sure about that entirely. Remember when computers were given away free with 3 years of AOL sign up in the late 90's? That fad only lasted a while.

brg 17y ago
At that time the subscription fees did not cover the cost of the hardware. Subscription fees were also falling due to decreasing barriers of entry into dialup and internet providers. Alternatives such as advertising did not cover the cost of the net-pcs either. For cellular phones, the $200-300 hardware cost is easily recouped over two years on a $70.00 monthly plan.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Not only that, AOL didn't last long after that.

laut 17y ago

It is already reality to a certain degree outside of the US. The difference can likely be explained by how some combination of the economics, regulation, politics, culture, geography is different in the US.

mechanical_fish 17y ago
As has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, the fact that there are multiple cellular radio standards in the USA (GSM and CDMA), combined with the fact that network coverage in the USA is so spotty (my colleagues in the Bay Area can't stop complaining about the poor AT&T coverage, whereas my AT&T coverage north of Boston is fine) means that you effectively don't have much choice of carrier. Once you choose a home and a phone you're very nearly stuck with one carrier. So unless you see yourself switching your service on and off over time, or you enjoy switching hardware more often than once every 24 months, there's no real disadvantage to signing the evil contract.
- doron 17y ago
  I will admit first ignorance on cellular radio standard, but i'm quite sure its possible to build a CDMA and GSM all in one phone, that are activated based on availability and carrier. I would love to get a droid phone that does just that.

dagw 17y ago

Give people the choice between a free phone and $60 a month or the same contract for $30 a month and no free phone, and I see no reason why many people wouldn't choose the second option. Personally I prefer to optimize my finances to minimize my monthly bills, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

orangecat 17y ago
Give people the choice between a free phone and $60 a month or the same contract for $30 a month and no free phone, and I see no reason why many people wouldn't choose the second option. That's because you have a basic understanding of math and finance, unlike an alarmingly large percentage of the population.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Right. Most people pay more taxes than they need to on purpose out of each pay check so they get a refund at the end of the year. People who are so bad at savings that they want the government to hold their money are taking the contract.