12 ms·

>I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway. It doesn't make sense if they just want to lock just me, but it

>I don't understand why carriers feel the need to SIM-lock a phone that's on a contract anyway. It doesn't make sense if they just want to lock just me, but it does make a lot of sense if they want to lock others. Say I have a phone that I plan to replace with a fancier one when my """upgrade""" is due. I can pass the old phone on to my little brother or little cousin or sell it on eBay. If it's unlocked, the new owner of the old phone could pop their SIM in and use it with any carrier they like. If it's locked, then they have to also use the same network that the old phone was on, which means they also have to, in general, sign up for it. If I'm not there to help them unlocking it before I pass it on, then the new owner will have a very hard time, at least in my experience, to ask the carrier to unlock it. If I decide that's too much hassle to deal with and don't want to call them to wait for days for them to push the unlock update for me, I can keep the phone in my drawer. In that case, there is one less used phone in the supply so that carrier can sell more new phones. Either I pass on or I don't, locking the phone is a win for the carrier. Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone. I know about the MVNOs compatibility and stuff, but let's be honest, most people will use a carrier-branded phone with that exact branded carrier. > In fact, isn't it better for the operator if the customer uses their phone on another network, that way they get the monthly payments without even having to provide a service in return. I suspect the huge chunk of the cost to the carrier is a fixed investment. The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you. It doesn't matter that much to them that you actually use their tower or not. The service they provide to you monthly doesn't cost them nothing more. The fact isn't that they are saving cost if they can get away with not providing service to a phone that is paid off. The fact is that if they can get my teenage cousin on their network, it is a huge huge win for them because he/she will likely pump them with $50/month payment for the next 10 years. Just because one day, I decided that it was nice of me to """give""" my used phone to them.

Aaargh20318 8y ago
> Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone. Carriers in my country don't sell locked phones anymore for the reasons mentioned earlier. The last time I bought a locked phone on contract was the iPhone 3G. Even back then selling a locked phone on contract was extremely rare and IIRC only the iPhone was sold like that back then. After a year, it just unlocked without me asking for it, I didn't need to do anything except plug it into iTunes, which I used to do anyway. That probably isn't even needed anymore as you don't have to sync with iTunes for carrier updates since forever. > The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you. If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people.
- jimmies 8y ago
  You were asking why carriers lock phones, presumably, that question is for the market that does that, which is the US market. Then you said they don't do that in your country. Then that's good for you, but that has nothing to do with my answer. In a market that carriers don't do that, if someone pulls that bullshit, they will be boycotted. In a market that everyone does that like the US, you as a business are better off colluding with that practice. The reason they don't do that in your market is that they can't, not because it doesn't make business sense. >If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people. Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"? Say I hire a person that is capable of supporting 1000 customers a month. I pay the person $4k per month. By cutting that person I save $4k per month. If I actually get 1000 customers more and each customer pays me $50 per month, I get $50k. $4k per month for that support person is peanuts to the amount of revenue I get. In most cases, cutting cost is the solution only when I know I can't possibly expand.
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    My point was that they used to do that in my country, but they stopped as it is completely pointless. Phone contracts usually last at least a year, and they have to unlock after a year anyway. > Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"? But the point is that they do not have fewer subscribers, they have the same amount of paying subscribers, they just have to provide fewer services to those subscribers. To re-use your example: if you get 1000 customers more but none of them ever calls the helldesk, then you get paid for those 1000 customers, but you don't have the costs associated with those 1000 customers. That's a win/win for the phone company.

Aaargh20318 8y ago

> Don't know how it is now (I haven't purchased a used phone for a while), but the carriers I dealt with often asked for the account numbers and waiting and shit to """verify""" the original owner and make it as hard, slow, and painful as possible to unlock a secondhand phone. Carriers in my country don't sell locked phones anymore for the reasons mentioned earlier. The last time I bought a locked phone on contract was the iPhone 3G. Even back then selling a locked phone on contract was extremely rare and IIRC only the iPhone was sold like that back then. After a year, it just unlocked without me asking for it, I didn't need to do anything except plug it into iTunes, which I used to do anyway. That probably isn't even needed anymore as you don't have to sync with iTunes for carrier updates since forever. > The person they paid to answer the support line gets the payment regardless whether they sit there playing solitaire or helping you. If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people.

jimmies 8y ago
You were asking why carriers lock phones, presumably, that question is for the market that does that, which is the US market. Then you said they don't do that in your country. Then that's good for you, but that has nothing to do with my answer. In a market that carriers don't do that, if someone pulls that bullshit, they will be boycotted. In a market that everyone does that like the US, you as a business are better off colluding with that practice. The reason they don't do that in your market is that they can't, not because it doesn't make business sense. >If fewer people actually use that carrier, they need fewer support people. Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"? Say I hire a person that is capable of supporting 1000 customers a month. I pay the person $4k per month. By cutting that person I save $4k per month. If I actually get 1000 customers more and each customer pays me $50 per month, I get $50k. $4k per month for that support person is peanuts to the amount of revenue I get. In most cases, cutting cost is the solution only when I know I can't possibly expand.
- Aaargh20318 8y ago
  My point was that they used to do that in my country, but they stopped as it is completely pointless. Phone contracts usually last at least a year, and they have to unlock after a year anyway. > Has any CEO of any carrier or company ever said: "Oh geez, I wish I had fewer subscribers so I can cut the cost of operating this company"? But the point is that they do not have fewer subscribers, they have the same amount of paying subscribers, they just have to provide fewer services to those subscribers. To re-use your example: if you get 1000 customers more but none of them ever calls the helldesk, then you get paid for those 1000 customers, but you don't have the costs associated with those 1000 customers. That's a win/win for the phone company.