3 ms·

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 i

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.
- jimmies 8y ago
  >and they have to unlock after a year anyway. Your point is that it's pointless to lock it if you have to unlock it without the customer asking. That makes sense if you have to do it automatically. The carriers in the US don't have to. They have to only if the paying customer asked first, and after the contract expires, and with a whole bunch of other conditions met. >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. You are seeing it in an extremely short term. Let's say I pass on my 2-year contract phone originally on AT&T to my cousin who wishes to use it on Tmobile at the point of 1 year and 5 months. Your argument was that since I already had to pay for 2 years, AT&T will save the troubles of serving and supporting my cousin for 7 months if he actually brings it on on TMobile. Your genius plan of being AT&T and not serving my cousin for 7 months only works if you know for sure after that 7 months of free service ends, he will switch anyway. Any carrier will happily provide services if that means they have a legitimate chance of having a subscriber on board. Who cares about giving a potential 10-year subscriber a 7-month head start (especially when that cost is already accounted for)? >That's a win/win for the phone company. Nobody ever says having a customer to switch to another network is a win for them.
scherezade 8y ago
Seems like the US telecom industry is ripe for some major disruption. What if a company comes in and start treating its customers right? They'll have millions eager to sign up. Or at least that's how capitalism was explained to me at highschool.
- jimmies 8y ago
  Being ethical was neither the main catalyst/competitive edge nor the implication of capitalism. You stay on top in a capitalistic market by being competitive, not by being ethical. Whoever taught you that pro-capitalism ideals in high school was just as delusional as the person who taught me the pro-socialism ideals in high school -- if not more. At least I believe most people who recite all the pro-socialism ideals in socialist countries are well aware that they are bullshit but just doing it for the money and safety.

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.

jimmies 8y ago
>and they have to unlock after a year anyway. Your point is that it's pointless to lock it if you have to unlock it without the customer asking. That makes sense if you have to do it automatically. The carriers in the US don't have to. They have to only if the paying customer asked first, and after the contract expires, and with a whole bunch of other conditions met. >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. You are seeing it in an extremely short term. Let's say I pass on my 2-year contract phone originally on AT&T to my cousin who wishes to use it on Tmobile at the point of 1 year and 5 months. Your argument was that since I already had to pay for 2 years, AT&T will save the troubles of serving and supporting my cousin for 7 months if he actually brings it on on TMobile. Your genius plan of being AT&T and not serving my cousin for 7 months only works if you know for sure after that 7 months of free service ends, he will switch anyway. Any carrier will happily provide services if that means they have a legitimate chance of having a subscriber on board. Who cares about giving a potential 10-year subscriber a 7-month head start (especially when that cost is already accounted for)? >That's a win/win for the phone company. Nobody ever says having a customer to switch to another network is a win for them.

scherezade 8y ago

Seems like the US telecom industry is ripe for some major disruption. What if a company comes in and start treating its customers right? They'll have millions eager to sign up. Or at least that's how capitalism was explained to me at highschool.

jimmies 8y ago
Being ethical was neither the main catalyst/competitive edge nor the implication of capitalism. You stay on top in a capitalistic market by being competitive, not by being ethical. Whoever taught you that pro-capitalism ideals in high school was just as delusional as the person who taught me the pro-socialism ideals in high school -- if not more. At least I believe most people who recite all the pro-socialism ideals in socialist countries are well aware that they are bullshit but just doing it for the money and safety.