3 ms·

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 hav

by Aaargh20318 9y 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 9y 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.

jimmies 9y 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.