6 ms·
If only the FTC and/or Congress went after these anti consumer practices with the same vigor.
by LadyCailin 4y ago
If only the FTC and/or Congress went after these anti consumer practices with the same vigor.
- ars 4y agoThere is nothing anti consumer about a monthly payment plan for a phone. You are probably thinking of years ago where they would lock the phone, even if you paid for it. That's not the case with T-Mobile - as soon as the phone was paid off your monthly bill goes down (since you have finished the monthly payments), and they unlock it.
- harry8 4y agoyou know what, if the phone isn't paid off they can repo the thing. The end. Locking to a network is not justified for that or any other reason.
- acchow 4y agoDisagree. A used car might recover much of its value if repossessed, but not a used phone
- Dylan16807 4y agoThe suggestion is repossession instead of a lock. Locks recover zero value.
- kortilla 4y agoSure, but they certainly deter absconding in the first place.
- sennight 4y agoIt deters a lot more than that. Remember when you couldn't migrate phone numbers, before carriers were forced by regulators? So many NANP phone number blocks absconded... You know carriers have the same recourse as car dealerships for having their property stolen, right? More, because mobile phones are serialized tracking devices that can be remotely disabled with a simple addition to the IMEI blacklist.
- harry8 4y agoYou're really advancing the theory that locking it recovers its value in the hands of the defaulter so they can pay the creditor? But you can't sell the phone for its full price. Right. And guess what. You're liable for your debts either way. Hurrah. But hey if the phone is stolen they get a new customer to bilk while they bilk the poor victim of theft at the same time. You only lock because you know you are not competitive on price or service but have a slick sales technique. Lock 'em in so when they wake up they're toast. Network locking is foul, deceptive, dishonest and knowingly so. Hitch your wagon to that by all means...
- aaaaaaaaata 4y agoDon't lease them...?!?
- ars 4y agoYou know that repo companies lock the car if you don't pay? If the car is in motion they speed limit it, and once it turns off it won't go back on (sometimes they'll allow it to go on, but with a very low speed). I'm not sure the repo model is the one to copy here....... Basically the phone is not yours until you pay for it, if it's not yours they can lock it. It's not really that controversial. If they kept the lock after that they would be unethical, but they don't. (Phone companies did do that in the past though.)
- harry8 4y agoDon't know that no. Separate issue. Even more evil. That is not reposession and I don't know how that ever got to be legal. Look forward to those hacking stories...
- ars 4y agoFrom this and other replies you seem perfectly fine with stealing from companies. Until you pay for it, the object is not yours, I don't see why you are okay with hacking something that isn't yours.
- harry8 4y agoI think you're perfectly fine putting words into someone's mouth and drawing unwarranted inferences about their views and I think there's more evidence to back that view too. Doing so is crap, does not result in useful discussion and HN deserves better.
- CaptainZapp 4y agoI never got why they would do that. I had multiple subsidized phones with a couple of carriers, which were never locked. The contract was post payed and a minimum duration applied. I get why they would lock a phone on a pre payment plan. But since you're anyway bound to the contract, post payed, for the duration of the contract why lock the phone in the first place? Nowadays I just get a phone at retail and be done with it.