4 ms·

Gross. Locking phones to a carrier is clearly an anti-competitive practice that should have been found to be illegal ages ago.

by troad 4y ago

lotsofpulp 4y ago
So people should be legally forbidden from being able to accept a subsidized phone in exchange for a temporary lock?
- Sprocklem 4y ago
  Why are these the only two options? In Canada, all our phones are carrier-unlocked and still subsidized by the use of multi-year contracts. There are perfectly adequate legal mechanisms of enforcing contracts without needing to lock phones.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Sure, and are subsidized phones more expensive in Canada as a result? US networks can also choose to advertise unlocked subsidized phones. The fact that they do not at a sufficiently competitive price to locked phones must mean the lock is worth having. The law is not forcing only two options, the market is. Any lender can lend money for a phone, just like Canadian mobile networks do.
    - TMWNN 4y ago
      >Sure, and are subsidized phones more expensive in Canada as a result? Plans are far more expensive in Canada,[1] so I'd be very surprised if phones are not also more expensive. In the past five years I've benefited from three very attractive Sprint promotions: * 2017: Through Best Buy, offers amazing iPhone SE deal to customers. <https://np.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/6lyjyl/cheap_prepaid_iphones_whats_the_catch/djxljov/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/6lyjyl/cheap_pre...> * 2020: Used iPhone 8 for $99. I buy one, sell the above iPhone SE for a profit. <https://np.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/hl1qu3/my_experience_upgrading_phones_on_kickstart_and/ https://np.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/hl1qu3/my_experience...> * 2022: New iPhone 13 for $200 plus trade-in. I trade in the above iPhone 8 and will pay $6.67/month for the following 30 months. (Had I chosen the iPhone SE v2 I would not have paid anything.) I am very, very certain that none of the Robelus has ever offered an iPhone for anything like any of the above, let alone all three. [1] Canadians who have a US mailing address often choose to get US plans with Canadian roaming service, because doing so is cheaper than getting a plan from Robelus.
- cyberphobe 4y ago
  GP said "locking phones to carriers" should be illegal, not "buying a locked phone".
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I intentionally phrased it that way to show why there needs to be no legislation about locking phones to a carrier. The market is offering people the choice of locked and unlocked phones. Everyone can make their own choice. The government already requires the lock to be temporary. So then banning phone locks is the same as banning people from being able to exchange their freedom to use a different mobile network for a lower purchase price.
- wintogreen74 4y ago
  I can only assume an entire generational period of essentially zero-percent financing costs has convinced people they can have everything they want now. Financed deals of all kinds are always "locked" for some term. Sometimes this is time and sometimes a literal lock, like a lien on title.
souplesse 4y ago
It is (https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking). The kind of unlocking at issue in this case refers to a) unlocking phones that a customer owes a balance for or b) unblocking stolen phones (which are blacklisted by carriers to deter theft).

Gross. Locking phones to a carrier is clearly an anti-competitive practice that should have been found to be illegal ages ago.

by troad 4y ago

Gross. Locking phones to a carrier is clearly an anti-competitive practice that should have been found to be illegal ages ago.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

So people should be legally forbidden from being able to accept a subsidized phone in exchange for a temporary lock?

Sprocklem 4y ago
Why are these the only two options? In Canada, all our phones are carrier-unlocked and still subsidized by the use of multi-year contracts. There are perfectly adequate legal mechanisms of enforcing contracts without needing to lock phones.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Sure, and are subsidized phones more expensive in Canada as a result? US networks can also choose to advertise unlocked subsidized phones. The fact that they do not at a sufficiently competitive price to locked phones must mean the lock is worth having. The law is not forcing only two options, the market is. Any lender can lend money for a phone, just like Canadian mobile networks do.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >Sure, and are subsidized phones more expensive in Canada as a result? Plans are far more expensive in Canada,[1] so I'd be very surprised if phones are not also more expensive. In the past five years I've benefited from three very attractive Sprint promotions: * 2017: Through Best Buy, offers amazing iPhone SE deal to customers. <https://np.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/6lyjyl/cheap_prepaid_iphones_whats_the_catch/djxljov/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/6lyjyl/cheap_pre...> * 2020: Used iPhone 8 for $99. I buy one, sell the above iPhone SE for a profit. <https://np.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/hl1qu3/my_experience_upgrading_phones_on_kickstart_and/ https://np.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/hl1qu3/my_experience...> * 2022: New iPhone 13 for $200 plus trade-in. I trade in the above iPhone 8 and will pay $6.67/month for the following 30 months. (Had I chosen the iPhone SE v2 I would not have paid anything.) I am very, very certain that none of the Robelus has ever offered an iPhone for anything like any of the above, let alone all three. [1] Canadians who have a US mailing address often choose to get US plans with Canadian roaming service, because doing so is cheaper than getting a plan from Robelus.
cyberphobe 4y ago
GP said "locking phones to carriers" should be illegal, not "buying a locked phone".
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I intentionally phrased it that way to show why there needs to be no legislation about locking phones to a carrier. The market is offering people the choice of locked and unlocked phones. Everyone can make their own choice. The government already requires the lock to be temporary. So then banning phone locks is the same as banning people from being able to exchange their freedom to use a different mobile network for a lower purchase price.
wintogreen74 4y ago
I can only assume an entire generational period of essentially zero-percent financing costs has convinced people they can have everything they want now. Financed deals of all kinds are always "locked" for some term. Sometimes this is time and sometimes a literal lock, like a lien on title.

souplesse 4y ago

It is (https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking). The kind of unlocking at issue in this case refers to a) unlocking phones that a customer owes a balance for or b) unblocking stolen phones (which are blacklisted by carriers to deter theft).