8 ms·

T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

204 points by LorenDB 2y ago

afavour 2y ago
> claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers Weird, because they seem to have the same prices as Verizon.
- olliej 2y ago
  did they say explicitly who it's cheaper for?
- whatever1 2y ago
  With TMobile when I upgraded they gave me 1000$ incentive in 24 month increments. So yes they do offer "cheaper phone prices" but of course you are locked to their expensive plan for years.
  - afavour 2y ago
    Verizon offer the exact same thing. They just unlock phones after 60 days (in fairness they have to, but still, they seem to be doing just fine)
    - ToxicMegacolon 2y ago
      why do they have to? is it just verizon or do others have to do unlock it after 60 days too?
      - tzs 2y ago
        It goes way back to when some 700 MHz LTE spectrum was auctioned off in 2007. Before the auction and before the FCC finalized the rules that would apply to the spectrum the FCC commissioners were circulating drafts of rules they were considering. One of the drafts was proposing open access rules. Google wrote to the FCC and made a binding commitment to bid at least $4.3 billion if the final rules included certain open access rules. The FCC then included those rules, thus guaranteeing they would get at least $4.3 billion. Verizon outbid Google and so got that spectrum along with those open access requirements, which included no SIM locking. In 2018 Verizon, citing fraud concerns, asked the FCC to relax the no locking rule. The FCC agreed, allowing a 60 day lock.
  - Whatarethese 2y ago
    Verizon does but over 36 months.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  > claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers And somehow an iPhone today isn't cheaper than when it first came out and there was no subsidy from Cingular.
  - dmonitor 2y ago
    Getting AT&T to unlock an iPhone (or buying one unlocked from Apple) is little more than a formality. It's the $50 pre-paid phones you can pick up from Wal-mart that they don't want to unlock.
- al_borland 2y ago
  Going to Apple's site, where it allows the user to pick a carrier or choose unlocked, they are all the same. I thought all the major carrier did away with phone subsidies years ago so they could advertise lower monthly service fees, when those prices were becoming too high. My phone is still subsidized, but it's through work, so I'm not the one paying the monthly bill. I didn't even think that was still an option for the average user buying on their own. Before switching my phone over to work, I had been buying unlocked phones at full price for a few years.
Gys 2y ago
What is good for our shareholders is also good for our users. Because they should buy our stock.
Spivak 2y ago
T-Mobile's filing is shorter than the article: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1017178290200/1 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1017178290200/1 > T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40% to 70% for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12. This is such a confusing line, you're in control of that. Also if that were true this would be great for you. Don't you want to be making more money? But in practice can you not just enforce this by contract? You must make a 12 month commitment to T-Mobile to qualify for discounted phones.
- nothercastle 2y ago
  That’s a good thing people would stop overbuying phones.
- cwyers 2y ago
  In the pre-paid market niche, you have people who really struggle to put together the money for an iPhone 12 all in one go, and T-Mobile has essentially worked to create a razors/blade model with some obfuscation. It's possible that disaggregating phone plans from installment pricing would benefit consumers in the long run, but let's not act like everybody would be prepared to transition to that world immediately. (I don't think T-Mobile is exactly concerned for their customers, but this subsidy regime exists for a reason.)
  - hnuser123456 2y ago
    I buy prepaid specifically so that I can own my own unlocked phone and be able to do what I want with it without thinking about the carrier. Price isn't the issue, ownership is.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      OK, but you are in a tiny, tiny minority of customers that care about that distinction.
    - mikeocool 2y ago
chasil 2y ago
Then AT&T and T-Mobile will have no problem in providing firmware that is comparable to the duration achieved by LineageOS, with significant punishment should they fail. Even with a network lock, that product would be far more valuable than what is currently sold.
eagerpace 2y ago
I’m willing to accept the risk
aprilthird2021 2y ago
There should be a shortcut through our legal bureaucracy to punish obvious BS like this. The amount of time wasted to evaluate such stupid claims is surely huge.
- double2helix 2y ago
  Well said.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  It's all part of the proceedings. Even on the SCOTUS the dissenting option is allowed to be posted for why they went for the other decision. Also, I don't think this response is really the same as an appeal. It's just another legal footnote to keep in mind if/when other parts of the court comes in to block this (as they are so likely to do this year. Can't let the working class have good things).
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    > Even on the SCOTUS the dissenting option is allowed to be posted for why they went for the other decision. That's different though. I think judges should be allowed to voice their opinions. It doesn't cost the taxpayers and our society when they do that. When companies do it in bad faith they are wasting our time and money.
- 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
  I don't know about punishment being the norm, but I'd like to see an agency (perhaps a better-funded and more independent analog of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection) that is competent and efficient enough to legitimately earn a lot of deference. That is, they could issue a quasi-C&D "here's a handy step-by-step guide to avoid doing this the hard way (you dumbass)" letter and have any competent lawyer's default reaction be something like "they're almost certainly right and you'd be an idiot to fight this" instead of "here's how we can fight this". Of course, that implies a system that places the interests of citizens at least on par with the interests of capital (and can conceive of those as distinct concepts in the first place), which is clearly communist crazy-talk.
IronWolve 2y ago
I guess it makes sense if you have not paid off the phone, but after you paid off the phone and own it, its yours, and should be able to use it with any carrier. But I dont see how its good for users, locked phones only help the business.
SirMaster 2y ago
I'm a fan of the large discounts I get from the carrier. If I have to be locked to the carrier for the duration of the agreement for that discount, then that's fine with me. I mean unless they would keep those discounts without being locked, but I don't ever see that happening. How about just offering it both ways. Discounts if you are OK being locked to the service for the duration, or no/lesser discount to be able to leave the service early. That way everyone is happy? I mean, you can already just forgo the rest of the discount and get unlocked whenever you want, so I don't really see the problem I guess.
- DrBenCarson 2y ago
  You can get the discount and an unlocked phone by purchasing directly from Apple and utilizing a carrier deal
  - SirMaster 2y ago
    I don't see how I can do this based on the details of the carrier deal.
    - DrBenCarson 2y ago
      Buy it in an Apple Store and ask for your carrier deal
- itopaloglu83 2y ago
  The locking was supposed to be a lien mechanism for phones so that the carriers could protect their investments. However, unlike a bank, they can continue to benefit from customers after the loan is paid off. So, they just keep the phones locked and make you go through elaborate hoops just to keep you as a customer instead of providing a good service. If the carriers are not allowed to subsidize devices, there will be easily thousands of financial institutions who would provide these services.
  - tzs 2y ago
    > If the carriers are not allowed to subsidize devices, there will be easily thousands of financial institutions who would provide these services. How would a financial institution subsidize a phone without losing money on the deal?
exabrial 2y ago
If they hadn't abused this feature, they wouldn't be in this situation. I can totally understand carrier-locking a phone until the loan is paid off. But that's not what they used it for and now they're suffering hilarious regulatory attention. tsk tsk. I almost feel bad for them.
- xahrepap 2y ago
  I was already an existing TMobile customer. I bought myself and my wife an iPhone 11 in cash when the phones were brand new. Never had a contract. Already had an LTE plan, didn't change that plan at all. Just bought two new phones from TMobile and had them slap the sims in. Fast forward to a couple months ago, I happened to notice while browsing my TMobile account that my phone was being reported as "Carrier Locked" with subtext that said "This phone is not eligible to be unlocked". Not my wife's though, hers was listed as "Unlocked". It took over a month of being yanked around by TMobile reps telling me they had to "escalate but the issue will be fixed within a week". It never was. They would ask me why I wanted it unlocked. I would just respond something respectful but firm along the lines of "Because it's my phone. I paid for it. You have no business locking my device" The way I see it, it was either theft or false advertising, plain and simple. Either they stole the phone from me after I bought it. Or, they sold me a device as unlocked but never realized that promise. It should have NEVER been locked. It makes me mad just thinking about it. I don't understand why a carrier even has the power to remotely lock a phone that was never theirs to lock in the first place. This is all to say: I agree with your observation. They deserve heavy handed regulation because they have proven they will abuse any inch you give them.
  - triyambakam 2y ago
    Do you mean that your phone remains locked?
    - xahrepap 2y ago
      Ah, sorry. I forgot part of the story :) No, after over a month of them saying "it'll take a week for it after I escalate" and then me calling a week later and starting the whole conversation over, one day it finally was unlocked. And I moved to a new carrier.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 2y ago
This is a good way for Ars to generate clicks and a more honest headline probably wouldn't move the needle much, but it's worth being clear for HN that the objection here is not that locked phones are good for consumers, but that the subsidization deals locked phones enable are.
- metacritic12 2y ago
  Ars has gone down the ragebait rabbit hole, which is perfectly rational, though they do it with technical stories, which people don't expect so much baiting. Basically the carriers are making the standard libertarian argument, which makes sense. If you block locking, you already know what happens: we already know cell phone prices unlocked. The cell carriers are in essence capital providers and they know how to collect money from their customers.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > standard libertarian argument, which makes sense It really doesn't. Libertarian arguments only make sense if you don't think about it too much, or are ignorant about the context and details, or you have a vested interest. You can compare phone prices with countries where there is healthy competition and there is no or very limited blocking (France is a good example - you can buy phones outright, or get them on a payment plan that locks you on a more expensive monthly payment compared to the classic 20€ everything included including 20-150GB internet depending on the provider plan; after the initial period is over, you can do whatever you want). If you bother to look into the topic a little bit more than surface level, libertarian arguments usually fall apart easily.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The complaint they have isn't that unlocked phones exist; they're asking to be able to sell (or serve) unlocked phones alongside subsidized phones. Most people commenting on HN from the US are probably using unlocked phones on major carriers. I sure am.
    - reissbaker 2y ago
darknavi 2y ago
Can't they do the same thing with statement credits? I got a Pixel on Google Fi that was $X and over the next 24 months I will get a statement credit of $X/24, so after two years it will be "free" if I stay with Google until then. Otherwise, I paid the difference.
- wmf 2y ago
  Consumers, especially lower-income ones, mostly look at the sticker price. Paying upfront and getting a discount later is the opposite of what they want and carriers know this.
  - neodymiumphish 2y ago
    What do you mean? This is what they’re doing. “Switch to [carrier name] and get the iPhone 16 Pro on us!” Then it’s explained that it’s all statement credit to cover the purchase price over X months.
    - wmf 2y ago
      There's two ways "statement credits" can work (which is a little confusing). A. Pay money upfront and get a discount every month. B. Pay nothing upfront but the service is full price. (This is what I see on the T-Mobile site.) My point is that many people prefer B even if the total cost is higher.
      - neodymiumphish 2y ago
        Right. I know of no consumer products that are sold using way “A” as you describe it.
        wmf 2y ago
        Google Fi apparently because Google always has to be different.
wmf 2y ago
The deal here is that if you commit to paying $xx/month for a year they will give you $yyy off a phone. It's not unreasonable but it's phrased in a deliberately confusing way to trigger cognitive biases in customers. Letting people break the contract after two months breaks this business model, so they simply won't offer it any more.
iluvcommunism 2y ago
I used to have ATT for a little over ten years. I upgraded many phones with ATT next, etc. The final straw for me was when they said they never got the phone I sent back and billed me 1k or something. I saw the tracking number show it was delivered to a warehouse. Their organization/inventory is a joke.
adolph 2y ago
Lock or not, the main story is that there is no OSS baseband. Locking would not be possible if people had the ability to choose the baseband software that best fit their needs. https://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/ProjectRationale https://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/ProjectRationale https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64337/do-cell-phones-exist-with-open-source-baseband-processors https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64337/do-cell-p...
renewiltord 2y ago
In the sense that being unable to discharge student loans is good for users, I presume.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Something something unfair to those who paid. Something something economy. Well life isn't fair and it's about time the not-rich benefitted from that sentiment. And I wonder if part of the US deficit comes from this horrible model of non-bankruptable loans given in the tune of 6 figures per individual that can never reasonably be paid off by most jobs. It's sure not like the public sector (you could at one point also provide 10 years of labor to pardon a loan) didn't fall into the same crap shoot of today's job market. So even that's not guaranteed way to stimulate labor. I paid my loans off in 3 years. I'm all for a reset to this model and forgiveness to those stuck in it.
focusgroup0 2y ago
>Wolf, coyote oppose pasture rule, claim cramped coops are good for chickens
idle_zealot 2y ago
Locking phones is not at all a requirement for carriers to offer subsidized deals. They could offer phones on installment plans conditional on an N-month contract. The buyer could switch carriers and keep the phone, but be on the hook to pay off the rest of the contract term. The only reason to use technological locks is to further trap a customer into a carrier relationship beyond the legal terms of their contract. It's yet another example of companies violating long-standing rights and norms and getting away with it because there's a computer involved.
- cwyers 2y ago
  The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates than others in the same business, e.g. Rent-A-Center. As I note downthread, `The total cost to buy a PS5 Slim is $500, the total cost to get a PS5 Slim through my nearest Rent-A-Center is $1,349.50.` You could introduce this pricing for iPhones for poor people too! This might even incentivize more people to use low-end Android hardware! But let's not act like this is 100% a good thing for everybody.
  - happymellon 2y ago
    > The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates than others in the same business How does it do that? Its a lock to force people to stick with a provider, and pay through the nose in other ways. Phone plan rates in the US are terrible, restricting peoples ability to change provider through artificial means doesn't provide better rates.
    - labcomputer 2y ago
      Because it greatly lowers the risk that AT&T will need to write off the debt for your phone and sell it to a collections agency for pennies on the dollar. It’s the same difference as a home mortgage vs unsecured credit card debt: When the threat exists that the lender can repossess your home if you don’t pay… they don’t have to worry as much about you not paying your mortgage, so they can offer a much lower rate.
yoduhvegas 2y ago
dude i am in africa right now. i want to give my phone to the security guard and it is locked by t-mobile. it is annoying to unlock. unlocked phones are already common, let's make them ubiquitous.
advael 2y ago
Of course they do. Every company doing predatory shit has some slick liars on payroll to come up with a story about how their lock-in policies and kafkaesque contract terms and surveillance and "opinionated design decisions" (or, "attempts to technologically control their users' behavior" for those who prefer plain English) are for your own good, actually, and any attempt to corral their behavior is an attack against their users The messaging of companies in regulatory cases has become rote and predictable as the sectors they occupy have grown more concentrated. There is no reason to heed it at all in the present environment
stalfosknight 2y ago
The moral of the story is never buy your phone from the carrier. Buy it direct from the manufacturer and you won't have to deal with this drama.
- dylan604 2y ago
  That's like telling someone to pay cash for a car, or not to finance their home. So many people can afford a monthly fee, but not the large one time payment. It's not your finances, and it's not your place to tell someone else how to spend their money.
  - neodymiumphish 2y ago
    These are the same people often trading in a perfectly fine iPhone [n-2] for the latest iPhone n.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I'd argue that you should be seeking a used car if you're cost sensitive. That's sort of outdated advice in this absurd market, but the monthly payments for a car off the lot (new or used, if that's a thing) will probably be worse than saving that monthly payment yourself for 6 months and buying a beater to hold you over.
- 8xeh 2y ago
  Or better yet, buy your phone from the used market. Get a phone in perfect shape that was $800 two or three years ago for $200. Put a new battery in it. Though I'm seriously considering going back to a $50 flip phone and enjoying the 2 weeks of battery life and general indestructibility. My current phone spends most of its time sitting on my desk doing nothing. It's hard to get excited about a newer and much BIGGER phone for $500 that will also spend most of its time sitting on my desk, doing nothing.
xyst 2y ago
Even more of a reason to advocate for it.
puppycodes 2y ago
Considering AT&T is basically an arm of the US government at this point i'm sure theres some infighting going on.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 2y ago
I generally don't have a problem with the trade where a customer gets a free or subsidized phone, and the carrier gets a more-or-less guaranteed customer for some agreed-upon time period. But: * The phone needs to unlock the instant the agreement/deal ends. Automatically, without the need to phone home to the carrier to get it done. * If the phone is on a payment plan, that shouldn't have anything to do with this; it should be unlocked from day one, and if the customer decides to switch carriers, they're still on the hook for paying out the rest of the payment plan, just like any other credit arrangement. * Carriers must be agnostic to the devices on their network. They should not be permitted to refuse to allow you to bring your own phone, as long as that phone has been certified by whatever relevant regulatory body as being compliant with the various mobile radio standards. I don't really get why there's so much consternation around this. If people want free or reduced-price things, sometimes they have to give something else in return. If they don't want to, they can buy a full-price, unlocked phone. As long as that option remains, I don't see the problem with carriers offering alternate terms. But I still don't get why the carriers are upset. They can still pair a free/subsidized phone with a 1- or 2-year service contract, with early termination fees that recoup their loss on the phone. Sure, having the phone locked is an incentive to either stay or pay the termination fees, but do enough people to matter actually manage to avoid paying the termination fees? Seems unlikely.
- sixothree 2y ago
  > I don't really get why there's so much consternation around this. If people want free or reduced-price things, sometimes they have to give something else in return. Because carriers are abusing this. Isn't that obvious? People pay for their phone in its entirety and it's still not unlocked. They paid for their phone. They own it. But it's locked. You make up some great standards to live by but they're nonsensical, unenforceable, and simply unrealistic.
avazhi 2y ago
More blatant Clickbait garbage by the unreadable Ars Technica. No, the carriers did not say anything of the sort - they said locking the phones keeps the price of handsets low, and that customers like cheap handsets.
joeblubaugh 2y ago
The article mentions different forms of fraud and arbitrage. Other than “buy phones with stolen credit cards”, what fraud schemes do people run? How much of a difference would a 90-day deadline make?

204 points by LorenDB 2y ago

> claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers Weird, because they seem to have the same prices as Verizon.

olliej 2y ago
did they say explicitly who it's cheaper for?
whatever1 2y ago
With TMobile when I upgraded they gave me 1000$ incentive in 24 month increments. So yes they do offer "cheaper phone prices" but of course you are locked to their expensive plan for years.
- afavour 2y ago
  Verizon offer the exact same thing. They just unlock phones after 60 days (in fairness they have to, but still, they seem to be doing just fine)
  - ToxicMegacolon 2y ago
    why do they have to? is it just verizon or do others have to do unlock it after 60 days too?
    - tzs 2y ago
      It goes way back to when some 700 MHz LTE spectrum was auctioned off in 2007. Before the auction and before the FCC finalized the rules that would apply to the spectrum the FCC commissioners were circulating drafts of rules they were considering. One of the drafts was proposing open access rules. Google wrote to the FCC and made a binding commitment to bid at least $4.3 billion if the final rules included certain open access rules. The FCC then included those rules, thus guaranteeing they would get at least $4.3 billion. Verizon outbid Google and so got that spectrum along with those open access requirements, which included no SIM locking. In 2018 Verizon, citing fraud concerns, asked the FCC to relax the no locking rule. The FCC agreed, allowing a 60 day lock.
- Whatarethese 2y ago
  Verizon does but over 36 months.
reaperducer 2y ago
> claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers And somehow an iPhone today isn't cheaper than when it first came out and there was no subsidy from Cingular.
- dmonitor 2y ago
  Getting AT&T to unlock an iPhone (or buying one unlocked from Apple) is little more than a formality. It's the $50 pre-paid phones you can pick up from Wal-mart that they don't want to unlock.
al_borland 2y ago
Going to Apple's site, where it allows the user to pick a carrier or choose unlocked, they are all the same. I thought all the major carrier did away with phone subsidies years ago so they could advertise lower monthly service fees, when those prices were becoming too high. My phone is still subsidized, but it's through work, so I'm not the one paying the monthly bill. I didn't even think that was still an option for the average user buying on their own. Before switching my phone over to work, I had been buying unlocked phones at full price for a few years.

Gys 2y ago

What is good for our shareholders is also good for our users. Because they should buy our stock.

Spivak 2y ago

T-Mobile's filing is shorter than the article: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1017178290200/1 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1017178290200/1 > T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40% to 70% for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12. This is such a confusing line, you're in control of that. Also if that were true this would be great for you. Don't you want to be making more money? But in practice can you not just enforce this by contract? You must make a 12 month commitment to T-Mobile to qualify for discounted phones.

nothercastle 2y ago
That’s a good thing people would stop overbuying phones.
cwyers 2y ago
In the pre-paid market niche, you have people who really struggle to put together the money for an iPhone 12 all in one go, and T-Mobile has essentially worked to create a razors/blade model with some obfuscation. It's possible that disaggregating phone plans from installment pricing would benefit consumers in the long run, but let's not act like everybody would be prepared to transition to that world immediately. (I don't think T-Mobile is exactly concerned for their customers, but this subsidy regime exists for a reason.)
- hnuser123456 2y ago
  I buy prepaid specifically so that I can own my own unlocked phone and be able to do what I want with it without thinking about the carrier. Price isn't the issue, ownership is.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    OK, but you are in a tiny, tiny minority of customers that care about that distinction.
  - mikeocool 2y ago

chasil 2y ago

Then AT&T and T-Mobile will have no problem in providing firmware that is comparable to the duration achieved by LineageOS, with significant punishment should they fail. Even with a network lock, that product would be far more valuable than what is currently sold.

eagerpace 2y ago

I’m willing to accept the risk

aprilthird2021 2y ago

There should be a shortcut through our legal bureaucracy to punish obvious BS like this. The amount of time wasted to evaluate such stupid claims is surely huge.

double2helix 2y ago
Well said.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
It's all part of the proceedings. Even on the SCOTUS the dissenting option is allowed to be posted for why they went for the other decision. Also, I don't think this response is really the same as an appeal. It's just another legal footnote to keep in mind if/when other parts of the court comes in to block this (as they are so likely to do this year. Can't let the working class have good things).
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  > Even on the SCOTUS the dissenting option is allowed to be posted for why they went for the other decision. That's different though. I think judges should be allowed to voice their opinions. It doesn't cost the taxpayers and our society when they do that. When companies do it in bad faith they are wasting our time and money.
0xcde4c3db 2y ago
I don't know about punishment being the norm, but I'd like to see an agency (perhaps a better-funded and more independent analog of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection) that is competent and efficient enough to legitimately earn a lot of deference. That is, they could issue a quasi-C&D "here's a handy step-by-step guide to avoid doing this the hard way (you dumbass)" letter and have any competent lawyer's default reaction be something like "they're almost certainly right and you'd be an idiot to fight this" instead of "here's how we can fight this". Of course, that implies a system that places the interests of citizens at least on par with the interests of capital (and can conceive of those as distinct concepts in the first place), which is clearly communist crazy-talk.

IronWolve 2y ago

I guess it makes sense if you have not paid off the phone, but after you paid off the phone and own it, its yours, and should be able to use it with any carrier. But I dont see how its good for users, locked phones only help the business.

SirMaster 2y ago

I'm a fan of the large discounts I get from the carrier. If I have to be locked to the carrier for the duration of the agreement for that discount, then that's fine with me. I mean unless they would keep those discounts without being locked, but I don't ever see that happening. How about just offering it both ways. Discounts if you are OK being locked to the service for the duration, or no/lesser discount to be able to leave the service early. That way everyone is happy? I mean, you can already just forgo the rest of the discount and get unlocked whenever you want, so I don't really see the problem I guess.

DrBenCarson 2y ago
You can get the discount and an unlocked phone by purchasing directly from Apple and utilizing a carrier deal
- SirMaster 2y ago
  I don't see how I can do this based on the details of the carrier deal.
  - DrBenCarson 2y ago
    Buy it in an Apple Store and ask for your carrier deal
itopaloglu83 2y ago
The locking was supposed to be a lien mechanism for phones so that the carriers could protect their investments. However, unlike a bank, they can continue to benefit from customers after the loan is paid off. So, they just keep the phones locked and make you go through elaborate hoops just to keep you as a customer instead of providing a good service. If the carriers are not allowed to subsidize devices, there will be easily thousands of financial institutions who would provide these services.
- tzs 2y ago
  > If the carriers are not allowed to subsidize devices, there will be easily thousands of financial institutions who would provide these services. How would a financial institution subsidize a phone without losing money on the deal?

exabrial 2y ago

If they hadn't abused this feature, they wouldn't be in this situation. I can totally understand carrier-locking a phone until the loan is paid off. But that's not what they used it for and now they're suffering hilarious regulatory attention. tsk tsk. I almost feel bad for them.

xahrepap 2y ago
I was already an existing TMobile customer. I bought myself and my wife an iPhone 11 in cash when the phones were brand new. Never had a contract. Already had an LTE plan, didn't change that plan at all. Just bought two new phones from TMobile and had them slap the sims in. Fast forward to a couple months ago, I happened to notice while browsing my TMobile account that my phone was being reported as "Carrier Locked" with subtext that said "This phone is not eligible to be unlocked". Not my wife's though, hers was listed as "Unlocked". It took over a month of being yanked around by TMobile reps telling me they had to "escalate but the issue will be fixed within a week". It never was. They would ask me why I wanted it unlocked. I would just respond something respectful but firm along the lines of "Because it's my phone. I paid for it. You have no business locking my device" The way I see it, it was either theft or false advertising, plain and simple. Either they stole the phone from me after I bought it. Or, they sold me a device as unlocked but never realized that promise. It should have NEVER been locked. It makes me mad just thinking about it. I don't understand why a carrier even has the power to remotely lock a phone that was never theirs to lock in the first place. This is all to say: I agree with your observation. They deserve heavy handed regulation because they have proven they will abuse any inch you give them.
- triyambakam 2y ago
  Do you mean that your phone remains locked?
  - xahrepap 2y ago
    Ah, sorry. I forgot part of the story :) No, after over a month of them saying "it'll take a week for it after I escalate" and then me calling a week later and starting the whole conversation over, one day it finally was unlocked. And I moved to a new carrier.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 2y ago

This is a good way for Ars to generate clicks and a more honest headline probably wouldn't move the needle much, but it's worth being clear for HN that the objection here is not that locked phones are good for consumers, but that the subsidization deals locked phones enable are.

metacritic12 2y ago
Ars has gone down the ragebait rabbit hole, which is perfectly rational, though they do it with technical stories, which people don't expect so much baiting. Basically the carriers are making the standard libertarian argument, which makes sense. If you block locking, you already know what happens: we already know cell phone prices unlocked. The cell carriers are in essence capital providers and they know how to collect money from their customers.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > standard libertarian argument, which makes sense It really doesn't. Libertarian arguments only make sense if you don't think about it too much, or are ignorant about the context and details, or you have a vested interest. You can compare phone prices with countries where there is healthy competition and there is no or very limited blocking (France is a good example - you can buy phones outright, or get them on a payment plan that locks you on a more expensive monthly payment compared to the classic 20€ everything included including 20-150GB internet depending on the provider plan; after the initial period is over, you can do whatever you want). If you bother to look into the topic a little bit more than surface level, libertarian arguments usually fall apart easily.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The complaint they have isn't that unlocked phones exist; they're asking to be able to sell (or serve) unlocked phones alongside subsidized phones. Most people commenting on HN from the US are probably using unlocked phones on major carriers. I sure am.
  - reissbaker 2y ago

darknavi 2y ago

Can't they do the same thing with statement credits? I got a Pixel on Google Fi that was $X and over the next 24 months I will get a statement credit of $X/24, so after two years it will be "free" if I stay with Google until then. Otherwise, I paid the difference.

wmf 2y ago
Consumers, especially lower-income ones, mostly look at the sticker price. Paying upfront and getting a discount later is the opposite of what they want and carriers know this.
- neodymiumphish 2y ago
  What do you mean? This is what they’re doing. “Switch to [carrier name] and get the iPhone 16 Pro on us!” Then it’s explained that it’s all statement credit to cover the purchase price over X months.
  - wmf 2y ago
    There's two ways "statement credits" can work (which is a little confusing). A. Pay money upfront and get a discount every month. B. Pay nothing upfront but the service is full price. (This is what I see on the T-Mobile site.) My point is that many people prefer B even if the total cost is higher.
    - neodymiumphish 2y ago
      Right. I know of no consumer products that are sold using way “A” as you describe it.
      - wmf 2y ago
        Google Fi apparently because Google always has to be different.

wmf 2y ago

The deal here is that if you commit to paying $xx/month for a year they will give you $yyy off a phone. It's not unreasonable but it's phrased in a deliberately confusing way to trigger cognitive biases in customers. Letting people break the contract after two months breaks this business model, so they simply won't offer it any more.

iluvcommunism 2y ago

I used to have ATT for a little over ten years. I upgraded many phones with ATT next, etc. The final straw for me was when they said they never got the phone I sent back and billed me 1k or something. I saw the tracking number show it was delivered to a warehouse. Their organization/inventory is a joke.

adolph 2y ago

Lock or not, the main story is that there is no OSS baseband. Locking would not be possible if people had the ability to choose the baseband software that best fit their needs. https://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/ProjectRationale https://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/ProjectRationale https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64337/do-cell-phones-exist-with-open-source-baseband-processors https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64337/do-cell-p...

renewiltord 2y ago

In the sense that being unable to discharge student loans is good for users, I presume.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Something something unfair to those who paid. Something something economy. Well life isn't fair and it's about time the not-rich benefitted from that sentiment. And I wonder if part of the US deficit comes from this horrible model of non-bankruptable loans given in the tune of 6 figures per individual that can never reasonably be paid off by most jobs. It's sure not like the public sector (you could at one point also provide 10 years of labor to pardon a loan) didn't fall into the same crap shoot of today's job market. So even that's not guaranteed way to stimulate labor. I paid my loans off in 3 years. I'm all for a reset to this model and forgiveness to those stuck in it.

focusgroup0 2y ago

>Wolf, coyote oppose pasture rule, claim cramped coops are good for chickens

idle_zealot 2y ago

Locking phones is not at all a requirement for carriers to offer subsidized deals. They could offer phones on installment plans conditional on an N-month contract. The buyer could switch carriers and keep the phone, but be on the hook to pay off the rest of the contract term. The only reason to use technological locks is to further trap a customer into a carrier relationship beyond the legal terms of their contract. It's yet another example of companies violating long-standing rights and norms and getting away with it because there's a computer involved.

cwyers 2y ago
The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates than others in the same business, e.g. Rent-A-Center. As I note downthread, `The total cost to buy a PS5 Slim is $500, the total cost to get a PS5 Slim through my nearest Rent-A-Center is $1,349.50.` You could introduce this pricing for iPhones for poor people too! This might even incentivize more people to use low-end Android hardware! But let's not act like this is 100% a good thing for everybody.
- happymellon 2y ago
  > The counterpoint is that by locking people into carrier relationships allows T-Mobile and AT&T to offer loans on consumer electronics at much more consumer-friendly rates than others in the same business How does it do that? Its a lock to force people to stick with a provider, and pay through the nose in other ways. Phone plan rates in the US are terrible, restricting peoples ability to change provider through artificial means doesn't provide better rates.
  - labcomputer 2y ago
    Because it greatly lowers the risk that AT&T will need to write off the debt for your phone and sell it to a collections agency for pennies on the dollar. It’s the same difference as a home mortgage vs unsecured credit card debt: When the threat exists that the lender can repossess your home if you don’t pay… they don’t have to worry as much about you not paying your mortgage, so they can offer a much lower rate.

yoduhvegas 2y ago

dude i am in africa right now. i want to give my phone to the security guard and it is locked by t-mobile. it is annoying to unlock. unlocked phones are already common, let's make them ubiquitous.

advael 2y ago

Of course they do. Every company doing predatory shit has some slick liars on payroll to come up with a story about how their lock-in policies and kafkaesque contract terms and surveillance and "opinionated design decisions" (or, "attempts to technologically control their users' behavior" for those who prefer plain English) are for your own good, actually, and any attempt to corral their behavior is an attack against their users The messaging of companies in regulatory cases has become rote and predictable as the sectors they occupy have grown more concentrated. There is no reason to heed it at all in the present environment

stalfosknight 2y ago

The moral of the story is never buy your phone from the carrier. Buy it direct from the manufacturer and you won't have to deal with this drama.

dylan604 2y ago
That's like telling someone to pay cash for a car, or not to finance their home. So many people can afford a monthly fee, but not the large one time payment. It's not your finances, and it's not your place to tell someone else how to spend their money.
- neodymiumphish 2y ago
  These are the same people often trading in a perfectly fine iPhone [n-2] for the latest iPhone n.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I'd argue that you should be seeking a used car if you're cost sensitive. That's sort of outdated advice in this absurd market, but the monthly payments for a car off the lot (new or used, if that's a thing) will probably be worse than saving that monthly payment yourself for 6 months and buying a beater to hold you over.
8xeh 2y ago
Or better yet, buy your phone from the used market. Get a phone in perfect shape that was $800 two or three years ago for $200. Put a new battery in it. Though I'm seriously considering going back to a $50 flip phone and enjoying the 2 weeks of battery life and general indestructibility. My current phone spends most of its time sitting on my desk doing nothing. It's hard to get excited about a newer and much BIGGER phone for $500 that will also spend most of its time sitting on my desk, doing nothing.

xyst 2y ago

Even more of a reason to advocate for it.

puppycodes 2y ago

Considering AT&T is basically an arm of the US government at this point i'm sure theres some infighting going on.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 2y ago

I generally don't have a problem with the trade where a customer gets a free or subsidized phone, and the carrier gets a more-or-less guaranteed customer for some agreed-upon time period. But: * The phone needs to unlock the instant the agreement/deal ends. Automatically, without the need to phone home to the carrier to get it done. * If the phone is on a payment plan, that shouldn't have anything to do with this; it should be unlocked from day one, and if the customer decides to switch carriers, they're still on the hook for paying out the rest of the payment plan, just like any other credit arrangement. * Carriers must be agnostic to the devices on their network. They should not be permitted to refuse to allow you to bring your own phone, as long as that phone has been certified by whatever relevant regulatory body as being compliant with the various mobile radio standards. I don't really get why there's so much consternation around this. If people want free or reduced-price things, sometimes they have to give something else in return. If they don't want to, they can buy a full-price, unlocked phone. As long as that option remains, I don't see the problem with carriers offering alternate terms. But I still don't get why the carriers are upset. They can still pair a free/subsidized phone with a 1- or 2-year service contract, with early termination fees that recoup their loss on the phone. Sure, having the phone locked is an incentive to either stay or pay the termination fees, but do enough people to matter actually manage to avoid paying the termination fees? Seems unlikely.

sixothree 2y ago
> I don't really get why there's so much consternation around this. If people want free or reduced-price things, sometimes they have to give something else in return. Because carriers are abusing this. Isn't that obvious? People pay for their phone in its entirety and it's still not unlocked. They paid for their phone. They own it. But it's locked. You make up some great standards to live by but they're nonsensical, unenforceable, and simply unrealistic.

avazhi 2y ago

More blatant Clickbait garbage by the unreadable Ars Technica. No, the carriers did not say anything of the sort - they said locking the phones keeps the price of handsets low, and that customers like cheap handsets.

joeblubaugh 2y ago

The article mentions different forms of fraud and arbitrage. Other than “buy phones with stolen credit cards”, what fraud schemes do people run? How much of a difference would a 90-day deadline make?