4 ms·

> What happens when the buyer says "no, I'm not paying" and sells the phone? This is just like any thing you get a loan for. It goes to collections and your cr

> What happens when the buyer says "no, I'm not paying" and sells the phone? This is just like any thing you get a loan for. It goes to collections and your credit gets hurt. Why would normal consumers have restrictions because of bad actors? AT&T operating income for 2023 was $23.5B and T-Mobile was $8.3B. Carriers are doing just fine.

crazygringo 2y ago
The point is loans are generally secured with collateral. The bank can repossess your car or your house. It's worth it to go through the expensive repossession process because those items are high-value. A carrier just eats the loss on a phone they provide but don't get paid for. The kinds of people who skip paying their cell phone bill generally have bad credit to begin with and couldn't care less if it goes to collections. The recovery rate for collections is pennies on the dollar. And you know who will suffer if more people are able to basically keep phones for free? Not the carriers. They'll just jack up prices for everyone to offset the additional losses. You think they're just going to eat the cost themselves?
- aceofspades19 2y ago
  Why would a carrier give someone a phone if they have bad credit? It's not like they are mandated by law to provide everyone the latest iPhone regardless of credit score. I worked in customer support for Rogers(A Canadian phone carrier) for a very short period before it was mandated to have unlocked phones and people still stopped paying their bill even if the phone was locked. The vast majority of people want to pay their bills on time especially for something as critical as phone service. The people who don't, are going to not pay their bill no matter what sort of rules in place because they either simply don't have the money or they don't care.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > Why would a carrier give someone a phone if they have bad credit? Because phone locking means they're much more likely to pay it off, and so an unprofitable customer segment becomes a profitable one. Everybody wins -- the carrier doesn't lose money, and more people get phones. > The people who don't, are going to not pay their bill no matter what sort of rules in place That's simply not true. If it were, then carriers would never have bothered with the administrative overhead of locking phones in the first place. People do respond differently to economic incentives like whether their phone will turn into a brick or not -- that's Econ 101.
    - aceofspades19 2y ago
      > That's simply not true. If it were, then carriers would never have bothered with the administrative overhead of locking phones in the first place. People do respond differently to economic incentives like whether their phone will turn into a brick or not -- that's Econ 101. Well its not like they have to individually lock each phone they sell by hand and your phone does not turn into a brick if its locked to a carrier. Yes definitely the functionality is drastically reduced but there are also people/services that will unlock your phone for you that don't work for the carrier. Maybe if the phone actually was unable to be used at all if it was locked and you didn't pay the bill, that would be a valid argument. I can't really agree with just because they do it, it must work argument, I have, and I'm sure you have too, worked for a lot of companies that had policies or practices that did not work. I worked in customer service for Rogers, a large telecom in Canada before unlocking was mandated. There were lots of customers that did not pay their phone bill despite their phone being locked. If people don't have the money (whether it be their fault or not) they aren't going to pay their phone bill no matter what sort of incentive you give them.

crazygringo 2y ago

The point is loans are generally secured with collateral. The bank can repossess your car or your house. It's worth it to go through the expensive repossession process because those items are high-value. A carrier just eats the loss on a phone they provide but don't get paid for. The kinds of people who skip paying their cell phone bill generally have bad credit to begin with and couldn't care less if it goes to collections. The recovery rate for collections is pennies on the dollar. And you know who will suffer if more people are able to basically keep phones for free? Not the carriers. They'll just jack up prices for everyone to offset the additional losses. You think they're just going to eat the cost themselves?

aceofspades19 2y ago
Why would a carrier give someone a phone if they have bad credit? It's not like they are mandated by law to provide everyone the latest iPhone regardless of credit score. I worked in customer support for Rogers(A Canadian phone carrier) for a very short period before it was mandated to have unlocked phones and people still stopped paying their bill even if the phone was locked. The vast majority of people want to pay their bills on time especially for something as critical as phone service. The people who don't, are going to not pay their bill no matter what sort of rules in place because they either simply don't have the money or they don't care.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > Why would a carrier give someone a phone if they have bad credit? Because phone locking means they're much more likely to pay it off, and so an unprofitable customer segment becomes a profitable one. Everybody wins -- the carrier doesn't lose money, and more people get phones. > The people who don't, are going to not pay their bill no matter what sort of rules in place That's simply not true. If it were, then carriers would never have bothered with the administrative overhead of locking phones in the first place. People do respond differently to economic incentives like whether their phone will turn into a brick or not -- that's Econ 101.
  - aceofspades19 2y ago
    > That's simply not true. If it were, then carriers would never have bothered with the administrative overhead of locking phones in the first place. People do respond differently to economic incentives like whether their phone will turn into a brick or not -- that's Econ 101. Well its not like they have to individually lock each phone they sell by hand and your phone does not turn into a brick if its locked to a carrier. Yes definitely the functionality is drastically reduced but there are also people/services that will unlock your phone for you that don't work for the carrier. Maybe if the phone actually was unable to be used at all if it was locked and you didn't pay the bill, that would be a valid argument. I can't really agree with just because they do it, it must work argument, I have, and I'm sure you have too, worked for a lot of companies that had policies or practices that did not work. I worked in customer service for Rogers, a large telecom in Canada before unlocking was mandated. There were lots of customers that did not pay their phone bill despite their phone being locked. If people don't have the money (whether it be their fault or not) they aren't going to pay their phone bill no matter what sort of incentive you give them.