4 ms·

>There are legitimate reasons to allow restrictions on what can be done with subsidized devices which are still bound by a service agreement. Like what? As lon

by bjustin 14y ago

>There are legitimate reasons to allow restrictions on what can be done with subsidized devices which are still bound by a service agreement. Like what? As long as the customer is paying the service fee as they agreed to, the carrier shouldn't care if someone wants to use their device on another network. That means less network congestion and less necessary infrastructure, with the possible downside of fewer overage fees going to the carrier. It's not like people would be able to buy a subsidized phone, unlock it and break their contract to go with another carrier, and pocket the subsidy. The early termination fee covers that. The carriers even say so: when Verizon increased their ETF from $175 to $350 for smartphones, they cited smartphone subsidies as their reason.

mhaymo 14y ago
Not related to to carrier lock-in, but Kindle Fires are sold at a subsidised price, with the money made up by advertising in the OS. This advertising can be disabled for a fee. If customers were allowed to alter their device in any way they wanted, they could simply remove the ads without paying, and this business model would not be tenable.
- gliese1337 14y ago
  If you accept that you should be able to do whatever you want with a device that you own as a basic premise, that just means that anyone who tries to use that untenable business model is stupid and they should come up with a better one, not that we need to make special rules so that it becomes tenable. E.g., Kindles could be explicitly rented, rather than sold and subsidized, to exactly the same effect.
  - mhaymo 14y ago
    > If you accept that you should be able to do whatever you want with a device that you own as a basic premise Then you are begging the question. If there are business models which some producers and consumers choose to participate in which involve some kind of "no-tampering" clause, then clearly there is some value in allowing such deals. If you don't like them, you're free to not participate.

by bjustin 14y ago

mhaymo 14y ago

Not related to to carrier lock-in, but Kindle Fires are sold at a subsidised price, with the money made up by advertising in the OS. This advertising can be disabled for a fee. If customers were allowed to alter their device in any way they wanted, they could simply remove the ads without paying, and this business model would not be tenable.

gliese1337 14y ago
If you accept that you should be able to do whatever you want with a device that you own as a basic premise, that just means that anyone who tries to use that untenable business model is stupid and they should come up with a better one, not that we need to make special rules so that it becomes tenable. E.g., Kindles could be explicitly rented, rather than sold and subsidized, to exactly the same effect.
- mhaymo 14y ago
  > If you accept that you should be able to do whatever you want with a device that you own as a basic premise Then you are begging the question. If there are business models which some producers and consumers choose to participate in which involve some kind of "no-tampering" clause, then clearly there is some value in allowing such deals. If you don't like them, you're free to not participate.