• RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    2 months ago

    Just make carrier locking illegal and have customers pay the actual price, now it’s just hidden costs to the consumer.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      It isn’t been a hidden cost for a while. Phone companies sell the phones at full price, but consumers want the 2 year 0% APR financing.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        If consumers bought the phones from a third party, there’d be absolutely no reason to lock the phone to a carrier. But when carriers also provide the financing, there’s an incentive to keep them on the service until the bill is paid. Screw that.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then don’t buy a $1k device, and instead buy something you can afford?

            Otherwise, there are tons of buy now, pay later services, so you could just use any of those.

            • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              2 months ago

              Not go into debt to upgrade something that actually in most cases doesn’t need upgrading. What a amazing thought.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Yup. I upgraded my phone because it ran out of software updates (had for >3 years). My new phone cost <$400 and has >5 years of software support, if the hardware lasts that long. A $1k device is not necessary and is a luxury item, and you shouldn’t go into debt for luxuries…

                • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Exactly. I started buying my phones at full price unlocked in 2016 when I switched to a mobile virtual network operator and I’ve never gone back to $1,000 phones because losing $1,000 from your Monero wallet hurts bad.

                  • njordomir@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I’ve been doing the same. It makes traveling easier too. It costs way less to get a local sim for an unlocked phone you own than to pay the carrier to allow you to use a locked phone overseas.

                    At home, MVNOs, for me, were basically what the rest of the world had. The big carriers kept pushing phones, the MVNOs were simpler, quicker, and less scammy. Eventually I found a non-MVNO T-Mobile prepaid plan that gave me unlimited SMS, 100min. Talk, and 5-6GB data (which they deceptively call unlimited 👎, but was more than enough for me)

                    The site run by the greedy little pigboy used to have a “nocontract” community for discussing the best plans, they had a big google sheet and lots of research, but it seems someone infiltrated it because they no longer list the best deals.

          • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Until you realize that things like wifi calling have to be an at&t phone. Unless they’ve changed this in the last few years.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            There are tons of buy now, pay later services, and they make money through revenue sharing w/ the retailer, as well as when people fail to pay back the loan on time.

            But ideally, this would just put downward pressure on phone prices as people look to buy phones w/ cash instead of going into debt.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Honestly any moderately expensive item can be purchased through installments. Go to any electronics store and they’ll have offers like that, and they use different services to provide that financing.

                It’s a non-issue, carriers don’t need to be a party to that at all. I can literally go to BestBuy or Apple and get 0% financing on a new phone and take it to any carrier I want.

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You know what you’re talking about. It’s nice to see that.

                  But if carriers didn’t have phones for sale everyone would be mad about it. They might have even been mad in the beginning, so the carriers started selling phones too.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re going off of phone contracts that haven’t been around for a decade. The cost of the phone up front, and has been for a long time.

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They lock it so you’ll pay for the phone. That’s the only reason.
          Should requiring people to pay for things be illegal?

          Frankly you’re being ignorant, and expect to somehow get a thousand dollar device for free. That’s not how the world works.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Wha? The guy I responded to said the customers now pay full price up front. If a device is bought it should be unlocked.

            Additionally giving away a phone for a determined time contract means that the company is technically giving you a loan and it should be on your credit record, require the company to do a proper credit check and be allowed to give out loans.

            Bottom line, it’s predatory and should not be allowed. Noone is advocating giving 1000 dollar phones for free… it was a strawman you stuck me with… but I don’t want it.

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Wha? The guy I responded to said the customers now pay full price up front.

              No. I never said that. I said the cost of the phone is upfront. There are no 2 year contracts anymore, and haven’t been for at least a decade. You see the full price of the phone, and decide how much a month you want to spend to pay it off.

              If a device is bought it should be unlocked.

              I agree with you. And that’s how it works. The question is how long after paying off the phone should it be locked.

              Additionally giving away a phone for a determined time contract …

              Again, they haven’t offered contracts like that in ten years. But yes you do need to pass a credit check to have a phone financed.

              Bottom line, it’s predatory and should not be allowed.

              What exactly should not be allowed?

              • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                OK so you buy the phone on a payment plan… and credit check. Then once it’s paid off it should be unlocked.

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Correct, you’ve got it. That’s how it’s worked for ten+ years.

                  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Here in the Netherlands they don’t allow carrier locking and still sell on these installment plans.

                    They are 2 separate services (telecom & financing) and thus cannot be linked at sale. That’s not an issue… why would it be different in the US?

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You can continue paying at&t for the phone after moving to a different carrier.

            How do you think people will steal phones like this?

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              When did that become possible?
              Last I knew is when you cancel your account (which is what moving to another carrier is) they billed you for the remaining balance of the phone.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                No I mean thats what’s proposed. I’m saying leaving the companies service has nothing to do with a loan they gave you. They are separate things. Its possible they would stop with no interest but I believe they can still make money without interest in some cases.

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Ah gotcha. Yeah that’d be cool. I hope it works out. More options is always better.
                  Your probably right about the interest, or else why would they agree to it.