this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
513 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60079 readers
3206 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 119 points 2 months ago (6 children)

So the story is 'if they have to be unlocked, we can't offer discounts on the phones'.

Okay fine but uh, the last time I used a post-paid subsidized phone, I signed a contract. That stipulated how much I'd pay for however many months, and what the early cancellation fee was, as well as what the required buy-out for the phone was if I left early.

In what way is that insufficient to ensure that a customer spends the money to justify the subsidy?

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 69 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's just a lie. I don't think it's meant to hold up to scrutiny, it's just meant to be repeated.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

What are you saying is a lie? What claim exactly?

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly right. Users will have to purchase phones on credit like we do for every other major (and sometimes minor) purchase. This doesn't change the relationship between carriers and their customers at all. It only changes their accounting.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

Accounting is a relationship. When the government prevents a specific type of relationship — one consenting adults are regularly choosing to enter — the result is a change in relationships.

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Bonus points: In Germany all phones come unlocked, regardless if you get them with a contract or not, and we still get much better discounts on the phones than in America.

Often times the total cost of the 24 month contract ends up being cheaper than buying the phone without a contract, so you essentially end up with a free phone plan

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So, what does it take to emigrate to Germany? Asking for a friend...

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago

If you are from the US it will be pretty easy to get German citizenship, but you absolutely have to learn German to live here, since most older people here don't speak English

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Money and lawyers

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

Nono that wasn’t a service contract, it was a payment plan on the phone. And you can’t cancel the service until you pay off the phone.

It’s different…. Really….

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Yes you signed a contract. That contract has a certain value to it, and that value offsets the cost to them of the phone.

On your side, the fact that this contract came with a subsidized phone made it worth it to you.

What the carriers are saying is that this set of interrelated contracts won’t be available, and so these terms won’t be worthwhile to the parties involved, leading to a change in future contracts. Namely, the service contracts will have to be more expensive to them, which will make them less valuable to you, which will make them less likely to happen.

[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is not me defending any telecom, but locking subsidized phones during the contract period, is one of the only reasonably legitimate use cases for carrier locking.

And the reason is simple, fraud. Carrier locked phones that have been reported for fraud/nonpayment, can't be used off network. It doesn't help recover the cost for the carrier, but it does deter that type of fraud.

Whereas unlocked phones can just be taken to another network, which means they're resale value is worth the effort to steal in the first place.

Now, all that is true, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, or that telecoms have ever made unlocking fully paid phones easy, they haven't, so fuck them.

And before anyone points it out, yes, I'm aware locked phones still have have value for fraud, but that fraud typically has a higher threshold for entry, as it involves having the contacts who can leverage overseas black markets.

[–] basmati@lemmus.org 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not even unlocked phones can be used on another (us) carrier if reported stolen, all IMEIs associated with the device are blacklisted across all legal carriers in the country.