Hacker News Reader

Comment by markdown | Hacker News Reader

lol, madness that phones can be "locked" to a network.

FYI, in the United States carriers are required to unlock phones after contract periods are up, or after 1-year for subsidized prepaid phones: https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking

It's been like this since 2014. I actually wonder how many of the people using this guy's service simply didn't know that they could get their phones unlocked for free from the carrier (assuming they were actually paying their bills for their postpaid subsidized locked phone).

The fact that carriers are still selling locked phones is really strange. Imagine if Verizon, Comcast, or Cox sold locked Dell or Lenovo laptops at a discount and only allowed you to connect to the internet using their ISP service.

They probably would try if they didn't already have monopolies on most markets they operate in.

How do you expect them to get people to pay for their phones then?

Edit: judging by the downvotes people seem unaware that phones are unlocked once their monthly plan is paid. I'm perplexed as to how you think it's okay for you to get a phone for like 8 bucks and then move to a different carrier without paying the rest.

With money, but not through coercion and anti-competitive lock in.

That's how T-Mobile does it - unlike other companies, once you pay off the phone your bill goes down.

It's literally a monthly payment plan for a phone, and they lock it until you pay it in full.

I see nothing bad about this at all. It's not like in the past where they lock your phone forever - with T-Mobile as soon as you fully pay for it they unlock it.

Imagine if your car dealer could restrict which roads you could drive on until you paid it off. Or if Best Buy restricted your internet usage to a limited number of websites until you paid it off.

The same way it works in other countries? lol

Which is the same way it works in the US.

I know, it may sound ridiculous but what about charging customers the _actual_ price of the phone?

Or, maybe, give a discount contractually bound to staying with the operator for a fixed amount of time instead of locking the phone forever?

It may sound outrageous but what about providing quality service so that customers willingly stay with the operator instead of keeping them hostages?

See my other posts - that is basically what T-Mobile does!

The take the price of the phone, divide it into 12, add that to your monthly bill until you pay it off, and unlock it when you are done with the payments.

> I know, it may sound ridiculous but what about charging customers the _actual_ price of the phone?

You can! Nothing stopping you from buying, say, the latest iPhone at retail price without the postpaid subsidies.

The law also requires that carriers unlock any locked phones after the postpaid contract period is up (if customer actually paid it off): https://www.fcc.gov/general/cell-phone-unlocking

If you're suggesting that we restrict rights to optionally buy/sell subsidized phones and pay them off over a 12-month period, I can't get behind that. Let the people choose which financial model they want. No need to restrict postpaid programs just because people don't like the idea of locking during payback periods.

Yeah, I buy all my phones unlocked from the get go. It's really no hassle at all.

>I know, it may sound ridiculous but what about charging customers the _actual_ price of the phone?

It does not sound ridiculous, because unlocked phones have been available for purchase at full price for over a decade in the US, and longer in most other countries.

No one has been forced to enter into a contract with a mobile network that stipulates their phone be locked to the network for a long, long time.

> Or, maybe, give a discount contractually bound to staying with the operator for a fixed amount of time instead of locking the phone forever?

Except that is actually what is happening in reality. So yeaaahhh...

Sincere question: is this a suggestion that locking phones to networks ensures users pay off their devices? In my mind, you could still allow people to purchase and pay off hardware while allowing them to be on a separate phone plan. I.E. buy my phone with a hardware payment plan from T-Mobile but use Verizon -- but incentivize users to be on T-Mobile's network because you get better payment options/perks.

But even in asking that it kind of highlights that their money probably comes from locking people into their network rather than selling hardware...

EDIT: T-Mobile is also probably the perfect example because their network coverage sucks in comparison to Verizon -- at least where I have lived. They probably lock their phones because nobody would use their network (again, at least where I live).

They would just stop paying T-Mobile for the hardware and use the phone on Verizon.

I feel that this is how it should work in the US but it doesn't. And I think it's because of my realization at the end of my comment: they probably don't make as much money on hardware compared to strong-arming users into remaining on their network.

> How do you expect them to get people to pay for their phones then?

They can pay for the phones up front like almost everywhere else in the world, or they can pay for it in instalments like buying a freezer or car. What has network service got to do with the price of the phone itself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com