Hacker News Reader

Comment by StavrosK | Hacker News Reader

So when you get a car loan and buy a car, the bank can dictate where and how you can drive and service it? I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a sentiment.

The carrier lends you the money, you agree to pay it back, that's as far as their involvement goes. This is standard practice in Europe. You get a phone for cheap, you agree to pay monthly installments, you can throw the phone off a cliff or install BeOS on it, for all the carrier cares.

View on HN

> So when you get a car loan and buy a car, the bank can dictate where and how you can drive and service it?

Last I heard, they usually demand that you purchase certain insurance coverages... And insurers usually have their own rules about what you an and can't do with your car (if you want your insurance to be affordable anyway).

The difference here is that with a car loan, even if you drive off the car lot and right into the ocean and leave it there you still legally owe the full price of the car to the bank and they can come after you if need be. Cellphone companies make money off of you from the 2 years of data/voice plan service. If I go sign up with AT&T for a $200 iPhone5 then unlock it and go to T-Mobile the next day, AT&T got screwed. Maybe smartphones should just be sold at full price and you either pay it in full or get a bank loan, like cars & houses. But we know if we did that, a whole bunch of people suddenly wouldn't be able to afford the phones and the whole market around cellphones would have to change dramatically.

How exactly? You're still in a 2 year contract. Whether you're using T-mobile's SIM or not is completely irrelevant. You signed a 2 year contract with AT&T and you're paying them every last time until that period expires. Unlocking the phone changes nothing.

Unless, you actually interrupt the contract with AT&T, but in that case it's not much different than it is today, and you just pay the ETF and you're on your merry way.

Because the contract isn't the same as a bank loan. They're suppose to be making money on the voice/data usage for 2 years, but you're not using the AT&T sim card anymore. I thought the person I was replying to wasn't happy with the ETF fee since he was debating with the mikestew who said he just paid ETF to make the carrier switch. If we're all in agreement that the current business model needs the ETF fee before unlocking, then I guess I have nothing to say. But anyone who wants their phone unlocked without paying ETF is missing the part where carriers would get screwed on high-end phones.

Get a $200 iphone5 from AT&T, next day unlock it without paying ETF and get a cheap prepaid T-Mobile sim and never use the AT&T sim again; thus not paying AT&T's voice/data fees(and we all know they get you on overages). That'd be a problem for the current business model. To make up for the lack of overage-charges they'd have to make the phones more expensive or raise the monthly minimum charge.

NOTE: I understand the awkward issue of travel though. I made the mistake of using my AT&T sim in Nigeria once. Maybe smartphones should accept difference SIMs after it determines its in a country other than where it was bought. But of course, then I go to amazon.co.uk and order an iPhone5 to be sent to America. ;)

> Get a $200 iphone5 from AT&T, next day unlock it without paying ETF and get a cheap prepaid T-Mobile sim and never use the AT&T sim again; thus not paying AT&T's voice/data fees(and we all know they get you on overages).

Huh? You would still have to pay your monthly contract to AT&T even if you no longer used the AT&T sim.

If you're not using the AT&T sim, then you can never incur overage. I don't have the data to back it up, but I'm pretty sure overages are a significant part of their profits. If I'm wrong about that then my argument falls apart and I accept defeat.

If you're not using the AT&T SIM, you're also not putting any load on their network, and they can oversell it more without spending any money on network upgrades.

That just sounds like they are miss-selling their product and they should face some kind of regulation to prevent it happening.

Caveat Emptor and everything, but routinely exploiting ignorant customers should not be a business plan.

No, I disagree that the current business model needs an ETF fee before unlocking. It needs an ETF fee before terminating the contract, but that's not the same thing.

There's no issue with unlocking your phone and using T-Mobile while continuing to pay your AT&T bill (except to your wallet). Nor is that scenario outlandish - just replace T-Mobile with a foreign carrier while traveling.

> They're suppose to be making money on the voice/data usage for 2 years

And they will! You can throw your AT&T sim away and never touch it again. But you will still pay them the $70 a month or whatever you were paying them before, unless you actually break the contract with them and pay the ETF. AT&T doesn't lose in either situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com