420
AT&T tries to defend why it shouldn't let you unlock your phone sooner
(www.androidauthority.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
420 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
58719 readers
4139 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you. And that's how it works. The question is how long after paying off the phone should it be locked.
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.
What exactly should not be allowed?
OK so you buy the phone on a payment plan.. and credit check. Then once it's paid off it should be unlocked.
Correct, you've got it. That's how it's worked for ten+ years.
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?
In the Netherlands you purchase a new phone and a fixed monthly subscription for calls, texts, and data. You choose to pay for the phone itself upfront, or with installments each month, along with your monthly subscription cost.
That's the same thing. I think you don't know what you're talking about, friend.
The part they are saying is different is that the phones are unlocked immediately. They don't ever lock.
Back to the original point.. Phones are not provider locked. That's not allowed. It's a predatory practice.
You're talking about sim only plans. The US also has that.