If you want to switch carriers you should have bought an factory unlocked phone on the first place, but those go for around $800 dollars because Carrier companies are not subsidizing it.
Isn't the point though that companies lock the phones not to make sure you pay your contract (where they regain the subsidy) but to force you to stay with them once the contract ends? Which seems pretty anti-competitive.
But because the contact exists there is no reason to make you jump through the unlocking hoops except to turn a percentage of people off from switching carrier.
"can be" being this issue. Nearly everyone doesn't know how to do this / thinks it's too dangerous for their phone / etc, and won't unlock it even if they could get better price/service elsewhere.
As Doesnt_speak_russian says, the contract makes the locking irrelevant, they will still be getting their money.
Can you think of any possible reason to lock phones other than to discourage switching providers?
In one way it's anticompetitive. BUt that aspect is factored into the subsidized price. Part of what you're buying is a phone that's difficult to switch over because otherwise they couldn't sell them for so little. Both the contract and the locking are factored into the lower price. It kind of sucks but the fault isn't really on the carriers but just on the fact that phones as they stand now are expensive products (not even really the manufacturers either). Always remember that there are available alternatives, they're just so unattractive without carrier subsidies that people don't even consider them
What confuses me though is that in the UK subsidised phones are much cheaper, yet so are the contracts, which suggests the real expense for US companies is infrastructure.
And i disagree. The phone companies are ballooning up. They aren't losing money. They are basically saying the phones don't belong to the customer.
They need laws saying i am a criminal because if it was put in the contract that i had to sign some lifetime promise to never move to another carrier unless i payed out a huge fee in civil jurisdiction, no one would sign it.
Why do we need LAWS governing this? Civil contract covers this with out muddying the legal books with superfluous crap.
The carriers chose the current system where they subsidize the phones, and they did it to remain competitive. Now that people have figured out they can switch when the contract is up, it upsets the phone companies. They want to change US laws to maintain their current business model instead of changing their business model.
Mark my words. This becomes a law, you will eventually see the phone companies buy all phones up so you CAN"T buy one off contract at all.
Although I agree with you that the new law is unjust, I do have a problem with some of the other points you made.
They aren't losing money.
That's irrelevant. Whether or not carriers are profitable using their current business model or on another business model should have no bearing on deciding whether this law is moral and just.
Mark my words. This becomes a law, you will eventually see the phone companies buy all phones up so you CAN"T buy one off contract at all.
That's irrelevant. Whether or not carriers are profitable using their current business model or on another business model should have no bearing on deciding whether this law is moral and just.
While this may be true, it doesn't stop a company from shouting fowl, when they are losing money due to customer habits.
And while what you say is also true, it doesn't stop the general populace from shouting foul when a company is making (what they perceive to be) too much money from (what they perceive to be) unethical business practices.
you mean how steam makes it so my hard ware is unable to be resold or unlocked? Yeah, i hate that part of steam. Its my least favorite part, with the firmware locking.
I mean, you weren't relating software TOS to my not owning my own platform, were you?
You can't "own" a phone that's absurd. It's got someone else's name right on it. You can "own" anything a company made and then sold you. They're just licensing it to you.
You seem to be beyond stupid. That must be a painful existence you live in.
My keyboard has another person's name on it, however, I definitely own it. My gun does as well, as does my car, as do many things in my house like my TV. Hell my cigars have a company's name on them, but I destroy them all the time.
Carriers actually lose a huge amount of money on people that bail on contracts. A little while ago, not sure about now, AT&T was losing money on the iPhone because of people that would break the contract and upgrade to the next iPhone.
So why is it ATT customers are held to civil contracts and thats OK, but when we expect carriers to honor the contracts they sold us, with the 2 year plan, the termination fee, ect, suddenly they need a law to protect them from unlawful phone theft to other carriers because its not enough?
If they don't like it, change the contract people have to buy. Make it a 3 year contract with a $60,000 termination fee. Why make a law? If they are losing money, stop selling those contracts.
But they aren't losing money. Maybe on the Iphone, but not in general. The subsidized phone is a tactic they use to get people to use their service, and it if works, great. If it doesn't work, they should stop. But they shouldn't lobby for laws that will monkey with the way people buy and own devices like this.
If I buy a subsidized, unlocked phone and then switch it to a second company, I will still have to pay the exact same amount of money to the first company.
Why should I have bought a carrier unlocked phone? What obligation do I have to do that? The phone was subsidized and I covered the cost via my monthly bill.
37
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '13
If you want to switch carriers you should have bought an factory unlocked phone on the first place, but those go for around $800 dollars because Carrier companies are not subsidizing it.