Next they should ban phone models that only support carrier specific bands
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
162 points (98.8% liked)
Android
27998 readers
516 users here now
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Correct. Every phone sold in us should work in us.
This would reduce waste by a lot along with 60 day unlock rule!
As of 2017, the rules in Canada have been the following:
All new devices in Canada must be sold unlocked, and carriers must offer to unlock existing phones free-of-charge
I have not bought a phone through my carrier for probably around 10 years. I always buy something factory unlocked, often a LatAm model, and drop my SIM in. GSM was designed with that kind of freedom in mind.
It doesn't surprise me how much hardware costs are tied to (and inflated by) subscription plans in the US, though.
Why not zero?
Because how else are we going to have at least some models out there for people who can't fucking afford these ridiculous phone prices without doing payment plans?
Just like health insurance that's like tied into your mobile plan. We all thought we hated when we paid for minutes, and then for when we were paying for minutes and data, how naive were we.
A locked phone and an overpriced monthly contract is precisely a payment plan. As far cheap phones, I like Motorola but I'm sure other stuff is out there as well.
No I'm saying yeah that is the thing that exists right now, and for some people that's the only way that they can have / use a phone.
Between planned obsolescence and how careless and demanding in resources even phone apps are becoming now, cheap phones are as bad as really old phonesn
All I know is that maybe instead of putting a law like this in we're going to just add the price somewhere else I say we just shut all these companies down and run this cell phone towers ourselves since all of our tax money has been going to these companies for them to build all these things that they don't ever build or they build the bare minimum to get away with nobody taking the money back and it's fucked up
What does this locking do? Where I live every online vendor offers to pay by installments which addresses the issue that people could not afford the upfront price, why do the phones have to be locked in the US?
Because most of these companies have some of the best lobbyists out there how else could they possibly get away with continuously taking money from our taxes and handing it over to them to build all these cell towers and infrastructure that they've only Built less than 5% of
What are carriers doing now? I remember I used to get a new iphone for like $50 bucks through AT&T but they stopped doing that a while ago.
I miss the $50 phones ...
Now it's a payment plan for X number of months for the phone - no interest on the amount, or a free (or reduced price, I think) of the phone if you have Y plan for Z months.
It seems to me that a carrier should be able to lock a subsidized/financed device until it's paid off. That makes it possible for people who would otherwise not qualify for financing to have relatively up-to-date devices.
A carrier should not be able to lock a device that's paid off for any length of time.
Nah, I disagree.
It shouldn't matter to them who uses the phone or what provider you use on it, as long as you pay them of course.
This argument may have made sense a decade ago, but phones today aren't making the generational leaps and bounds with performance every year. Even the low end phones are just fine for most uses these days.
If you're poor, and I certainly have been, you shouldn't get into these contacts that ultimately cost you more. You buy a cheap phone from last year and put it on an MVNO that's cheap
I suppose it depends on whether you think regulation should be used to dissuade poor people from buying expensive phones. That seems like a reasonable enough goal, though I don't believe that's the proper role of government.
I've always bought phones outright, used when finances so dictated. I agree that's the wiser approach.
Except the proposed rule doesn't do that. It's only regarding carriers unlocking policies. The owner of the phone could still be under contact, and early termination fees would still apply. Carriers are still able to recoup any losses on the hardware through those fees. Requiring phones to be unlocked after 60 days changes none of that.
As things are now, a poor person would have to pay BOTH. An early termination fee AND then go buy a new phone if they wanted to switch to a new carrier before the (typically 2 year) contact is complete. They lose any money they've put into their current phone because it's locked to a carrier until they have been in good standing for the full 2 years.
So what it really depends on is if you think a poor person should be trapped with their current carrier until they finish the contract, unlock the phone and move to another, OR if they should be free to switch over to the competition at any time without onerous restrictions on hardware they have fully paid for via early termination fees.
Subsidized devices blur the line between a fee for terminating service early, and paying off the cost of the device. Perhaps the former should be banned to encourage competition, and the cost of the device and the service clearly separated. That way it's clear when the device is paid off and (in my imagined ideal regulatory scenario) must be unlocked.
a poor person would have to pay BOTH. An early termination fee AND then go buy a new phone
They probably don't have to pay the fee. They might owe it legally, but the likely consequences for not paying are some impact on their credit score and inability to get service from that carrier under their own name for a while.
I would generally agree with you, but in this case, Verizon has already been subject to such a rule for over a decade as a condition of the 700MHz spectrum. Verizon does offer subsidized/financed devices like the other carriers, it just doesn't SIM lock them beyond the initial period.
Given this data point, I think it's a good idea to expand to the other carriers.
Lol I thought it did not exist anymore, like in Canada (where I am)
It's essentially a payment plan here in the US. Switch to a new carrier, get an iPhone for free as long as you stay subscribed to their most expensive tier for a year. How it usually works is that the phone is sold to you on an installment plan, say $80 per month, and the "free" part of that is where they also give you an $80 bill credit each month. If you cancel early then you have to pay off the remaining balance of the phone in a lump sum.