Carriers fight plan to require unlocking of phones 60 days after activation.
@mlg@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
42M

They aggressively buy spin off services to ensure a locked market as well.

Cricket wireless was a on AT&T network provider that outshined AT&T because it allowed any device + better prices.

So naturally they bought them out and shutdown the any allowed devices to force you into buying a carrier phone to ensure your device will be locked.

They would. Pricks.

That’s such bullshit. Locked phones are like google accounts. At the end of the 2 years of owning it supposedly, you end up with all this shit you accumulated and no way to save it anywhere practically.

muculent
link
fedilink
English
162M

Near monopolies say monopolistic behavior is good for you and does not only benefit them. More bullshit at 11.

Why does that even matter? Currently, if you have a locked phone and switch carriers, you have to buy an entirely new phone anyways.

At least this way, a user can pay once, and then hop around carriers depending on what’s cheap.

Also there’s no shot that locking users to phones costs that much because the unlocked version of a phone is only like 15-20% more expensive. Since when did you ever get a 70% discount on the MSRP of a phone for buying it locked??? They’re straight ass lying lmao

@Pacattack57@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
2
edit-2
2M

That’s the problem. You have to buy a brand new phone because your phone is locked. With this law if you bought your phone outright you could switch carriers within 2 months if you found a better deal and still keep your phone. Can’t currently do that in the US.

And the whole locking cost is made up. It’s simple to make a phone “unlocked”. The cost in inflated on purpose to create a need so they can offer locked at a discount.

… My comment wasn’t disagreeing with you? Sorry it was probably worded goofy lmao

@Sanctus@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
62M

But if we unlock your phones from the start we lose control over you :( pwease

“Taking away peoples freedom is whats best for users! It’s the American way!”

@Venicon@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
22M

Fuck the lot of them. Shop around for the best deal that doesn’t try to screw you over.

teleprint-me
link
fedilink
English
102M

If I don’t own my phone, then I’m not paying for it. Period.

@DaddleDew@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
25
edit-2
2M

Is there a technical term for when a company or corporation makes a statement that is a blatant bad faith argument like that?

If none exists, I’d call it “Corporate massturbation”. Because they’re trying to jerk everyone off.

Edit Here’s another one: “Corporate Anal Ostriching.” Because they’re shoving their heads up their own asses

@Cryophilia@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
62M

It’s always the same argument. “This objectively bad thing for consumers is actually good for consumers because it allows us to offer a lower price!”

No, dipshits, you are choosing to make your product shittier than necessary and charging customers to undo your shittery. That’s not some external thing, it’s something that you chose.

@Maggoty@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
12M

Propaganda

@Nutteman@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
82M

Gaslighting?

War is peace.

@MehBlah@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
82M

Freedom is slavery.

@Maggoty@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
172M

Missing in this thread, courts are not known for their technological literacy. So companies just lie to them. Like, all the time. This isn’t meant to withstand consumer scrutiny.

@reksas@sopuli.xyz
link
fedilink
English
32M

isnt lying to court felony?

@Maggoty@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
42M

Yeah but you have to get caught lying. And the courts aren’t very literate with tech and economic stuff. You’d basically need to create a memo that says, “lol we lied!”

@reksas@sopuli.xyz
link
fedilink
English
22M

someone should try to inform relevant courts about technical things, no idea how but those corporations shouldnt be allowed to get away with crime

@Maggoty@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
42M

You’d be interested in groups like the EFF and Amicus briefs.

“T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, “consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers.”

I’m I stupid or are they threatening to arbitrarily raise prices for no reason other than spite?

Also wtf is a “handset”?

Create a post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


  • 1 user online
  • 182 users / day
  • 404 users / week
  • 1.13K users / month
  • 3.98K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 7.77K Posts
  • 87.7K Comments
  • Modlog