It’ll lead to higher prices meaning they’ll charge more lol
Out of curiosity, I would imagine that if someone goes the carrier-financing route, they’d still be on the hook for the cost of the phone even if they jumped to a different carrier? I don’t want to sound like I’m in support of at&t, but it doesn’t seem terribly unreasonable to keep a customer in place while they still have a balance on the hardware, or is there something else I’m missing?
Yeah. I always saw it as a trade-off. “Here’s a cheaper or zero interest loan for a phone. You get this in exchange for paying us a cell phone bill for the next year or two.”
What pusses me off is that none of the big three give any discount if you have your own phone. If the guy next to me gets $600 off his cell phone purchase and pays $80/month, how come I still pay $80/month with my own device?
Wow, I pay £10 a month for unlimited calls/text and 45GB data. Not even on contract, it’s a monthly rolling bill, I can cancel at any time. The reason for this, there’s pretty good competition between carriers/NVMOs in the UK at the moment, driving prices down.
Not sure what carrier you’re on, but I pay $35/mo per line with Verizon and have 2 SIM cards for my phone. Granted we have a family plan, and my wife pays $60/mo cause she wants her latest iPhone, but it usually works out cheaper to buy a phone online outright a year or two after release and then I’m not paying the recurring finance charges.
I agree with what you’re saying. They got the phone from Carrier A with the expectation the phone plan went with it. Once the phone is paid off, they can take the phone to Carrier B. Since they phone is basically bought on an interest free loan, the interest is recouped by the plan, and the collateral for not paying is a loss of the phone plan and use of the phone. To leave the plan, payoff the phone.
That does require that, the moment the phone is paid off, it should be automatically unlocked. There shouldn’t have to be a request or additional waiting. And the customer should be notified that it’s unlocked along with an explanation that they can now use the phone with any other provider.
Automatic unlocking sounds like a pipe dream given the American business landscape, but there shouldn’t be any barriers to unlocking, even if the customer has to request it. People are likely stuck in the mindset of yesteryear where phones weren’t transferrable between carriers (especially with band compatibility of GSM vs CDMA), and I’d wager that many people don’t even realize it’s possible these days. I can’t say I blame carriers for wanting to maintain the illusion, and I don’t necessarily think they should be forced to advertise it, but the option should be plain and simple for those who want to exercise the right.
They automatically unlock it once it’s paid off. They have a disclaimer that it needs to stay on the network for 60 days after it’s paid off, but I think that’s a CYA because mine was unlocked within a day of the last payment.
I just checked and I have 6 unlocked phones on my account and never requested any of them.
I’m not from the US, but where I live it’s either (or a combination of):
- Your contract runs for two years. You can cancel it before, but still have to pay for the first two years. Often prices depend on which category of phone you want (say 20€/month for the service, 25€ with a “smart” phone, 30€ with a “premium” phone, 35€ with a “power” phone,…)
- You have two separate contracts, one for your phone, one for the mobile service. In this case you might pay for your phone 24 months, or 36, or whatever you agreed on and you can cancel the mobile service independently (assuming it’s not also locked to 2 years)
- Some carriers even allow you to only get a phone without a contract for the mobile service.
- If you finance a phone with your carrier, they’re legally bound to tell you what you pay for your phone monthly and how much for the service - there are many ways around that, unfortunately…
In any case, you get an unlocked phone.
Basically, AT&T argues against it saying it’ll force them to innovate and be competitive with other services.
Won’t anyone think of the poor telecom shareholders??
All I see with that statement is, “Please Federal Government, hit me with your breakup hammer.”
https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/contact/phone/q19.htm
Canada:
First, locked phones are a thing of the past. Effective December 1, 2017, service providers will have to offer unlocked devices to their customers.
What are the benefits of having an unlocked device?
An unlocked device can be used on other networks, which means that you will be able to switch providers and keep the same phone. That means more flexibility for you, the consumer.
I want to reiterate this. Even second hand phones. Find the carrier and call them. They legally have to oblige.
I remember trying to do this when this first became law. Bell told me no anyways.
Just make carrier locking illegal and have customers pay the actual price, now it’s just hidden costs to the consumer.
You’re going off of phone contracts that haven’t been around for a decade. The cost of the phone up front, and has been for a long time.
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.
It isn’t been a hidden cost for a while. Phone companies sell the phones at full price, but consumers want the 2 year 0% APR financing.
If consumers bought the phones from a third party, there’d be absolutely no reason to lock the phone to a carrier. But when carriers also provide the financing, there’s an incentive to keep them on the service until the bill is paid. Screw that.
If I could drop $1000+ for the device all at once, I already would be getting them carrier unbranded.
