"Taking away peoples freedom is whats best for users! It's the American way!"

So the story is 'if they have to be unlocked, we can't offer discounts on the phones'.

Okay fine but uh, the last time I used a post-paid subsidized phone, I signed a contract. That stipulated how much I'd pay for however many months, and what the early cancellation fee was, as well as what the required buy-out for the phone was if I left early.

In what way is that insufficient to ensure that a customer spends the money to justify the subsidy?

"Narcissistic domestic abuser claims the exit doors that are locked from both sides are just for the protection of their spouse and its in their best interest to be secure"

For my past 3 phones I just bought straight from the manufacturer.

I recommend it and hope phone unlocking gets pushed through despite their whining

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

Locked phones should just be straight up illegal. It creates so much e-waste and is utterly ridiculous

Locked phones are what led me into the rabbit hole of purchasing phones from manufacturer, since the carriers not only lock phones but hobble the OS.

It did mean understanding what was necessary for a phone to qualify for given carriers, but I can tech when I need to, and I tech for my friends when they need it.

In 2024, T Mobile and AT&T (and Verizon) have all demonstrated they do not engage in good faith commerce, and so right now they're being sniveling little shits (quote me please) because the FCC and DoC are escaping regulatory capture.

That is to say, the end users are tired of their shit. Apple and Google, too.

Never buy a phone from your carrier, they will do some evil shit to try and force you to stay

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.

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

What year is it? Locked devices have been illegal in Quebec for, like, ever.

If they are good, why then the Europe ended that practice nearly 2 decades ago?

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

War is peace.

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.

Meanwhile Verizon has already been unlocking after 6 months

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

I install alternative firmware, so no sale for you.

“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”?

It's weird to see T-mobile taking this stance. I switched to them years ago because they were one of the few that supported unlocked phones, and even offered them for sale. Their policies might have changed on this, but I just bought an unlocked phone off Ebay this Summer and all I needed to do was pop my sim card into the new device. Hell I had to specifically install the visual voicemail app because there wasn't any bloatware on the phone when I got it. So I guess I'm not following what their complaint is about?

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 shouldn't be locked at all. If the phone is included with the contract, it probably requires you to pay it off if you cancel early anyways.

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