• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          33 minutes ago

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

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “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”?

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago
      1. “Handset” is obfuscating legalese to refer to a cell phone in a way intending to distance the meaning of the word from the thing that the old and technologically illiterate people who rule on this use every day.

      2. I’m no fan of their strategy, but cell phone providers have claimed for a long time that filling your phone with unremovable bloatware causes the overall price to decrease. They’re argument is most likely that they will have to charge more once the propagators of that bloatware realize that they can no longer force it on people and wedge that as a reason to pay less to carriers.

      3. The reality is that cell phones are priced based on what people will buy anyway and carriers pocket is much of the money as they can that third parties pay them for their bloatware. Ultimately because of that this ruling hurts their bottom line, but the above reasoning gives plausible deniability in the face of the law as it is interpreted by old technologically illiterate lawmakers

  • muculent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 hours ago

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

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    11 hours ago

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

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

  • stratoscaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      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.

  • secret300@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    13 hours ago

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

  • littletranspunk@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    19 hours ago

    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

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I’ve done this almost from the very beginning (back in the 90s) and always had very small mobile communications costs because I could easilly change providers and plans and even do things like use a local SIM card whilst abroad to avoid roaming costs.

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I haven’t financed a phone since 2008. I copped a fee for ending a 24 month contract a day early.

      I just buy a cheap outright handset, flash a community ROM and avoid everything my telco offers past a $20 basic service. Handsets with community support go for years past what the manufacturers support.

  • eleitl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I install alternative firmware, so no sale for you.

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 hours ago

      This is talking about carrier locked phones, not locked bootloaders.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Carrier lock is on the phone, not the network. You need to enter a code to disable it. There are 3rd party services that you give your IMEI and pay, and they have a way of finding the code. I’m not certain on the details.

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    “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”

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    1 day ago

    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?

    • Anivia@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Bonus points: In Germany all phones come unlocked, regardless if you get them with a contract or not, and we still get much better discounts on the phones than in America.

      Often times the total cost of the 24 month contract ends up being cheaper than buying the phone without a contract, so you essentially end up with a free phone plan

    • Hegar@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s just a lie. I don’t think it’s meant to hold up to scrutiny, it’s just meant to be repeated.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s exactly right. Users will have to purchase phones on credit like we do for every other major (and sometimes minor) purchase. This doesn’t change the relationship between carriers and their customers at all. It only changes their accounting.

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Nono that wasn’t a service contract, it was a payment plan on the phone. And you can’t cancel the service until you pay off the phone.

      It’s different…. Really….

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      This is not me defending any telecom, but locking subsidized phones during the contract period, is one of the only reasonably legitimate use cases for carrier locking.

      And the reason is simple, fraud. Carrier locked phones that have been reported for fraud/nonpayment, can’t be used off network. It doesn’t help recover the cost for the carrier, but it does deter that type of fraud.

      Whereas unlocked phones can just be taken to another network, which means they’re resale value is worth the effort to steal in the first place.

      Now, all that is true, but that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of it, or that telecoms have ever made unlocking fully paid phones easy, they haven’t, so fuck them.

      And before anyone points it out, yes, I’m aware locked phones still have have value for fraud, but that fraud typically has a higher threshold for entry, as it involves having the contacts who can leverage overseas black markets.

      • basmati@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Not even unlocked phones can be used on another (us) carrier if reported stolen, all IMEIs associated with the device are blacklisted across all legal carriers in the country.

        • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          20 hours ago

          No, they are not. Blacklists are per carrier, at least when dealing with American primary carriers, and not MVNOs.

          • basmati@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            No, it’s nationwide, all carriers and mvnos are signed on to the US Block Status since IMEI became standard. It’s a separate list from the global GSMA and not all carriers in the US report to the GSMA like they should,but if a device is reported lost or stolen in the US it cannot be activated by a US carrier until resolved.

            • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              20 hours ago

              Except I have used unlocked IMEI blacklisted devices on different carriers, so if one exists in theory, it doesn’t appear to be there in practice.

              • basmati@lemmus.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                18 hours ago

                Depending on what state you’re in, you admitted to fraud or possession of stolen goods, so maybe don’t admit that. That aside yeah some carriers can fail to submit to the US Block Status but generally those instances are rare given the activating carrier can be legally liable.

                • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  I’m not admitting to any crime. There are other ways to come into possession of blacklisted IMEI devices, and other ways for them to become blacklisted that don’t involve either of those scenarios.

                  Why don’t you go pull up all those FCC fines leveied on carriers for activating blacklisted phones.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    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
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    23 hours ago

    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.

    • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      “Rabbit hole”? Isn’t it as easy as just not going to a carrier’s store for it?

      We always bought from generic tech stores, almost always big chain ones - never got a carrier-locked device. Is it different in the US?

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        40 minutes ago

        If you get phones from the manufacturer they’re not labeled compatible with AT&T so much as that they have access to specific radio ranges and are controlled either by soft-stored codes or by a SIM card, and I’d buy the sim card from the service, and then stick it in my phone. The Sony I had for a while was compatible with both the T-Mobile and AT&T ranges, and I used a third party service that was an el-cheapo front for T-Mobile.

        T-Mobile wanted me to pay extra for hot-spot use, but I got around that with software, which is like hacking the subscription seat warmers on your BMW.

        Curiously, Apple phones will lock themselves (or did for a while… is it better now?) based on what service you initially connected them to, and you have to (had to, I hope) get their permission and pay fees to unlock it again.

        The telecommunication companies are an oligopoly, so like a legal cartel, so they pull a lot of bullshit that we end users have to suffer. But it means I feel not a jot of guilt when I hack the hell out of it to extract services I didn’t pay for, since it’s all a grift anyway.

      • Chris Saturn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        A lot of the big tech stores here in the US have separate counters for each of the major mobile carriers, and sell devices that are locked into those contracts. You can sometimes get unlocked phones from big tech stores, but most of what they carry is locked to a carrier.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      My T-Mobile phone that’s been unlocked and moved over to Google Fi has the T-Mobile image whenever you start up the phone. I’ll only buy phones directly from the manufacturer now.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        19 hours ago

        You’d have to flash new firmware for that to change. In the old days each phone was carrier specific and had to have the exact right firmware but now they’re fairly generic and are cross compatible (do your own research). You could check XDA Developers for the process.

    • MrShankles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Question: I bought my phone unlocked several years ago. I have AT&T. But apparently, because I didn’t buy it from AT&T, my visual voicemail refuses to work

      I’ve tried and given up several times to fix it, and it’s not a huge deal; I just miss being able to check my voicemail without calling it.

      Do you happen to know anything about this? Every “fix” I’ve found has failed so far

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        37 minutes ago

        Sadly, I don’t know enough about it to give you advice. Every time I switched phones or services, I had to twaddle with the settings until I could get features (commonly MMS, or SMS with media) so that they worked properly. If AT&T is actually blocking you out for refusing to use an AT&T phone, the trick would be to get the phone to pretend it’s an AT&T phone, then way Firefox can pretend it’s Chrome when it needs to.

        But I don’t know the specifics.