T-Mobile, AT&T Oppose Unlocking Rule, Claim Locked Phones Are Good For Users (arstechnica.com) 94
An anonymous reader writes: T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. "If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers -- not providers -- who stand to lose the most," T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing with the Federal Communications Commission. The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs.
T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival's network. 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." If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said. "A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets." In July, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the unlocking policy in a 5-0 vote.
The FCC is proposing "to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival's network. 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." If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said. "A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets." In July, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the unlocking policy in a 5-0 vote.
The FCC is proposing "to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
Don't even remember (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, same here. I am not really sure they even offer it here these days. Instead, you pay less for the service and are not restricted to the phones they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto... and in recent years AT&T made it so I never will again (not related to this article at all): I prefer to own my phone, not rent it. As of 2 phone refreshes ago AT&T would no longer 'sell' me my phone. I mostly didn't buy from the AT&T store anymore because they stopped selling the phones I wanted and it's easier to buy unlocked than jailbreak BUT I figured I'd check in since they started carrying good phones again see if I could cash in years of upgrade perks but no.. buying literally w
Re: (Score:2)
How!? (Score:5, Insightful)
high roaming fees local sims are bad for profit (Score:2)
high roaming fees local sims are bad for profit
Re:How!? (Score:5, Informative)
Just how is a locked phone good for the consumer? This sounds like gaslighting by T-Mobile and AT&T. It's actually anti-consumer.
Because it's really a loan. Essentially you "buy" the phone at a reduced rate on the promise that you also buy service for the duration that the phone is locked. The provider covers a good chunk of the actual cost of the phone, and the user then has to use the provider's service.
In that sense, the providers are correct - without being able to lock the phone and guarantee the revenue stream they'd be forced to increase the initial price of the phone.
Except, of course, the practice is scummy in other ways. Once you've "paid off" the loan, your price for service doesn't go down, and your phone will remain locked until you call up the provider and make them remove the lock. Plus, there are reasons you might want to use a phone on a different provider that don't involve canceling service on your existing one, such as traveling out of the country.
But their argument isn't entirely nonsense. Of course, if customers can't afford the phone immediately and need to pay it off in installments, there are other ways to do that. Such as an actual loan, with terms that make it clear that the buyer doesn't entirely own the phone until paid off, and aren't tricks to make the customer think they're getting a cheap phone, when in reality they're essentially being loaned money from the service provider.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
being in a service contract for the duration of the loan is completely different from them selling locked phones at retail for cash and claiming that its good for consumers.
walk in to a shop, buy a phone, WHY IS IT LOCKED?????
Re: (Score:1)
The issue isnt really with those on a service contract, its prepaid as per the summary:
Prepaid phones will not longer be as cheap as they currently are, because the phone company would have to make the cost of the phone back in the first 60 days or possibly lose the customer to a different network.
Re:How!? (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isnt really with those on a service contract, its prepaid as per the summary:
Prepaid phones will not longer be as cheap as they currently are, because the phone company would have to make the cost of the phone back in the first 60 days or possibly lose the customer to a different network.
Easy fix: All prepaid plans become BYOD. Let the customers get loans from the cell phone manufacturers. If they can't get a loan from the cell phone manufacturer because they're too high-risk, then they'll have to just do what they probably should have been doing in the first place: save up their money until they can afford to buy the new phone that they want instead of buying it on credit.
The very fact that we've gone so far down the rabbit hole of encouraging people to buy stuff that they can't afford that giant megacorps are claiming that locked phones are good for consumers because it lets them sell thousand-dollar phones and bill them over the course of a year or two is a pretty sure sign that at least from a fiscal responsibility perspective, our country is screwed. The only thing more disturbing would be if the public, out of a sense of entitlement to being screwed over by a glorified rent-to-own industry, agrees with that company.
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically how it works in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Put it on a credit card, like any other purchase?
Oh, that.
Re: (Score:2)
All prepaid plans become BYOD.
That's how I've done my wife's phone and mine for at least the last 10 years, if not more. We were on either T-Mobile, or AT&T, since Verizon didn't dance well with BYOD; at least at the time. I never bothered looking after that.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK thats how mint works. Its BYOD. There are links to buy phones but its not contract related. You pre-pay 3mos, 6mos, 12mos at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
"they'll have to just do what they probably should have been doing in the first place: save up their money until they can afford to buy the new phone that they want instead of buying it on credit."
You are assuming that getting a new phone is a discretionary purchase and not "10-year old bottom shelf Android handset finally failed to accept input on its cracked-to-heck screen".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last 3 prepaid phones my wife got all were purchased second hand off craigslist/FB marketplace for under $200. There were perfectly serviceable ones for much much cheaper. Spending $1,000+ on a fancy-phone is a decision that falls well on the "want" side of the needs vs wants equation.
This. The last tablet I bought cost under $100. You can buy a new unlocked feature phone for $20 on Amazon, or an unlocked basic Android phone for $99 from Best Buy, and the latter will have as much storage as a top-tier Android phone from 2014, and way more than a bottom-shelf phone from 2014.
Besides, even ignoring the fact that a 10-year-old bottom-shelf Android phone probably has more viruses than backstage at a concert involving a band of ill repute, it also probably hasn't been able to connect to the
Re: (Score:2)
they'll have to just do what they probably should have been doing in the first place: save up their money until they can afford to buy the new phone that they want instead of buying it on credit.
You have been reported to the Committee for UnAmerican Activities. Saving when you could buy on credit. /smdh What are kids thinking these days.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that a fix? How is that better for anyone?
Cell phone manufacturers are not finance companies, and Walmart is not going to write you a loan on a cell phone at checkout.
If they can't get a loan from the cell phone manufacturer because they're too high-risk, then they'll have to just do what they probably should have been doing in the first place: save up their money In other words: You are s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They reality of it is they should probably just offer loans to cover the cost of the phone. If the customer jumps ship to another carrier they are still contractually obligated to pay back the loan even not being a monthly service subscriber.
The way it works now is that you buy a phone from the carrier with only a couple hundred down, and they give you a no-interest loan for the next three years, with part of the deal being that you're locked to their service. (There are many people who could not get a different loan, and don't have credit cards.) There's nothing unreasonable about this -- it is a great deal for these customers.
However, these are customers who are bad risks, which is why they are getting the loan from the phone carrier. If afte
Re: (Score:1)
sell phones WITHOUT a loan, AND WITHOUT LOCK
sell phones with loan, and with lock
AND NEVER SHALL THE TWO MIX
Re: (Score:2)
As an ATT subscriber I can unlock any device from the portal that is paid for, free and clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And where are these supposed subsidies anyway? I just had a quick look at t-mobile.com, and to get my 16 Pro/256 would cost me $1099. That is the same price I would pay at the Apple Store, where I would get an unlocked phone out the door, no need to wait, apply, and jump through hoops. And it's not like the service plans have lowered in price since the carrier subsidies went down to a pittance to non-existent. So.... why would I take the locked phone and 2-year contract?
The carriers used to subsidize th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Because it's really a loan. Essentially you "buy" the phone at a reduced rate on the promise that you also buy service for the duration that the phone is locked. The provider covers a good chunk of the actual cost of the phone, and the user then has to use the provider's service."
That's a benefit of the contract, not a benefit of locking.
Locking is neither necessary nor sufficient to enforce the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Locking is neither necessary nor sufficient to enforce the contract. For the Prepaid case there is no term contract with the consumer on the subsidized phones you can buy from anywhere (purchased at ordinary stores, not from the carrier). The locking is the only thing that keeps you to buy service for the minimum number of months before unlocking is allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire argument is nonsense.
The customer is still under contract and still has to pay the fees for the duration of the contract, and there are usually unofficial unlock methods available if you know where to look.
Their argument would only make sense if you could keep the (locked) phone and stop paying the subscription.
Locking handsets is 100% anti consumer, prevents people from using a different service locally (eg many phones these days are dual sim, or support esim so people have a personal and work s
Re: (Score:2)
Just how is a locked phone good for the consumer? This sounds like gaslighting by T-Mobile and AT&T. It's actually anti-consumer.
Because it's really a loan. Essentially you "buy" the phone at a reduced rate on the promise that you also buy service for the duration that the phone is locked. The provider covers a good chunk of the actual cost of the phone, and the user then has to use the provider's service.
In that sense, the providers are correct - without being able to lock the phone and guarantee the revenue stream they'd be forced to increase the initial price of the phone.
(emphasis mine)
Just plain fucking wrong. There is nothing about that situation that FORCES them to fuck over their customer even more. And that's really their argument, just like a mobster with a protection racket... "play by our rules or the offer won't be so good next time".
You want me to pay you for your phone network? I'm going to need a phone. You want to entice me to be a customer by offering a phone for cheaper than I can get it elsewhere? Go for it. But if I "buy" the phone, it's mine. That's the wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The manufacturers could come up with a system where They record a "balance" associated with each phone, And either you OR the carrier you choose to activate with has to agree to pay the manufacturer a monthly set commission for each month of service To keep that hardware active, until the remaining balance on that piece of ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With ATT theres no subsidy I have seen. You buy the phone with a 30month installment plan. Once the phone is paid off you are free to unlock it. A 60day rule will not mean you can move your phone to a different carrier and steal the phone. It means you wont get an option to buy it on a 30month installment plan. Want that iphone 15pro? Its gonna cost you $1200 up front instead of $38/mo. The only way this makes sense is letting you unlock it AFTER you repay the remaining balance.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA, because the provider sells it at a discounted rate since it locks in the customer to the provider making them more money in the long run.
A law banning this should not ban that practice completely.
Providers should be able to offer it as an option. "Want $50 off your new phone? Let us lock it to our network."
Re: (Score:2)
Providers should be able to offer it as an option. "Want $50 off your new phone? Let us lock it to our network."
IMO, they should be able to offer the reduced price as an option. "Want $50 off your new phone? Buy it through us instead of Amazon/Ebay/Apple/Google/etc.."
No one is forcing them to do otherwise.
If I'm buying a new plan and a new phone from a provider, why do they think they need a carrier lock??? AFAICT, the only way that helps is if I sell the phone to someone else and renege on the deal, then whomever I sell it to has to get their plan through them as well. Is that really a big risk when we're talking ab
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, here in Europe, we're all walking around really sad because our phones are all unlocked (and have been for years).
I tell you, it's almost impossible to find anyone who likes it. We all go and "buy" the latest phones on a contract with one of the providers, and they go an force us to upgrade time and time again, long before the contract ends, and all we have to do is extend the contract but keep paying the same. It's literally like a mobile phone crack deal.
Oh and then we think "I'll change provider",
Re: (Score:2)
Just how is a locked phone good for the consumer? This sounds like gaslighting by T-Mobile and AT&T. It's actually anti-consumer. A locked phone means that the consumer is NOT free to go to the carrier of their choosing. I am all for the 60 day rule.
They are arguing that they can't provide the low up-front cost if they don't lock the customer to the network for the time it takes to "earn" the phone. I sorta/kinda see it, but to me that's a contractual thing. If the customer wants to buy the phone outright, let them. If they want to "get it for free" or whatever rate the network is providing, there's an agreement you stay on the network until they feel the phone is paid off. Provided that's reasonable (my last iPhone was a year contract for a freebie),
Re: (Score:2)
The customer must obviously be forced to be happy! They just do not know yet that getting screwed over makes them happy!
Fair is in the eye of the beholder (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, so tldr, if you remove the ability of the cellphone provider to optimize their profits by locking in users, they'll likely have to charge more to compensate for the losses.
Do cellphone providers not know about the importance of political contributions?
Re:Fair is in the eye of the beholder (Score:4, Insightful)
They've got their contracts with cancellation fees. Seems to me their profit is safe.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah aye. people are conflating being locked into a contract with buying locked phones at retail.
one makes sense, the other is criminal abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
If they could charge more, why wouldn't they already be doing so?
Companies giving away money now? (Score:2, Insightful)
What free and subsidised phones? The cost of those things are still paid by their consumers with a nice profit margin for themselves.
Phone makers don't give away their products for free either.
Re: (Score:1)
the problem is they are selling locked phones at retail.
being locked into a service contract is completely different.
Re: (Score:1)
no, that is completely different. service contracts and locked retail phones have almost nothing to do with each other.
once those service contracts expire however, phone should be unlocked as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
At least calling it "financing" is being honest. You're paying for it. Perhaps at the full MSRP. The carrier is keeping it locked until it's paid off.
The carriers should offer a few options. Buy your own phone up front for lower service rates. Or allow customers to pay off the balance, unlock the phone and then get the lower rate. Or buy the phone on time with a higher monthly rate*.
*Carriers will usually maintain this higher rate. But the honest ones will usually tell you that you've "earned" a newer mod
Re: (Score:2)
*Carriers will usually maintain this higher rate. But the honest ones will usually tell you that you've "earned" a newer model. Particularly if you threaten to change carriers.
I'm going to need a list of these "honest" cell providers of which you speak.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy from Tesco Mobile in the UK, you get two different contracts, a service contract for the airtime, and a finance contract for the actual phone. If you bring your own phone to Tesco Mobile, you just take out the service contract.
Re: (Score:1)
exactly. the problem is selling locked phones at retail without service contracts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are doing a payment plan for phone yea keeping it locked is understandable. If you pay for the phone's price upfront so you don't have to pay per month for it then it should be unlocked from the start. If you go with pay xx per month til its paid off, once you get it paid off you should be able to go in to any their retail stores and they should be by law required unlock it that day 0 question if/when asked.
Well, if the consumer defaults on the contract, the provider simply blacklists the IMEI. At least that is how it is done in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you free to cancel the contract at any time while keeping the locked handset?
If not, then it's two different things, you should get an UNLOCKED handset and the provider comes after you for breach of contract if you don't fulfil the contract terms.
There are plenty of legitimate uses for unlocked phones - travelling especially. They want to lock you in to exorbitant roaming rates for inferior service (no local number, traffic tunnelled back to your home country so its slow etc), when you could just buy lo
Trust is a womderful thing (Score:2)
The things I don't like is, you have to give up the right to use your device however you want, and whomever you want to get service from. Then you have to "trust" the Service provider to unlock the phone that is supposed to be yours.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The things I don't like is, you have to give up the right to use your device however you want, and whomever you want to get service from. Then you have to "trust" the Service provider to unlock the phone that is supposed to be yours."
But that is the point. It really isn't "your" phone when you are "buying" a subsidized device. It is not fully paid for. The alternative is to actually buy your own phone, which was never locked in the first place. All the phone I have used on T-Mobile I bought, paying
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a carrier "trust" the subsidized customer will stay with them long enough that they can at least make back the money to cover the initial cost of the device?
It's called contract law.
You make a contract and you have to trust the other party to honor the terms, if they don't then you have various legal recourses.
Original Galaxy Note (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlocked does not mean payed off.
The carrier can continue to collect the loan payment on the phone. But you are free to connect via another carrier. Presumably some people will buy a phone through AT&T and switch to use TMobile and some of TMobile customers will do the opposite. It's not as if there are all that many carriers or even that they are all compatible with every phone.
Re: (Score:2)
The more common scenarios are:
1) second line on a phone which supports multiple lines (dual sim, esim etc) - using a different provider because you frequently travel to areas where the first has no/poor service, or because you have separate lines for personal/business use etc.
2) travelling, when you find a local service provider - eg by buying a simcard at the airport when you land. This is almost always cheaper than roaming, faster because your data doesn't get tunnelled back to your home network, and give
The world's smallest violin. (Score:2)
"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."
Translation: "If we cannot keep our users on a leash then we won't be able to trick them into buying our overpriced service! You're going to prevent people from being tricked!"
Re: (Score:2)
I have full confidence in people's ability to continue to be tricked, locked phones or no.
Subsidies? (Score:2)
The customer is the one funding the company. Therefore theyâ(TM)re also the one paying for the free subsidies.
If you get a free phone thatâ(TM)s locked for a year, youâ(TM)re paying for it in extra profit margin in your monthly payments
A company that didnâ(TM)t provide free phones could afford to charge lower fees
Contract vs. Device lock (Score:2)
A few folks have mentioned that there's a contract, so the lock-in is unnecessary. I would counter that the lock in is a way to prevent people from ghosting the contract. Seems to me that, like buying a car, the device might not truly be "yours" until the last payment of the subsidy is paid.
I have no opinion on the morality of locking in a subsidized device. It's been over a decade since I bundled a phone into a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
The most common scenario for someone using a different carrier while still paying for the original contract is when they go abroad on holiday, as it is often much cheaper to buy a local prepaid SIM than to pay the contract carrier's roaming fees.
Not for my phone (Score:2)
I check each new iPhone to see if there's anything worth upgrading for (no, not really), and what it would cost.
I don't recall a single time where the locked phone from any provider cost less than the unlocked phone straight from Apple.
Maybe this is true for some other phones but not mine. Still rocking the iPhone 12 for as long they support it.
More corporate America bullshit. (Score:2)
"A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets."
Absolute rubbish. Unlocked handsets have been mandatory here in the UK for some time and they're unlocked from day one, not day 60 or month 12. Three UK have had unlocked handsets since before the law came in, at least a decade. All of them have the latest flagships from Apple, Samsung etc available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Carphone Warehouse had a policy of only selling unlocked phones, and they managed to sell them at the same price as the locked phones from the carriers' own shops. The benefit for them is that they didn't have to maintain 4+ different SKUs for each phone model.
Totally Nonsensical... (Score:3)
claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers.
Even if you pay for a new phone, in full, in cash, at MSRP, they still won't unlock it for 40 days. I'd buy this argument if the carrier locks were limited to financed phones, or if a carrier unlock was documented such that it gave service contracts a better standing if a cellular contract went to court. But no, T-Mo won't unlock a phone on the spot, even if paid for in full.
The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs.
Yet, somehow, my phone bill is roughly double what it was five years 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."
So then sell a phone at two prices, one subsidized, one carrier unlocked, and let the customer choose. You don't even need separate SKUs, just keep the locked phones and let the people in the store perform a SIM unlock if the unlocked phone is purchased.
If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said.
And a Pixel 9 Fold goes for $1,800; the closest thing to a promotion is 24-month financing.
"A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets."
And yet, Verizon can sell their iPhones SIM unlocked without a problem....
Look, I'm still salty that they charge a $35 "assisted support fee" as a part of the sale of a phone, even if the phone is sold in a factory sealed state and no assistance is provided.
I haven't bought a phone through T-Mobile in years because it's the absolute worst experience all around. One of these days, I'll get around to leaving them.
In related news, (Score:2)
foxes oppose the introduction of rules forbidding them from guarding hen-houses, claiming that foxes are good for the hens.
Say something ridiculous, anything. (Score:2)
And there'll be a percent of people who believe it, just because they don't understand anything.
Call it what it is: Predatory lending (Score:2)
Selling people overpriced stuff they can't afford and then use scummy tactics to keep bleeding them dry until they've paid the price many times over.
Just they wait (Score:2)
> T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation,
Lol, just they wait when their customers realise pohones in places like the UK are rarely locked.
It works fine in other countries (Score:3)
In the UK, all phones come unlocked. You can also get them on a contract, and while you can put a different operator's SIM card inside a phone that is still on contract, you still have to pay off the original contract.
People most often do that when they go on holiday to another country. They will buy a local SIM when they arrive, use that while they are away, and put their contract SIM back in when they return home; as it is much cheaper than paying roaming charges.
The market defines the problem. (Score:1)
We have a cellular market so expensive that it has created a “prepaid” customer base that requires 40 to 70 percent discounts, in order to simply afford an iPhone 12. Hardware that is now over four years old.
And you have T-Mobile/ATT defending that status quo, threatening higher prices if we don’t continue to comply, while practically bragging about how “affordable” shit is now? The market says otherwise.
Fewer flagship phones will be sold (Score:2)
Now they need to require all phones (Score:3)
It's not a free market if a provider locks in an ecosystem and/or to their "partners". Personally, I'd like to see hardware, software, and services all kept separate but in the meantime, let us choose our hardware. A phone provider shouldn't be able to lock you into "only" phones they support.
It would be nice to work towards a global standard of bands, but in the meantime, we should be able to use any phone we want. T-Mobile, for now, is good about this. I doubt they will stay that way. The provider shouldn't be able to say no to a phone. They should only be able to point out if it doesn't support all the bands.
The same with home internet e.g. cable modem, fiber ONT etc. Personally, I don't want any companies hardware as my router or on my network, or in my house but we don't have much of a choice
Mandatory discount regulation (Score:2)
What might be needed is a second regulation to ensure the money assigned to the subsidy is automatically applied as a discount or as part of the base service fee.
This is the game we all play with carrier subsidized phones, if we upgrade before we need a new device we leave money on the table.
The cost of the subsidy is built into the monthly fee.
If we are all paying the full unsubsidized price of the device than the rate per month should come down accordingly.
Of course US capitalism being what it is, the car
catch-22 (Score:2)
I have a $200 phone I bought from Virgin because, well, because I had to due to unused credits. Virgin got bought by Sprint. Sprint sold part of its business iirc to Boost, including me. Boost got sold to Dish.
Neither Virgin, Sprint, Boost, nor Dish are able to unlock my phone. So, its sole function now is to place orders with Walmart over WiFi.
Chains prevent floating off into space (Score:2)
Who doesn't love being chained to their telecom provider?