Technology

59377 readers

5324 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

482

AT&T tries to defend why it shouldn't let you unlock your phone sooner (www.androidauthority.com)

submitted 1 month ago by neme@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Wha? The guy I responded to said the customers now pay full price up front.

No. I never said that. I said the cost of the phone is upfront. There are no 2 year contracts anymore, and haven't been for at least a decade. You see the full price of the phone, and decide how much a month you want to spend to pay it off.

If a device is bought it should be unlocked.

I agree with you. And that's how it works. The question is how long after paying off the phone should it be locked.

Additionally giving away a phone for a determined time contract ...

Again, they haven't offered contracts like that in ten years. But yes you do need to pass a credit check to have a phone financed.

Bottom line, it’s predatory and should not be allowed.

What exactly should not be allowed?

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

OK so you buy the phone on a payment plan.. and credit check. Then once it's paid off it should be unlocked.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Correct, you've got it. That's how it's worked for ten+ years.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Here in the Netherlands they don't allow carrier locking and still sell on these installment plans.

They are 2 separate services (telecom & financing) and thus cannot be linked at sale. That's not an issue.. why would it be different in the US?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

In the Netherlands you purchase a new phone and a fixed monthly subscription for calls, texts, and data. You choose to pay for the phone itself upfront, or with installments each month, along with your monthly subscription cost.

That's the same thing. I think you don't know what you're talking about, friend.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Back to the original point.. Phones are not provider locked. That's not allowed. It's a predatory practice.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 0 points 4 weeks ago

You're talking about sim only plans. The US also has that.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The part they are saying is different is that the phones are unlocked immediately. They don't ever lock.