• schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    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
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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
      63
      ·
      24 hours 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
      ·
      24 hours 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
      ·
      23 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….