this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
171 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1353 readers
646 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

For decades there has been endless policy wrangling over whether “unlocking your phone” (removing restrictions allowing you to take the device with you to another carrier) should be allowed. Giant carriers have generally supported onerous phone locks because it hampers competition by making it harder to switch providers. Consumer rights groups and the public broadly support unlocked devices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 30 points 4 months ago (17 children)

This is still a thing in the US?

Canada abolished that crap years ago... Phones are sold unlocked, and any remaining locked phones are required to be unlocked free of charge just by asking the Carrier.

[–] flying_mechanic@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (7 children)

It's only a thing if you are on some form of lease plan where you don't own it outright. Pretty much every carrier in the US sells phones on a monthly payment for the device, which usually is just the cost of the device spread over 30 months, etc. While the device is still not paid off its carrier locked. After its paid off you need to jump through a few hoops but it's honestly not too hard. I'm not sure what the FCC is hoping to accomplish here, it's a similar arrangement to leasing/financing a vehicle, where the dealership holds the title till it's bought/paid off.

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I imagine people will have to start purchasing their phones outright. This will probably affect the lower class' purchasing power disproportionately, but personally, I don't see a problem with saving to buy rather than purchasing "on credit" so to say.

[–] flying_mechanic@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think that would also see an eventual reduction in device costs eventually as more people will be unable to pay the premium costs of a flagship device. Or the mid tier devices will start selling more, androids popularity will probably rise too, matching the rest of the world

[–] tpihkal@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Certainly corporations will have to find a way to provide more affordable options until they can figure out another way to assure investors of the "infinite" wealth growth plan.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)