Get Out of Cell Jail Free
June 15, 2017 12:19 PM   Subscribe

 
No problem. They can just raise prices to make up for the lost revenue.
posted by dobbs at 12:26 PM on June 15, 2017 [2 favorites]


But it is still better having options, even if it costs more.

Of course, YMMV.
posted by Samizdata at 12:28 PM on June 15, 2017 [1 favorite]


It may lead to lower prices, as it will be easier to be lured away by a better plan, as you won't have to pay a fee to switch.
posted by Kurichina at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2017 [2 favorites]


More importantly all new devices have to be sold unlocked. This is huge for having an actual competitive marketplace.
In March, the CRTC reported that Canadian telecoms made a total of $37.7 million last year by charging customers to unlock their cellphones [...] The big three warned that if they didn't charge an unlocking fee for the few customers who want it done, the cost would have to be passed on to everyone.
Emphasis mine. 37.7 million from a "few" customers.
posted by Mitheral at 1:08 PM on June 15, 2017 [12 favorites]


And in the EU, roaming charges are banned. Suck it, brexiters!
posted by TedW at 2:47 PM on June 15, 2017 [4 favorites]


if they didn't charge an unlocking fee for the few customers who want it done, the cost would have to be passed on to everyone.

Except that there would be no cost in the first place if the telecoms didn't specifically ask the manufacturers to lock the phones....
posted by 256 at 9:36 PM on June 15, 2017 [3 favorites]


I mean, they're acting like making an unlocked phone costs $50 more than making a locked phone, and that it's unfair to make the minority who want an unlocked phone (which is a red herring, obviously. everyone wants an unlocked phone, they just don't all want to pay a premium for it) be subsidized by those who are fine with a locked phone.

NO. The phones are unlocked by default. You are fucking paying someone TO LOCK THEM.
posted by 256 at 9:42 PM on June 15, 2017 [6 favorites]


No problem. They can just raise prices to make up for the lost revenue.

You do understand that this is simply a variant of the right wing "regulations impose unnecessary costs on business" thinking which has been raised as an argument against every single piece of consumer or worker protection legislation in the history of the world?

I mean, cynicism can be fun and all, but when it results in this sort of inherently reactionary and entirely paralysing thought process, it seems like maybe it's not really the ideal approach.
posted by howfar at 5:19 AM on June 16, 2017 [5 favorites]


« Older Developers Who Use Spaces Make More Money Than...   |   Hella....yeah! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments