> Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China

lol: HUAWEI will no longer allow bootloader unlocking (Update: Explanation from HUAWEI) - https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-bootloader-unlocking...

(It was surprisingly hard to find any news articles covering this. Most media just don't care that one of the biggest manufacturers in the world won't let users control their own phones. So much for holding the powerful to account, or protecting liberties.)

▲

aeblyve a day ago | parent [-]

I don't think phones were ever "user-controlled", each one is designed fundamentally to connect to corporate-run wireless networks. Thus they want a say in the types of communications you do, gating certain kinds like RCS behind attestation. To that end there will be never be an alternative without some channel control.

Not totally unlike the way Bell used to strictly regulate their own user endpoints in the 20th century.

Within that stage, I could be wrong, but I would expect a somewhat freer software ecosystem there, as it is an economy oriented around manufacturing, and it is useful to write many various applications around that end.

▲

like_any_other a day ago | parent [-]

> I don't think phones were ever "user-controlled", each one is designed fundamentally to connect to corporate-run wireless networks.

And PCs connect to corporate-run wired networks. What you're saying is at best an argument for locking the only radio chip itself, at worst it's propaganda to justify stripping ownership rights from consumers - "The item you think you own can affect some corporate property, therefore the corporation will seize control of it."

Hell the ISPs, phone and wired, can already drop you as a customer, blocking your communications, if they detect you interfering with their network. So any arguments that they must also control your devices are simply lies, transparently so even if they were coming from someone with 1000-times the goodwill and honest record of ISPs.

Edit as reply because I'm "posting too fast, please slow down":

> your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems

No, only the cellular chip does. And non-free/locked firmware is nothing new, even in PC-land.

> but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work.

But it worked (and still works) just fine with rootable phones on the network. So rootable phones are not in any way an "alternative" - they are the (dwindling) status quo.

	▲	aeblyve a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>And PCs connect to corporate-run wired networks A bit wrong, PCs usually connect to modems or ONTs that in turn connect to the wired telco network, which are deeply unfree. The nature of RF as a channel means your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems. Attempting to draw a line between the corporate part and "your part" doesn't necessarily make sense because one doesn't exist, and if it did, is always shifting, especially in different environments. I'm not necessarily "arguing in favor" of this kind of organization by describing it, but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work. It's not enough to demand freedoms (which doesn't work), they have to be enshrined in real organization, in the social sense and material too. Today that means people have to get paid.
	▲	aeblyve a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> But it worked (and still works) just fine with rootable phones on the network. If the definition of "the network" is connecting to some LTE, sure, if it means being able to use RCS, or Google pay, or a banking app, it is much more questionable. You attempt to cut the cellular chip out as the sole telecomm relevant part, but it is a fiction. It's visible today in bandwidth constrained environments like aircraft wifi that certain types of supposedly application-level traffic are not permissible (video calls). Conversely improving the channel capacity in general will require higher control of the user environment.