It’s not the same thing though. LTE != internet.
In practice whether any given carrier makes them the same thing is another question. From what I can gather, carriers are an oligopoly in most countries and they are supremely unresponsive to customer wishes.
But then …
This sounds controversial. I don’t think you can be half pregnant. You either have internet or you don’t.
Yes, it is possible that a responsive carrier might choose to enable such an arrangement where the carrier provides updates and you have no access to the internet. How many privacy-focused customers would be happy with that though?
Would such a phone be so stripped back that it could get by with no updates? Or maybe updates only via a USB-connected host computer?? (just like in the bad old days of the early iPhones)
I have lots of implied questions.
I’ve seen the headlines too but … did anyone tell Big Corporates?
More and more of them are introducing apps that will in the not so distant future be required in order to authenticate and/or interact. Want to deal with Big Corp or Big Gov? Then you’ll need the app. So there’s something of a tug-of-war there and I’m not predicting the winner.
Clearly the traditional Librem 5 market is not the market for a dumbphone.
Then there are the social-media-addicted Gen Zs … I guess that’s what you mean by detox.
Then there are the questions as to whether MMS will still be possible if there’s no internet. (I think that MMS would no longer be possible - although maybe a carrier could make it work. Now, if the phone has no camera you can’t realistically send any images anyway. However MMS is used for more than just sending images - and of course people can still send images to you.)
Then there’s the newly de facto standard, RCS. Will that still be possible without internet? (The implication of not supporting RCS and only supporting SMS is that basically you won’t be able to do SMS at all eventually. So no real need for a QWERTY keyboard, just a dial pad. No SMS also means that those Big Corps who are security laggards and only allow authentication via SMS will then have no means of authentication.)
Then there’s the issue of homes with poor mobile coverage that can use WiFi calling to make calls while at home. No WiFi implies that that option disappears.
No internet implies that no calling options beyond vanilla mobile calls are possible e.g. no dedicated communication app (like Signal) e.g. no calling via social media e.g. no VoIP.
Some people like to synch their phonebooks from one device to another (and a basic phonebook would presumably still be a requirement even if the only thing the phone can do is make phone calls). That would be difficult or impossible if the phone is too stripped back.
Maybe it needs to be clearer what the dumbphone can do, rather than what it can’t.
I’m also wondering what there is to be kept private if all you can do is make vanilla mobile phone calls. That is never going to be fully private anyway. The carrier knows whom you call. The government can know.
Ditto regarding your approximate location. The carrier knows where you are. The government can know. The mobile phone network is by its nature unprivate as far as your location goes.
Anyway, all food for thought …
I get it, I feel it too. But then I remember that there are no such phones and that they will be valued, especially later in time when we will be overwhelmend by all the SMART things around us.