Petition to make unlocking phones legal again passes 100,000 signatures

Post by pekk » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:44 PM UTC

homosaur wrote: post #10

TheCapn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have it in their heads that a successful petition is supposed to mean there will be change but that was never promised. I've always felt petitions were used by lawmakers to help filter noise. If you set a threshold for the amount of support any cause needs before you'll address it (preventing you from having to listen to each person individually) the petition system seems only logical. If the lawmakers now see…

Filter noise? You mean like concerns of citizens instead of concerns of lobbyists? A Kickstarter might be more useful than a petition in getting the attention of the US government.

Post by jws » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:47 PM UTC

analyst74 wrote: post #34

OK, something I don't understand. What's to stop someone from opening a store that sells unlocked phones? Is it because of the lack of carrier discount? If that's the case, people have already voted with their money on what they value more.

Post by jzworkman » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:56 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #37

analyst74 wrote: post #34

OK, something I don't understand. What's to stop someone from opening a store that sells unlocked phones? Is it because of the lack of carrier discount? If that's the case, people have already voted with their money on what they value more.

"people have already voted with their money on what they value more" 1. We do not vote with money in America. Poor people get as much of a vote as rich people in this country. 2. By making jailbreaking illegal, the government is giving carriers a special legal status that makes it harder for anyone else to compete. If you want a market-based solution to life's problems, you cannot have the government swoop in and giv…

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:58 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #40

pessimizer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the guy who signs bills into law, and as the head of his party (meaning that he dictates how they are going to be whipped) he is lawmaker number 1.

The President is not the head of the party (Debbie Wasserman Schultz is to the extent that the position exists), nor is he in charge of whipping people (for the Democrats that's Steny Hoyer right now). He admittedly does have a huge bully pulpit. A defined legislative role. And he does personally lean on representatives. But the US has absolutely nothing equivalent to the organization and party discipline that countr…

Post by betterunix » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 4:01 PM UTC

jzworkman wrote: post #45

betterunix wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"people have already voted with their money on what they value more" 1. We do not vote with money in America. Poor people get as much of a vote as rich people in this country. 2. By making jailbreaking illegal, the government is giving carriers a special legal status that makes it harder for anyone else to compete. If you want a market-based solution to life's problems, you cannot have the government swoop in and giv…

Your point number 1 is a little naive. Money and interest groups drive policy. While the poor may have just as much vote in an election, the power to change policy generally is focused on the interest groups that most support that politician. So while people may not "vote with money" policy is very much money driven.