Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 171 posts

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

#91

Post by [deleted] »

TylerE wrote: post #90
riggins wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest? well how about phone unlocking? I struggle to see the case for having locked phones. My first cut would be an appeal like 'the phone companies are trying to steal money out of your pocket. It's un-American. You should be free to do what you want with you phone.'

Ok, the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. If you want to truly OWN your device, you can pay fair market value for it, and get service from whoever you want.

[deleted]

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

#92

Post by donniezazen »

mokus wrote: post #53
donniezazen wrote: post #48

When someone is not paying the full price of a phone, how can they expect to do anything with the phone? People don't actually own them.

> People don't actually own them. Of course they do. If I buy a new house or car, I don't have to pay the full price up front, but when I have finished paying for it I absolutely do own it. Subsidized phones are essentially loans. You pay for them over the course of your contract or with early termination fees, and when the contract is over you own them 100%.

They do allow you to unlock the phone after two years.

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

#93

Post by donniezazen »

darkarmani wrote: post #65
donniezazen wrote: post #48

When someone is not paying the full price of a phone, how can they expect to do anything with the phone? People don't actually own them.

> People don't actually own them. I think you need to read up on property law or show me what law I'm ignorant of that says you don't actually own the phone.

You do use your property for intended purposes on the basis of legal agreement you signed in.

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

#94

Post by bjustin »

jobu wrote: post #83

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.

Now come on, the reason they raised the bar from 25,000 to 100,000 is to keep up with the site's increasing popularity. They could have set the bar to 100,000 at the site's launch instead of 5,000, but no petitions would have reached the threshold.

As for petitions actually having results, I imagine they are the weakest form of lobbying possible. The executive branch sees them and that is all.

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

#95

Post by gknoy »

TylerE wrote: post #90
riggins wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest? well how about phone unlocking? I struggle to see the case for having locked phones. My first cut would be an appeal like 'the phone companies are trying to steal money out of your pocket. It's un-American. You should be free to do what you want with you phone.'

Ok, the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. If you want to truly OWN your device, you can pay fair market value for it, and get service from whoever you want.

> the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200.

Paying $200 instead of $600 is covered by the two year contract you sign with a carrier to get a subsidized phone, during which you pay them back the cost of that subsidization. If you leave early, an early-termination fee ensures that the subsidization is paid for.

At the end of your two year contract, you've paid back the full cost of the phone, and you should be able to treat it as Yours in every sense of the word -- even if that means unlocking it and taking it to another service provider.

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

#96

Post by schrodinger »

TylerE wrote: post #90
riggins wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest? well how about phone unlocking? I struggle to see the case for having locked phones. My first cut would be an appeal like 'the phone companies are trying to steal money out of your pocket. It's un-American. You should be free to do what you want with you phone.'

Ok, the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. If you want to truly OWN your device, you can pay fair market value for it, and get service from whoever you want.

Stop this argument! Regardless of whether you lock or unlock your phone, you're still in a contract with the phone company. The $400 subsidy in this argument was for the value of that contract, which doesn't disappear when you unlock.

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

#97

Post by gknoy »

prawks wrote: post #23
duaneb wrote: post #6

What exactly do these petitioners expect? A) there are far more important things to do, IMHO, then spending time wrestling telco companies over this, and B) the White House has to do zilch but respond. I love petitions, but people getting angry over e.g. repeatedly not legalizing marijuana after 0.03% of americans signed something I find confusing and frustrating. It's almost as if people are easier to ignore if they…

It appeases the throngs of slacktivists that run amok on the Internet, primarily. As has been stated elsewhere, the only real effect this can have is if it gains media traction. Which, given than there are celebrities and murders to report on, is always very unlikely in the US. If 100,000 people wrote personalized letters to their congressmen and women, it would likely have a much more substantial affect. The problem…

I wonder what it would take for the EFF to have, in addition to their "Email/Fax my senators now ..." button, a "Create a printable PDF" (or similar) link which would let me print out the letter, and mail it myself? The biggest thing keeping me from writing actual letters is the writing -- if I had a letter that I could just print, I'd be much more likely to find an envelope and stamp and put them to use.

If there were a convenient way to automatically print the letter as well as an envelope that had the mailing information already on it, that would overcome even more friction.

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

#98

Post by coldpie »

TylerE wrote: post #90
riggins wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to find 100M people who agree on what is in the public interest? well how about phone unlocking? I struggle to see the case for having locked phones. My first cut would be an appeal like 'the phone companies are trying to steal money out of your pocket. It's un-American. You should be free to do what you want with you phone.'

Ok, the case for locked phones is that you can get a $600 phone for $200. If you want to truly OWN your device, you can pay fair market value for it, and get service from whoever you want.

That's what the contract is for. You're either paying for the 2 years of service, or the early termination fee will cover the remaining $(400 - amount paid).

Locking the phone doesn't affect the subsidy payback one way or the other.

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

#99

Post by ajross »

jobu wrote: post #83

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.

What kind of effect were you expecting? The president promises to do whatever you want as long as you get N "signatures" on a weakly authenticated website? Even if you got those N people to all show up in person at the White House door, wrapping policy around the desires of a vocal minority is not a valid or just way to structure a government.

They promised to respond, which is about all they can promise. And this gives them a reasonable metric for how many voters care about an issue, which is a good thing. And they can probably even infer some demographic data from the results, which is another good thing.

Basically this is a tool to better inform policy decisions, and the evidence is that it's "working". If you were expecting more then I think your hopes were a little unfounded.

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

#100

Post by dguaraglia »

bjustin wrote: post #94
jobu wrote: post #83

Fast forward to next week: "The White House announces a new threshold of 500,000 signatures before it will respond to online petitions." I was initially enthusiastic about these online petitions, but it doesn't seem like any of them have had an effect.

Now come on, the reason they raised the bar from 25,000 to 100,000 is to keep up with the site's increasing popularity. They could have set the bar to 100,000 at the site's launch instead of 5,000, but no petitions would have reached the threshold. As for petitions actually having results, I imagine they are the weakest form of lobbying possible. The executive branch sees them and that is all.

Yep. Unfortunately you can't counter voices with fat checks and campaign contributions. That's a shame, to be honest.
Post reply on HN