Live data from Hacker News

White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

petitions.whitehouse.gov

61–70 of 284 posts

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#61

This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern: "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network." This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

> This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

I don't have a problem with that. The phone's essentially lease-to-own at that point.

As soon as the subsidy is paid - via monthly contracts or early termination fees - it should be unlockable.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#62
post #26
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.

It's not? Normal people abdicating the political process is exactly what hinders change in democracies. We just completed our one-hundred-thirteenth peaceful transition of power at the will of the people. The entrenched powers-that-be are only entrenched because we, as an electorate, keep voting for them. If everybody showed up to the polls, they'd be out in two years— but hey, why bother?

Democracy looks a lot more like direct action than petition writing and voting. Look at the fight against the Keystone XL. All the campaigning in the world couldn't beat the fossil fuel lobby. But a few days of direct action in east Texas has resulted in route changes that even the best connected farmers couldn't implement.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#63
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be illegal ? We really, really, really don't want government interference in voluntary private contracts.

Are you saying that there is usually no government interference in private contracts? Or that there should be no government interference just when the consumers rights are being violated?

Largely, yes, and that is as it should be. It's an agreement between two willing parties with benefit received by both sides. A simple, legal, contract.

We're not talking about a legislated monopoly here, like your local power company. No one is FORCING you to go down to your local Verizon reseller and buy a contract phone. You're free to either buy an unlocked smartphone (at full un-subsidized price), or a prepaid phone, or any other of a multitude of options.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#64
my response to their response (sent via the "what did you think form")

I don't think you adequately addressed the larger issues raised by DMCA. Cell phones and tablet carrier locking is only one of the anti-consumer anti-user results of the law.

Not being able to install a different OS without illegal procedures such as "rooting" and "cracking" the device remain an outstanding issue for all ARM based devices. This limits competition and unfairly privledges the position of the device manufacturer over the user.

A device is a physical item. It is not rented it is sold. One should have full control over their own devices. Today, sadly, we (the people of the USA) are subject to an over-reaching law which prevents us from legally using our devices to their fullest potential.

As witnessed in the recent volatility of the tablet and smart phone market, commericial players come and go frequently. When they leave, they leave their customers stranded. With out a legal means to change the OS of their devices they are left with insecure outdated software which puts them, their employers and their family at risk.

Please consider expanding your approach to include a full range of consumer protections.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason it's not illegal to sell a closed padlock without a key.

Not quite the same thing, is it? We are comparing huge monopolistic corporations who use an anti-competitive, anti-capitalist technique with selling a primitive mechanical device that doesn't require a network to operate.

Aren't you being a bit of a blow hard here?

You can buy unlocked phones.

Right here for instance: http://store.apple.com/us/buy/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone...

You just don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#67
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not? Normal people abdicating the political process is exactly what hinders change in democracies. We just completed our one-hundred-thirteenth peaceful transition of power at the will of the people. The entrenched powers-that-be are only entrenched because we, as an electorate, keep voting for them. If everybody showed up to the polls, they'd be out in two years— but hey, why bother?

There has been no transition of power. Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. All democracies are far from perfect, but the US have allowed theirs to be dominated by money from the very foundation. Even quite corrupt democracies are more open to be changed by popular vote than the US, were not being bought and paid for beforehand means you don't have the means to successfully stand for election. Hel…

Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it.

You're half right. Technically we tax payers only lease our elected officials, they aren't our property (that became illegal a few years ago)

What's really funny is how people keep paying into a system they don't like and never do anything about it. According to popular practice, everyone thinks that Facebook and Twitter statuses will create change in Congress. Somebody should write a FAQ about that.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#68
post #10
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to break it to you, but their response was effectively: "we agree with you but we respect the process that brought us to this fucked-up state and look forward to continuing to work with congress". Petitions don't have any effect other than getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement. In that sense, they work perfectly.

Sad but true. Is the White House, ie the executive, the right entity to petition in this matter, which seems to be legislative? In Germany we have a mechanism to bring stuff in front of [a committee of] our parliament, is there anything like that in the US?

As far as I know the only way to do so is by lobbying one of your Congressional representatives (or one of the Congression representatives on the subcommittee in question to introduce the question for you).

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. Wait..., what? The military-industrial complex has something to do with locking cell phones? Are you familiar with the origin of this phrase?

It has quite a lot to do with the corruption of principles that make such legislative absurdities possible.

The DMCA is not a "legislative absurdity." It was embraced by both content owners and internet companies, who sought the safe harbor provisions of the act. From Congress's viewpoint, it was a measure that had broad industry support, with little to no public opposition.

As for why "broad industry support" is so crucial--it's because Americans care pretty much only about jobs. The media sector has jobs and the internet sector has jobs, and when you can get content owners and tech giants to agree on something, well then from the perspective of a Congressman you're in job-creation wonderland.

It's mind-boggling to hear all these rants about how "democracy is dead" when people here obviously fail to look beyond their own circle of idealistic friends to see what the American electorate is really asking for. E.g. remember Obama and Romney falling over themselves to see who could support coal power more in the last debate? You think it was because of checks written by the coal lobby? Of course not. In 2008, more than half of Obama's money came from donations under $200. Some coal lobby checks aren't going to make a dent in the situation. The real reason the candidates fell over themselves supporting Big Coal is voters. Voters in rural Pennsylvania whose livelihood depends on the coal industry. Hell voters everywhere--even your average American liberal is deeply skeptical of well-established progressive concerns like the environment, and are liable to believe something like "we can't pass measures that raise energy prices in a recession." You think they give a shit about "freedom of information," the "freedom to tinker," etc?

American politics is 90% a referendum on jobs, and has been since the recession of the late 1980's/early 1990's. Big corporations hold themselves out as job creators and creators of economic growth. At least half of voters outright believe that, and even among those that ostensibly don't, they don't disbelieve it all that strongly. That's what creates the corporatism in American politics.

Why does Congress support Verizon's right to lock down their phones over peoples' freedom to tinker with their phones? Because Verizon creates jobs. And while individuals may be annoyed by policies like that, what they are more worried about, indeed deeply afraid of, is any measure that would piss off the job creators.

Re: White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

#70

For those TL;DR'ers out there, here's a summary: The White House understands the petition and claims to agree. However, they aren't going to do anything about it other than wait for the "legislature" to address the issue. You might as well petition the corporate owners of the major cell. carriers, as they are probably the only ones who will do anything about this.

You do know that the executive branch doesn't actually write laws, right? By the definitions of the U.S. Constitution, the "legislature" in fact is required to write laws that can address the issue.

The Executive branch can influence or request actions of Congress, and it sounds like they're trying to do just that. But they don't have a magic sword that can cut through bureaucracy, which it seems that many people are criticizing them for not having. :/

Post reply on HN