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

White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal”

petitions.whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 284 posts

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

#71

Post by betterunix »

duskwuff wrote: post #58
rallison wrote: post #32

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.

And I see no problem with that. If you're on contract, your cell provider gave you your phone for free (or at a very steep discount) in exchange for your agreeing to use it exclusively with them for the next 1-2 years. Having the phone locked to only work on their network is part of that agreement. Don't like that part of the agreement? Don't sign it, and pay the full price for the phone.

Why should the law protect loss leader strategies? My local supermarket does not get some special legal protection for its loss leader strategy with milk and eggs. What makes cell phone companies worthy of this special protection of their business, which puts independent cell phone stores at a substantial disadvantage?

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

#72

Post by Cushman »

onemorepassword wrote: post #51
Cushman wrote: 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…

This goes for all of you: Bullshit. Learn some recent political history, starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_electio... The Tea Party didn't sweep because they had money (although they did), but because they got people to vote. They were elected with a mandate to destroy the Federal government, and by God, they almost pulled it off. Whether you're progressive or libertarian, the reason the established parties keep winning is because their people vote, and our people don't.

Gerrymandering is a huge problem. Voter suppression is a huge problem. Electoral fraud may be a huge problem. But these things have not succeeded in destroying our democracy, yet — the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time. Our system is working, we're just losing.

So don't get involved if you like, sit back and be cynical if it makes you feel better(?), but don't pretend you're not part of the problem.

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

#73

Post by mpyne »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #43
JagMicker wrote: post #13

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.

This is pretty much the outcome of every single petition on the whitehouse site. -Someone requests some completely common sense thing happen. -Thing interferes with huge company making lots of money. -Whitehouse says something like "while we agree with you, we wont do anything to help, cheers!". Cool, thanks representatives of the people?

> Cool, thanks representatives of the people?

Congress represents the people. The Executive branch carries out the law enacted by the representatives of the people.

The leader of the Executive branch is really the most input people get into the Executive branch (and even what we have now is much more representative of a popular vote than what the Constitution's framers had originally intended).

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

timtadh wrote: post #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 li…

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by Karunamon »

sneak wrote: post #15
Cushman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he just got off the phone with the White House, I'd imagine he has a pretty good idea of what their response was. Your cynicism is a big part of the reason it's so hard to change things around here.

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.

How exactly is the DMCA "bullshit"? It provides an (addmitedly imperfect, yet better than the alternative) notification/takedown/reinstatement process and indemnifies content providers from the infringing acts taken by their users.

There might be many BS copyright laws and extensions, but the DMCA ain't one of them.

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

#76

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

TylerE wrote: post #42
akarpenko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice petition, but it didn't go far enough. Why should locking phones be legal at all?

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

Cell phone companies get a government granted monopoly on a public resource (spectrum). The cell phone industry wouldn't exist as it is without government interference.

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

#77

Post by fennecfoxen »

JagMicker wrote: post #13

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.

It's extra funny because this White House doesn't actually meet with the legislature. I think they had something like a 9-minute meeting with the Speaker of the House during the whole sequester-deadline rigamarole -- and that mostly as a token gesture after they were getting called out for not meeting with the legislature.

Obligatory Disclaimer: No comment is herein offered on the merits of the positions of the Republican Speaker of the House or the Democrat President with regards to the recent sequester-deadline rigamarole.

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

#78

Post by zanny »

onemorepassword wrote: post #51
Cushman wrote: 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…

I agree I don't like the peaceful transition wording. Republicans and democrats collude together, and are both paid off by almost every major company in the US to vote in their favor. Both are owned, both put forth candidates in each district that fit their ideology and interests, and people vote between two politicians groomed to uphold the party line.

There isn't a choice. It is why I vote libertarian. But the root problems are deeper than that, mainly that you have individual citizens voting for too many people they have no empathy or commonality with, and that politics is a profession rather than civil service.

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

#79

Post by peterwwillis »

sneak wrote: post #15
Cushman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he just got off the phone with the White House, I'd imagine he has a pretty good idea of what their response was. Your cynicism is a big part of the reason it's so hard to change things around here.

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.

Wait, are you saying the military-industrial complex is responsible for the DMCA? Because it's really, really not.

Perhaps you should look up what "lobbying" is, and what industries have lobbies. (hint: ALL OF THEM)

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

#80

Post by smacktoward »

arbitrage wrote: post #70
JagMicker wrote: post #13

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…

If it wants to, an administration can work through friendly Members of Congress to get a piece of legislation it wants into the hopper. The White House (or some cabinet agency) writes the bill and passes it to a friendly member; the friendly member introduces it under their own name; then they work together to whip up co-sponsors.

What this response indicates is that the Administration agrees with the petitioners on this issue, but not strongly enough to spend any political capital on it. Working the Hill in this fashion requires calling in favors, and a favor called in on cell phone locking is a favor that can't be called in on some other issue.

Post reply on HN