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

81–90 of 284 posts

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

#81

Post by TylerE »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #76
TylerE wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But there is nothing inherent in offering cell phone service as far as locking phones. That's a totally separate issue. I assure you that you could buy an unlocked phone (at full retail) and use it on a network of your choice with an appropriate SIM card.

You just don't get the telco to pay for 2/3rds of your phone when you do that.

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

#82

Post by betterunix »

onedognight wrote: post #52
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.

> This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted. You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated. They agree to buy your phone for you if you agree to n-months of service.

"You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated."

...then why do you wind up paying sales tax on it?

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

#83

Post by dbecker »

sneak wrote: post #6
sinak wrote: post #2

Hey guys, petition starter here. Just wanted to thank anyone who signed for their support. I just got off the phone with the White House and they're really enthusiastic about getting this fixed. We also discussed fixing Section 1201 of the DMCA permanently, and they've agreed to continue the conversation on that. When I originally posted this to HN at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 there were a lot of ve…

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.

I spent about 15 seconds clicking on a petition, and the guy who started the petition was able to use that to start a dialogue?

If anything, it's remarkable how effective that was. What sort of change did you expect with so little effort?

If you've ever done business development, you'd know that opening that dialog is frequently the hardest step. Meaningful changes are carefully considered, and they don't happen overnight. This is a good first step.

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

#84

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

betterunix wrote: post #71
duskwuff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The contract issue is mostly orthogonal to unlocking the phone - most contracts that give you a reduced price have a clause allowing you to cancel early, with a penalty cost that loosely approximates the subsidy that went towards your phone. The problem is that even if you wanted to pay this penalty, the DMCA makes it illegal to unlock your phone.

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

#85

Post by atonse »

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.

Funny with the quotes around legislature.

The executive branch of gov't cannot make laws. It's that simple. But if they needed to somehow override something without waiting for Congress, there are vehicles like Executive Orders. But they are more like exceptions and statements of policy, and still not substitutes for legislation.

Either way, the ideal solution here IS for congress to draft legislation. That is the only solution that'll be permanent, long term, and clearer to discuss (or dismiss) in courts.

In no way shape or form, is this AT ALL an urgent matter that they have to address by doing an Executive Order. As much as I'd love to have my iPhone unlocked, it ranks near to the bottom of what I'd like the President to focus his energy on, especially when signing Executive Orders that are supposed to actually carry weight.

If we want Obama to sign an executive order, then we must present a case as to why this is so urgent that it can't wait for Congress to draft legislation.

This is the best we could've hoped for, without really wishing that Obama was a dictator that could wave his hands and invent laws overnight.

Edit: I for one fully support what ChuckMcM says - at this point, we should contact our congressmen and tell them this is important to us, and that we want to see legislation drafted sooner rather than later.

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

#86

Post by onli »

Cushman wrote: post #72
onemorepassword wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reaso…

> the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time.

That is a joke, isn't it?

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

#87

Post by zanny »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #35
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.

So you can do what I just did, write your congressional representative and include a copy of the statement from the Whitehouse. My argument was simply, this is what the people want, the executive branch agrees, its up to you guys to make it happen so please do so. I can only imagine how hard it will be to be re-elected if you were to not support such legislation when it came up in favor of one of your big donors (AT&…

> its up to you guys to make it happen so please do so. I can only imagine how hard it will be to be re-elected if you were to not support such legislation when it came up in favor of one of your big donors (AT&T).

It isn't in favor of AT&T. At all. Having platform lock in means after they sell you a device they can price gouge you indefinitely and since you probably bought the device outright since you aren't on a 2 year contract and thus have the option to change carriers, you probably don't want to just ditch it immediately.

Platform lock in is good for device manufacturers, carriers, and business, but bad for consumer freedom, choice, and market competitiveness. And there is no multi-billion dollar lobby for the the latter.

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

#88

Post by betterunix »

DigitalJack wrote: post #44
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.

That is a matter of contract law. If you are no longer obligated by the contract you agreed to, then there should be no barriers to unlocking.

Why should there be any barriers while you are on contract? What if someone wants to use their phone one two different networks for some reason, swapping SIM cards occasionally (OK, I cannot come up with a reason why, but that does not mean no such reason exists)? If you are paying for your service, what's the problem?

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

#90

Post by andrewem »

obviouslygreen wrote: post #34
GabrielF00 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its in the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .

Not sure what you're going for here. The literal definition of "petition" is not what's intended there and having the right to ask nicely doesn't mean the government is required to implement something else that allows this; the primary means is through electing and speaking with officials. And that doesn't work either. [edit: As pointed out below, my use of "literal" here is not as intended; by "literal definition" I…

Actually, while I am not a Constitutional scholar, I believe that the literal definition of "petition" is precisely what is meant by that section of the First Amendment. The Founders knew what petitions were and how they intended them to function when sent to the government. The proof of that is that back in 1774 the Continental Congress sent a petition [1] to King George III (well, theoretically to him, but in practice to the two Houses of Parliament) requesting that a set of laws they disliked be repealed. This was about 15 years before the Bill of Rights was approved by Congress [2], so one can assume that people were still aware of it.

The analogy isn't perfect since the US doesn't have the same system of government and so petitions to the US government can't go to quite the same party or parties, but it's bizarre to claim without evidence that the plain sense of the word as used then and now isn't what's meant. The fact that the President is making it easier to gather signatures for a petition doesn't change the fact that they're requests to the government initiated by citizens, for the redress of grievances.

(Now if you are a Constitutional scholar, as say the current President is, I'd love to hear an argument as to why the straightforward meaning is wrong. Any such response would likely cite various Supreme Court decisions from the last 200+ years.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Post reply on HN