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

91–100 of 284 posts

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

#91

Post by Cushman »

onli wrote: post #86
Cushman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, almost every time. Shit does happen. But no, I would seem to be the shockingly uncommon American who has some measure of faith in the process of self-governance that has seen us through the last two hundred thirty years.

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

#92

Post by betterunix »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #84
betterunix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that you might want to unlock your phone even without canceling your contract. Maybe you want service from two cell providers simultaneously for some reason. Why should the DMCA stop you from doing that?

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

#93

Post by moxie »

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…

If you have some information from the phone call that wasn't in the official response, then it's probably worth sharing it here. Otherwise, the official statement seems to absolutely confirm the doubts of the original skeptical responses.

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

#94

Post by lysium »

TylerE wrote: post #63
akarpenko wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I'm with you that you could by a non-subsidized phone. However, one of the points of the petition is that unlocking is currently illegal _even after the original contract has expired_. Why should that be allowed? The original contract is over, after all. No party should have any rights beyond the contract they've agree upon.

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

#95

Post by kirillzubovsky »

It is sad how irrelevant "We the people" really is. It gives people an illusion that the government actually cares. The response to this petition is essentially "we agree with you and we will work towards ... {bullshit here}." I signed a few of the petitions to see what would happen, but I think I am going to stop now as it's just a waste of time; a trap, nicely put in place by the administration. The only way petitions would matter if they led to real actions, but it would be suicidal on the part of the government to try and intervene with telecom companies; wouldn't be very helpful for the next election, that's all. Oh... sigh.

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

#96

Post by Camillo »

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.

Of course we do, especially when there is a huge imbalance of power between the parties.

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

#97

Post by kirillzubovsky »

Cushman wrote: post #11
sneak wrote: 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.

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.

Response != action.

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

#98

Post by lysium »

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?

Aren't airlines providing cheap tickets at a discount rate but with extra restrictions (no baggage, etc.)? Or discounted tickets that cannot be turned back, even when you are sick? I mean, if you don't like that, by an unsubsidized phone. I don't see the special treatment of the cell phone companies.

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

#99

Post by gmisra »

TL;DR:

1. The White House thinks this is a good idea, but it is not within their powers to implement change under the current law.

2. These rules (DMCA exceptions) fall under the Library of Congress, and the White House has recommended a review of said rules.

3. The LoC has also responded and agreed to re-review these exceptions: "We also agree with the administration that the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context." [2]

4. In an amicus-like capacity, the FCC has also responded and commented on the current regulatory regime: "From a communications policy perspective, this raises serious competition and innovation concerns, and for wireless consumers, it doesn't pass the common sense test. The FCC is examining this issue, looking into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers' ability to unlock their mobile phones." [3]

(end summary)

The Library of Congress could choose to reinstate the unlocking exception, which they at least purport to be reviewing. Or, the FCC could step in and claim regulatory oversight and create new regulations. Neither of those actions require direct congressional intervention, and both appear to have much higher visibility as a consequence of this petition.

----

[1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...

[2] http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html

[3] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013...

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

#100

Post by TylerE »

lysium wrote: post #94
TylerE wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I'm with you that you could by a non-subsidized phone. However, one of the points of the petition is that unlocking is currently illegal _even after the original contract has expired_. Why should that be allowed? The original contract is over, after all. No party should have any rights beyond the contract they've agree upon.

I agree that after the contract expires it should be fare game.
Post reply on HN