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

111–120 of 284 posts

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

#111

Post by betterunix »

lysium wrote: post #98
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?

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.

The difference is that the airline is selling you the right to sit on their airplane; the right to store your baggage on their airplane is another matter. In the case of the cell phone, your service contract is what gives you the right to use their network, and they are selling you a phone to use on that network.

The special treatment is the DMCA, which forbids you from unlocking your phone regardless of the contract. This gives the cell companies an advantage by protecting a loss leader strategy: it is less risky for them to sell you a phone at a large discount which is locked, because it is illegal for you to unlock it whether or not you are under contract. It would be as if an airline sold you a discount ticket, and the law forbade you from having another company carry your luggage.

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

#112

Post by stcredzero »

The Obama administration isn't perfect. (What administration is?) However they do seem to understand society's generational lag in understanding technology. They understand that the generation in charge is out of touch and so will unknowingly perpetrate heinous rules interfering with the way the society of people in their 20's actually use and understand technology.

Then again, maybe it's just because Obama is a smartphone user. (Is he still using a Blackberry?)

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

#113

Post by antimatter »

ynniv wrote: post #39
jvrossb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you emigrate to?

Neukölln, Berlin, Germany [ https://twitter.com/sneakatdatavibe ]

I'd be interested in reading about your experience doing this. I've been considering leaving the US as well lately.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

dhimes wrote: post #108
moxie wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is as good of a response as you can expect. This is a win. If you expected anything else (sneak, I'm looking at you here too) then you've never received a response from the White House on an issue on which they truly disagree. That letter would have said something like "While we respect your opinion, we believe that the current law best satisfies the needs of blah blah blah." Here, they are saying: yeah. We agre…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by larrys »

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.

"getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement"

I'm also sure they bend over backward to find a reason to agree with something just so they can say they are agreeing with some petitions and get points for it in news stories instead of giving a negative response.

Politicians do this as well. If you visit your local congressman he will be glad many times and enthusiastic about supporting your special interests. How much he goes to bat for you depends of course on the issue and who you are. At least he can wave a finger and say "I tried but the others wouldn't vote for it". Much better than telling you up front your issue will never get voted into law.

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

#116

Post by zaidf »

All this is good, but what happens to the next guy who gets arrested for this and has his life wrecked?

Sometimes I think there should be a penalty against lawmakers for passing reckless laws which could be convincingly argued against in a few paragraphs, as is the case here.

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

#117

Post by jmj42 »

betterunix wrote: post #82
onedognight wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The same reason you pay sales tax on a car you finance. Just because you are paying for the phone over 2 years does not mean that you get to defer sales tax.

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

#118

Post by obviouslygreen »

andrewem wrote: post #90
obviouslygreen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pract…

I believe I stated my post poorly. I should have said the relevant definition of "petition." It more generally means to request. Regardless, it's my uninformed impression that "petition" here isn't used in the specific sense of being enjoined by a number of people.

You're certainly correct that they are petitions, though a petition in this sense matches petition in the general sense, as a request regardless of format.

I definitely am not a Constitutional scholar, though, and I appreciate the informative response.

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

#119

Post by qlkzy »

zanny wrote: post #87
ChuckMcM wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

ChuckMcM is agreeing with you AFAICT --- it's "not supporting X in favour of AT&T" i.e. preferring AT&T over the people.

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

#120

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN