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

Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#21

Post by betterunix »

mseebach wrote: post #5
uvdiv wrote: post #2

Meanwhile, progress is being made to legalize cellphone unlocking. With grassroots groups leading the charge, the Obama administration announced its support for overturning the ban last week. I'm astonished that people overwhelmingly believe this falsehood. The White House response opposes legalized phone unlocking, except to phones already out of contract. When they say they "support unlocking", they have a differen…

> We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own You don't own a subsidised cell phone until your contract is out.

Except for the part where the company sells the phone to you without extending any lines of credit. This is not like buying a house or a car using loan money.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#22

Post by imgabe »

jdechko wrote: post #11
Thiz wrote: post #4

Vote with your wallet. Don't buy locked phones. Once the consumers know the power they have in their hands, change will come easier.

I'm torn on the issue of buying locked vs unlocked. I have a family to support, so I don't have $500 or more to spend on an unlocked iPhone. Even if I had the money, I live in the US, and I haven't traveled outside of the country in over 10 years. Finally, there is no monthly discount on service if you bring an unlocked phone to a carrier, so that's the third strike. I'll continue to buy a new locked device every cou…

Yes, there is a discount. You can buy an unlocked GSM phone and get a SIM only plan that costs half as much as the regular plans. The total cost is cheaper compared to how much you pay over a two year contract.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#23

Post by betterunix »

Thiz wrote: post #4

Vote with your wallet. Don't buy locked phones. Once the consumers know the power they have in their hands, change will come easier.

"Vote with your wallet"

That gives poor people less of a vote than rich people.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#24

Post by sukuriant »

res0nat0r wrote: post #20
Sanddancer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't "own" a car I buy on loan until I pay that off. That doesn't preclude me from replacing seats, putting in a turbo, etc. Why should a phone be different?

You can do many of those things to your car, but some of them might nullify your warranty.

Warranties are unrelated to cell phone unlockers. You can modify your car to comply with different company requirements. Volvo (or whoever) is just going to not honor their promise to fix things.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#25

Post by Sanddancer »

res0nat0r wrote: post #20
Sanddancer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't "own" a car I buy on loan until I pay that off. That doesn't preclude me from replacing seats, putting in a turbo, etc. Why should a phone be different?

You can do many of those things to your car, but some of them might nullify your warranty.

Yes, they may void the warranty. That's not the same as a federal crime.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#26

Post by betterunix »

mokus wrote: post #16
larvaetron wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A contract for 12/24 months of service has nothing to do with ownership of the phone. If you paid for it, it's yours.

That's exactly the point. You didn't pay for it until you gave them their 12/24 months of service fees (or early-termination fee).

This is like claiming that you did not pay for your milk unless you also purchased other groceries when your local supermarket uses a loss-leader strategy.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#27

Post by betterunix »

res0nat0r wrote: post #20
Sanddancer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't "own" a car I buy on loan until I pay that off. That doesn't preclude me from replacing seats, putting in a turbo, etc. Why should a phone be different?

You can do many of those things to your car, but some of them might nullify your warranty.

Yeah but I can still go to a mechanic and do those things. When it comes to phones, the businesses that might unlock them are now gone by law. A handy position for cell phone companies: their loss leader strategy is given special legal protections.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#29

Post by rayiner »

uvdiv wrote: post #2

Meanwhile, progress is being made to legalize cellphone unlocking. With grassroots groups leading the charge, the Obama administration announced its support for overturning the ban last week. I'm astonished that people overwhelmingly believe this falsehood. The White House response opposes legalized phone unlocking, except to phones already out of contract. When they say they "support unlocking", they have a differen…

They may have a "different interpretation" of what it means than you do, but it's consistent with what the article claims. The White House supports "overturning the ban," "the ban" being the categorical ban on unlocking. The fact that the opposition is narrower than you would like it to be is neither here nor there.

Re: Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

#30

Post by rayiner »

uvdiv wrote: post #7
bostonpete wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm astonished that people overwhelmingly believe this falsehood. Maybe that "falsehood" doesn't conform to your beliefs about what sort of unlocking should be allowed, but I think the quote you highlighted is a reasonable one. There are legitimate reasons to allow restrictions on what can be done with subsidized devices which are still bound by a service agreement. Your comment suggests that you're astonished that…

Maybe that "falsehood" doesn't conform to your beliefs about what sort of unlocking should be allowed, I think their definition disagrees with most peoples' definitions, including the one in the petition itself: "As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired. " Unlocking phones under contract is i…

> Unlocking phones under contract is implicitly their core complaint.

Perhaps, but unlocking off contract is explicitly their complaint.

Post reply on HN