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

31–40 of 107 posts

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

#31

Post by rayiner »

uvdiv wrote: post #17
bostonpete wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlocking phones under contract is implicitly their core complaint. That's not so clear to me. You conveniently neglected to italicize "even after their contract has expired", which along with this phrase -- "decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full" -- seems to be included highlight the fact that the situation where a phone has been paid for in full is potentially different from a…

[...] which along with this phrase -- "decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full" -- seems to be included highlight the fact that the situation where a phone has been paid for in full is potentially different from a subsidized phone which is still being paid off. The petition is about both of them. Another of its complaints applies only to phones with contracts: roaming fees, Consumer…

> The petition is about both of them. Another of its complaints applies only to phones with contracts: roaming fees

Roaming fees are just as much a problem for locked phones that are off-contract.

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

#32

Post by _wp3r »

Anyone tried to request the manual/technical documents for a UConnect so you could flash your console and tinker with it?

Customer service told me tampering in any way would void the warranty on my entire vehicle.........

Needless to say I they didn't send me a copy of the manual.

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

#33

Post by forgottenpaswrd »

Sanddancer wrote: post #19
mseebach wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 do, the car is yours.

But you also own obligations to pay back a loan and interest to a bank.

Technically you have a credit and debit sheet, a new asset plus a new liability.

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

#34

Post by rayiner »

Sanddancer wrote: post #19
mseebach wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

Since an auto-loan is secured by the vehicle, your lender can and does put conditions on your use of the vehicle. E.g. they may require you to carry full collision & comprehensive insurance on the vehicle even if your state doesn't require it. In this situation, the lender is your carrier, and attaches a different set of conditions.

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

#35

Post by rayiner »

venomsnake wrote: post #10
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.

That is fallacy. Carriers are oligopoly with high cost of entrance. So if all carriers provide only locked phones there may not be enough devices on the market. There should be laws preventing forced vertical integration. If you sell hardware you cannot restrict the os(you are free to provide os, but locking of the bootloader should be left to the user). If you sell OS you cannot limit what applications the user can…

> So if all carriers provide only locked phones there may not be enough devices on the market.

Except you can buy directly from the phone manufacturer: https://play.google.com/store/devices/details/Nexus_4_8GB?id..., http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone

Your argument basically amounts to: "if the carriers did have a monopoly on phones, then there would be a problem."

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

#36

Post by anigbrowl »

larvaetron wrote: post #14
mseebach wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

But you haven't paid for it. You've typically paid for about 1/3 of it, and agreed to a contract which specifies a 2-year payment schedule for rest as part of your phone bill.

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

#37

Post by anigbrowl »

betterunix wrote: post #26
mokus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it's not the same at all. The ads say '$199 with contract.' And the fine print always explains you have to enter into a 2 year contract with the cell service provider, and that said contract will make you liable for early termination fees etc. if you try to skip out of it.

For the last decade I've bought my phones unlocked and subscribed to a monthly plan that I can leave at any time. That means paying full price for the phone at the time of purchase, which is a lot more than the discount prices used to tempt you into a contract.

Look, just because it's in your pocket and you get to use it as soon as you leave the store does not mean you own it.

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

#38

Post by anigbrowl »

venomsnake wrote: post #10
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.

That is fallacy. Carriers are oligopoly with high cost of entrance. So if all carriers provide only locked phones there may not be enough devices on the market. There should be laws preventing forced vertical integration. If you sell hardware you cannot restrict the os(you are free to provide os, but locking of the bootloader should be left to the user). If you sell OS you cannot limit what applications the user can…

Or you could go to MetroPCS or one of several other providers and buy an unlocked phone. T-Mobile offers both contract and month-to-month service, and IIRC will sell you an unlocked phone if you're willing to pay up front for it.

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

#39

Post by baddox »

grannyg00se wrote: post #8

"...once we buy an object — any object — we should own it." Sure, but a purchase often comes with restrictions that you agree to before deciding on the purchase. If you don't agree to the restrictions you can avoid the purchase altogether. I can buy a six hundred thousand dollar house and still not have the right to put a garden gnome on my lawn if I bought in a community with by-laws that prohibit that. "Because man…

You're talking about contract law. That's not what the DMCA is.

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

#40

Post by guelo »

bostonpete wrote: post #3
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…

> 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…

If I'm allowed to take a hammer and smash the phone while it's "bound by a service agreement" I should also be allowed to fiddle with the electronics.

The reason it is not illegal to smash the phone is because it is your phone. The service agreement is a contract that you entered saying you will pay a monthly fee for two years independently of what happens to the phone. The phone is used by the phone company as an incentive to get you to enter the contract.

In any case, breaking a term of a private contract is not a criminal act. If I stop paying my monthly phone bill they can potentially sue me in civil court but the FBI won't come knocking on my door. The DMCA criminal "circumvention" statute doesn't really have anything to do with the private contract.

Post reply on HN