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

71–80 of 107 posts

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

#71

Post by grannyg00se »

nitrogen wrote: post #57
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…

Any other manufacturer is free to supply equipment and compete on a different business model. I think we should call this the "Just-market Fallacy" (I just Googled it and I'm not the first person to use the phrase), analogous to the Just-world Fallacy.

How is this analogous to the just world fallacy?

In that case the belief is that people get what they deserve. If bad things keep happening to you it must be because you're doing something wrong. Because the world is overall just.

In this case people are willfully encouraging a certain business practice by giving those businesses their money. Then they complain about the business practice they just supported and look to the government to force the businesses to behave differently. They're not being victimized by a harsh world and being told it's their fault. They're willfully victimizing themselves.

This is different if there is some kind of government enforced monopoly interfering in the market. But the end result is the same in that case. The business isn't the problem.

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

#72

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #34
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?

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.

>Since an auto-loan is secured by the vehicle, your lender can and does put conditions on your use of the vehicle.

The distinction is that those are contractual conditions. If you fail to carry comprehensive insurance on your vehicle, they may repossess it etc. according to the contract, but the police don't come to arrest you.

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

#73

Post by Zak »

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…

There are legitimate reasons to allow restrictions on what can be done with subsidized devices which are still bound by a service agreement.

Subsidized contracts come with early termination fees and require a credit check. Unlocking was legal for years. Was there a significant problem with people unlocking phones, breaking their contracts and getting away with not paying the fee?

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

#74

Post by AnthonyMouse »

grannyg00se wrote: post #71
nitrogen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any other manufacturer is free to supply equipment and compete on a different business model. I think we should call this the "Just-market Fallacy" (I just Googled it and I'm not the first person to use the phrase), analogous to the Just-world Fallacy.

How is this analogous to the just world fallacy? In that case the belief is that people get what they deserve. If bad things keep happening to you it must be because you're doing something wrong. Because the world is overall just. In this case people are willfully encouraging a certain business practice by giving those businesses their money. Then they complain about the business practice they just supported and look…

>They're not being victimized by a harsh world and being told it's their fault. They're willfully victimizing themselves.

You're ignoring the collective action problem. Suppose that long-term contracts reduce competitiveness, because if people can't switch providers at the drop of a hat then companies don't compete as aggressively and in consequence their profits go up while the value for money on cellular service goes down. The providers know this and charge a premium for off-contract service (or, equivalently, offer a phone subsidy for on-contract service which add less to the monthly fee than paying full price for the phone would). So for each individual customer, it's better to take the subsidy, even though doing so at scale is bad for customers in general.

Solving collective action problems like that is one of the few things that governments are good at, assuming they haven't been captured by industry lobbyists.

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

#75

Post by sinak »

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…

Hey, petition author here. I've wondered about the White House's language on this, but my understanding of it is that the White House isn't requiring that the consumer's service agreement be complete, but rather that they not break their service agreement by unlocking.

Afaik there aren't any service agreements that prevent consumers from unlocking. As such, I think they're advocating for the ability to unlock at any time.

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

#76

Post by nitrogen »

grannyg00se wrote: post #71
nitrogen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any other manufacturer is free to supply equipment and compete on a different business model. I think we should call this the "Just-market Fallacy" (I just Googled it and I'm not the first person to use the phrase), analogous to the Just-world Fallacy.

How is this analogous to the just world fallacy? In that case the belief is that people get what they deserve. If bad things keep happening to you it must be because you're doing something wrong. Because the world is overall just. In this case people are willfully encouraging a certain business practice by giving those businesses their money. Then they complain about the business practice they just supported and look…

They're willfully victimizing themselves.

...by doing the only things they can in order to remain competitive in the short term.

The Just-market Fallacy is analogous to the Just-world Fallacy because it assumes that all actors are free to change their behavior, thus if they don't change their behavior, they are getting what they deserve from the market.

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

#77

Post by sinak »

unwind wrote: post #9
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…

Yeah, the article was over-simplifying a bit. I doubt that Wired thinks I can buy a copy of their (print) magazine and then, since I own it , I can do whatever I want with it (like scanning it and putting it online).

But Wired may think that you should be able to use what you've bought in a non-copyright-infringing manner. For example, you might scan the magazine so you can read it on your tablet. That's what's at stake here.

Btw, it's a Wired opinion piece, so it doesn't necessarily reflect Wired's own thoughts on the matter.

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

#78

Post by anigbrowl »

betterunix wrote: post #69
anigbrowl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither carrier has a property interest in the phone. Nobody is charged a fee for breaking their phone while under contract; they are expected to just buy another phone. You know perfectly well that you retain liability for the ETF, which is a proxy for the phone, and reflective of the impracticality of repossessing it. And the administration supports the right to unlock your phone out of contract. While it's in cont…

"You know perfectly well that you retain liability for the ETF, which is a proxy for the phone, and reflective of the impracticality of repossessing it." No, I know no such thing; all I see is a cell phone company using a loss leader strategy, and the US government affording them special protections for that strategy. On paper and elsewhere, you own your phone -- end of story. There is no issue of repossession becaus…

It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments.

Who ever said it was? Arguing with you is turning out to be a colossal waste of time; every time you run into problems you gin up a straw man and attack that. This is my last contribution to this thread.

Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so.

I've already addressed that points. The administration has expressed its support for people being able to unlock their phone when its out of contract. So if the administration gets what it wants and Congress updates the law, your complaints will be moot. If you don't like the terms of offer in a discount cellphone contract, then don't enter into such a contract.

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

#79

Post by amalcon »

anigbrowl wrote: post #52
amalcon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you have. You "paid for it" when you signed the contract, to which you are obligated regardless of what happens to your phone. A mobile phone contract is not a loan; the phone is not collateral. You can't choose to give back your phone in lieu of an early termination fee.

And the early termination fee is prorated to the outstanding term of your contract. The difference from (say) a car lease simply reflects the difficulty of repossessing your phone. Meanwhile, if you get tired of the contract, you just breach it and pay the ETF. then you can unlock your phone immediately.

No; the difference from (say) a car loan reflects the fact that there's no lien created on the phone. That in turn may be because such a lien would be unenforceable. Still, the reason there's no lien is not relevant. Its absence is relevant.

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

#80

Post by uvdiv »

sinak wrote: post #75
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…

Hey, petition author here. I've wondered about the White House's language on this, but my understanding of it is that the White House isn't requiring that the consumer's service agreement be complete, but rather that they not break their service agreement by unlocking. Afaik there aren't any service agreements that prevent consumers from unlocking. As such, I think they're advocating for the ability to unlock at any…

Afaik there aren't any service agreements that prevent consumers from unlocking.

Here's one:

WIRELESS CUSTOMER AGREEMENT ("Agreement")

3.0 TERMS RELATING TO YOUR DEVICE AND CONTENT

3.1 Your Device

[...] You agree that you won’t make any modifications to your Equipment or its programming to enable the Equipment to operate on any other system. AT&T may, at its sole and absolute discretion, modify the programming to enable the operation of the Equipment on other systems. [discussion of SIM locks follows]

https://www.att.com/shop/legalterms.html?toskey=wirelessCust...;

Post reply on HN