91–100 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The reason it is not illegal to smash the phone is because it is your phone." And because you have to either continue paying for service or pay a termination fee. In either case the provider is recouping the cost.
> And because you have to either continue paying for service or pay a termination fee. Isn't that still the case if I switch carriers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 t…
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."
You are the one who claimed the people do not own their phones while under contract. If the contract is not an installment plan or a line of credit, then what property ownership do you think the companies have on the phone? Well, I guess since it was your last contribution to the thread, you will not answer.
"The administration has expressed its support for people being able to unlock their phone when its out of contract"
That is not in any way related to what I said. I said that the problem is that the DMCA forbids unlocking regardless of the contract. You can enter into a contract that says nothing about unlocking, and guess what? Unlocking will still be illegal.
Stop pretending that this is not a special protection for the cell carriers' business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Vote with your wallet" That gives poor people less of a vote than rich people.
I don't think so. I ended up going with a month-to-month provider int he first place because I was poor and didn't want to deal with the risk of early termination fees etc. I just bought a lower-quality phone. Being poor means that you don't get to buy the nicest thing on the market if you don't have the money. The economics of contract plans didn't look that good to me, because it meant a much higher monthly bill th…
>> That gives poor people less of a vote than rich people.
> I don't think so.
Sure you do, it's not really subjective... 1 > Being poor means that you don't get to buy the nicest thing on the market if you don't have the money.
Yeah, I knew you did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
FWIW, I don't think this should be a criminal issue. I support the right of the telcos to put in whatever twisted and crazy terms they want into their contracts, but their only recourse should be a civil suit.
Every minute of hassle and every unreasonable fee holds back the rest of society like broken windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the collective action as you've described would be disrupted as soon as it becomes a big enough issue that a newcomer to the market can profit from a different business model. Equal service and no contract for instance. Eventually perhaps better service and no contract. Actually, last year I switched to a provider who does exactly that. No contracts is part of the business model. You can't get a long term contrac…
You're assuming a low barrier to entry. That is clearly not the case for a business requiring the licensing of multibillion dollars worth of wireless spectrum. Moreover, the availability of service without a contract doesn't break the cartel, because that provider has no incentive to induce a price war by offering it at a more attractive price point than on-contract service from competitors. They can instead offer of…
And while I see your point about the high barrier to entry, all that does is delay the process. Eventually...if a profitable market opportunity is there to be taken, someone will take it. If it requires a big player, then a big player will do it. Granted there may be a longer period of suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, they might need that farm equipment so in the short term they are at the mercy of the status quo. But there's still nothing to stop a group within the market from competing on new terms. Also, if the gap between what is desired and what is provided is significant, then a newcomer to the market would have a field day leveraging that gap. Finally, the consumers are also free to change their own business model so…
There's still the inertia of a massive status quo. It takes time to ramp up new distribution channels, supply chains, etc. It also takes time to convince customers to change suppliers, it takes time to design competing equipment, etc. The time taken is even longer if the gap in profitability between what is and what ought to be is relatively small from the perspective of a potential disrupter. I could maybe accept th…
I guess it depends how eager you are to have government get involved and attempt to make things right. I generally have little faith in government meddling resulting in a net positive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming a low barrier to entry. That is clearly not the case for a business requiring the licensing of multibillion dollars worth of wireless spectrum. Moreover, the availability of service without a contract doesn't break the cartel, because that provider has no incentive to induce a price war by offering it at a more attractive price point than on-contract service from competitors. They can instead offer of…
An off-contract plan that is actually more attractive than the competitors is exactly what is being offered. WIND mobile is the company I'm talking about. I didn't want to get that specific, but there ya go. I am not affiliated. And while I see your point about the high barrier to entry, all that does is delay the process. Eventually...if a profitable market opportunity is there to be taken, someone will take it. If…
So kind of like I was saying then... their coverage map has more holes than coverage. But they still get to charge about as much as the big players by offering no contracts, and it doesn't break the cartel because customers will never switch to them in large numbers as a result of the poor coverage.
Why do you expect price competition to ever be a profitable strategy in a concentrated market? If you lower your prices to gain market share, so will your competitors, and so lowering prices doesn't actually gain you any share, it just lowers everyone's margins. Nobody has any incentive to be the first to do it.
> If it requires a big player, then a big player will do it. Granted there may be a longer period of suffering.
Maybe if you wait long enough. But if the waiting period is measured using the geological timescale, it may be prudent to weigh other alternatives.
Or more precisely, they should be able to lock stuff, but doing so should automatically license all their copyrights, patents and trademarks used in the thing they locked for everyone to use for free forever in any way without limits.
If they are out to fuck the public in the ass, there's no reason the public's courts and police should assist or protect them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And because you have to either continue paying for service or pay a termination fee. Isn't that still the case if I switch carriers?
If you terminate your agreement then you "aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation".
It's not like a mortgage, where the bank technically still owns part of your home. It's a package deal. When you buy the phone, subsidized or not, it's yours. The US legislature has made it illegal for you to unlock the phone, despite that fact.