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

121–130 of 284 posts

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

#121

Post by moxie »

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…

Based on what you're describing, I think you're going to have a tough sell for the merits of this process if the "win" case and the "lose" case have identical outcomes, but differ only in the language that is used.

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

#122

Post by betterunix »

jmj42 wrote: post #117
betterunix wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

(1) You can sell a car you financed to someone else, even if they buy their gas from a different gas station.

(2) You are not taking out a loan on the phone. You are paying a discounted price for it in exchange for signing a contract for service. You bought the phone when you paid the sales tax.

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

#123

Post by larvaetron »

onedognight wrote: post #52
rallison wrote: post #32

This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern: "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network." This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.

> 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.

This misinformation is not true and appears to be widespread. You purchase a phone at a reduced price and agree to sign a 12/24 mos. contract with a carrier. If you stop paying your bill, the carrier can sue for non-payment and ETF, but that does not have anything to do with the device. The phone is yours. There is no lien on the device.

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

#124

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

AT&T has been a large donor in the past to various PACs and congressional races where the candidate favored not giving the end user choices. In my correspondence with my representatives I often go to OpenSecrets.org and look up who has been funding the person I'm writing like this: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...

It helps to know who they got money from, because if I ask them to take a stand that their donors won't like, that is where the counter argument will come from. Sometimes you can cut that off before it happens by going to the donors site(s) and looking for white papers or position statements that outline their arguments for what it is they believe.

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

#125

Post by tzisc »

doktrin wrote: post #109
tzisc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'd argue that cynical responses like these are the most detrimental response of all. Pessimism is not realism. Getting the full verbal support of a second-term lame-duck administration with nothing to lose is not a negligible achievement. Some progress != no progress. You're right that petitions have limited scope and effect, but in successful efforts like these, they can generate publicity and political momen…

> second-term lame-duck administration The term "lame duck" typically refers to Presidents at the tail end of their term, most often used in the time between an election and a transition of power. That isn't the case here.

Right. I was just trying to refer more specifically to the fact that since the term-limit is already reached, this administration has more political flexibility to back more contentious issues.

From wikipedia: A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as being a lame duck from early in the second term, because presidents are barred from contesting a term four years later, and is thus freer to take politically unpopular action. Nonetheless, as the de facto leader of his or her political party, the president's actions affect how the party performs in the midterm elections two years into the second term, and, to some extent, the success of that party's nominee in the next presidential election four years in the future.

But you are certainly correct about typical usage.

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

#126

Post by readme »

uvdiv wrote: post #105

The White House answered an entirely different question from the one asked! Emphasis mine: * "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation , you should be able to use it on another network." * "...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligat…

Have you considered that maybe they just overlooked the inconsistency you found? Never attribute to malice what you can to ignorance.

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

#127

Post by dfxm12 »

uvdiv wrote: post #105

The White House answered an entirely different question from the one asked! Emphasis mine: * "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation , you should be able to use it on another network." * "...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligat…

Usually, when you become bound by a service agreement, you get a phone at a $200 discount. The fine print generally lets you break this service agreement - for a $200 fee. I agree the "other obligation" bit is vague, and thus scary.

Obviously, the phone seller would like to nickle and dime you throughout the length of a 2 year service agreement, but when you enter a service agreement, you are entering a contract that you can break, and you are getting something for your troubles. The government should be interested in making an even playing field for the market & consumers. I don't see what's inherently wrong here.

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

#128

Post by leetrout »

moxie wrote: post #121
dhimes wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Based on what you're describing, I think you're going to have a tough sell for the merits of this process if the "win" case and the "lose" case have identical outcomes, but differ only in the language that is used.

I think everyone has their expectations set too high for A. what a petition will really achieve and B. that the executive branch has any position to change laws. The parent to your comment seems to sum this up pretty well.

So while I see your point that many may view this as ineffective and therefore a loss I definitely consider it a win in agreement with the parent.

1. Petition was made 2. Signature goal was met 3. WH responded favorably in agreement with petition supporters. 4. ... 5. Profit! ;)

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

#129

Post by px43 »

uvdiv wrote: post #105

The White House answered an entirely different question from the one asked! Emphasis mine: * "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation , you should be able to use it on another network." * "...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligat…

Why would you unlock a phone when you are still on your contract? That doesn't make any sense. If you switch carriers, then by definition you have just ended your contract, and you should be able to use your old phone. This is exactly what the petition is talking about.

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

#130

Post by akarpenko »

TylerE wrote: post #63
akarpenko wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that there is usually no government interference in private contracts? Or that there should be no government interference just when the consumers rights are being violated?

Largely, yes, and that is as it should be. It's an agreement between two willing parties with benefit received by both sides. A simple, legal, contract. We're not talking about a legislated monopoly here, like your local power company. No one is FORCING you to go down to your local Verizon reseller and buy a contract phone. You're free to either buy an unlocked smartphone (at full un-subsidized price), or a prepaid p…

OK, looks like we need to look at it from another level.

Once upon a time there was a group of people. They had common interests, but it was hard and inefficient to make decisions as a large group. So a government was formed to represent the individuals in the group and to tend to their common needs.

Let's go back to the present.

So one side is a big corporation that has one voice, the other side are consumers, i.e. people that have many voices. Government (at least a properly working one) is there to represent the will of the people and to give them a single voice. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Post reply on HN