131–140 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice petition, but it didn't go far enough. Why should locking phones be legal at all?
Why should it be illegal ? We really, really, really don't want government interference in voluntary private contracts.
I'd advise you don't click this link: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-100.html, it might be pretty upsetting....
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.
So that you can switch telecoms when you're travelling, to avoid extortionate fees. This is one of the complaints in the petition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
P.S: I think it fair to suggest that what the majority of consumers want is the cheapest possible phone. That means locked phones on subsidies.
What's this fuss about petitions? Last time I checked, the form of government in the US was a republic, that is the offices of government are appointed by and derive their legitimacy from the people as a whole. We as a people should not have to petition the White House to grow sense and pass sensible laws, in the way one petitions a monarch. This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks…
This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset. I agree with this and I think you are being downvoted unfairly. The "wrong mindset" is one in which you complain to the President/White House/Executive Branch any time "the government" does something you disagree with. The scope of what they can change when it comes to domestic law is v…
On the other hand within this mindset what they can do is put pressure on other bodies. In this case it's pretty clear they are putting pressure on both the Library of Congress and the FCC. If either of those bodies take a step in the direction we want then it would be a much quicker process than going through the entirety of passing a bill through to being a law.
Something a lot of people seem to be passing is that bills are typically large behemoths when they go through the entire process. They can be sweeping an powerful but due to the process of committees they go through there are often unforeseen items tacked onto the bills in an effort to further various platforms (be they legitimate, pork, or lobbied).
I personally really appreciate the route the White House seems to be taking with this as it would prevent the muss and fuss of the entirety of Congress while potentially making for a quick and reasonable change.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair though, isn't that how the US government is supposed to work? It's not like the President can just arbitrarily change laws.
Um, that hasn't stopped the past few administrations from doing exactly that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.
How exactly is the DMCA "bullshit"? It provides an (addmitedly imperfect, yet better than the alternative) notification/takedown/reinstatement process and indemnifies content providers from the infringing acts taken by their users. There might be many BS copyright laws and extensions, but the DMCA ain't one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not. I emigrated from the US after it became clear they weren't going to reinstate the rule of law. Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. This is why you have bullshit laws like the DMCA in the first place.
> Your military-industrial complex is the reason that it's so hard to change things around... there. Wait..., what? The military-industrial complex has something to do with locking cell phones? Are you familiar with the origin of this phrase?
So, yes, the reason that we have the DMCA is because of big content and big telecoms - a large part of the "industrial" arm of the "military-industrial complex".
Thank you, drive through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
That is a gross misinterpretation of the role of government. The government exists for the common welfare, but that doesn't mean it's a consumer advocate. P.S: I think it fair to suggest that what the majority of consumers want is the cheapest possible phone. That means locked phones on subsidies.
Regarding your second point, the assumption is that the government is rational. Adult-like and not child-like.