White House Response to “Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal” • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by monochromatic » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 10:35 PM UTC

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…

Also, "We totally agree that Congress should do something about that. Not us though. We're not gonna do anything."

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

#202

Post by rayiner » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 10:37 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #141

leetrout wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

So the argument here is: detractors say petitions are inefficient since no matter what happens with it nothing changes. But we say - look! WH responded! True, nothing changed, but you couldn't expect anything to change from a mere petition! So you were wrong to say nothing would change! Somehow this argument does not sound convincing. Yes, one shouldn't expect too much from a mere petition - but that's what was said…

> As for president's apparent inability to change laws - give me a break. He's the leader of the major US party who just won the elections, he controls the Senate, he has wide range of supporters in the press, he can successfully solicit billions in donations - and he's absolutely powerless to do any effort towards fixing this little thing? Somehow I have hard time believing it.

Sure he's not powerless to change it. But it's a little issue that doesn't matter to more than a few people, so he's not going to use his time or political capital to do the legwork himself. What he's doing is giving you the thumbs-up to proceed on the issue yourself.

This statement is something you can take to your house representative and go: "look, the President supports this!" You can petition the FCC to exert pressure. You can get some of those 100,000 people who signed the petition to call their Congress-people. And you can tell them, "hey, the President has gone on the record as supporting this.". To a Congress-person it suggests that it might be worth someone's time to draft up a bill and score some easy points. It gives you something to build a coalition around. That's huge.

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

#203

Post by duskwuff » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 10:40 PM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #71

duskwuff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I see no problem with that. If you're on contract, your cell provider gave you your phone for free (or at a very steep discount) in exchange for your agreeing to use it exclusively with them for the next 1-2 years. Having the phone locked to only work on their network is part of that agreement. Don't like that part of the agreement? Don't sign it, and pay the full price for the phone.

Why should the law protect loss leader strategies? My local supermarket does not get some special legal protection for its loss leader strategy with milk and eggs. What makes cell phone companies worthy of this special protection of their business, which puts independent cell phone stores at a substantial disadvantage?

A loss-leader strategy would be if the cell company was actually selling the phones at these discounted prices; they are not. They're only offered as a bundle with a contract.

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

#204

Post by marcamillion » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 10:46 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #15

Cushman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he just got off the phone with the White House, I'd imagine he has a pretty good idea of what their response was. Your cynicism is a big part of the reason it's so hard to change things around here.

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.

>"reinstate the rule of law".....are you kidding me, right now?

I mean....ok...I get that the process by which laws are made and passed can seem corrupt at times.....but come on.....this is just straight hyperbole and cynicism.

If you are complaining about America, why don't you move to a third world country - where we don't have basic things like election campaign laws that politicians have to disclose donors.

It's so easy to complain about what you have...when you have no idea what others have to live with on a daily basis.

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

#205

Post by dyno12345 » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 10:48 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #161

techpeace wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex The phrase does not apply to any industry, it refers specifically to the defense industry, of which telecoms are not a part. Otherwise, we could plausibly say that any sufficiently large business in the US is part of the "military-industrial complex," which is not the case. So it has little, if anything, to do with the military-industrial complex.

Uhh, okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

That also has nothing to do with the "military-industrial complex"

In order for that to fit the analogy, AT&T would have to have lobbied the government to create that so it could profit from it.

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

#206

Post by dvogel » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 10:56 PM UTC

sinak wrote: post #175

moxie wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, I just think it's a tough sell when the difference between the non-believer case which sees this as ineffective, and the believer case that sees this as a "win," is sufficiently low expectations about what this achieves (nothing). The larger question is a tension, not about what this process produces, but about what this process reproduces . The really dangerous aspect of ineffective but affirming processes…

So I think we've achieved a "win" in getting the White House to say publicly that they support this. The original petition them to either convince the Librarian to reverse the decision (which I realized at the time was kind of impossible), or to champion a bill in Congress. They aren't quite championing a bill, but the response indicates that "The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing…

In the 3rd paragraph of your petition you allude to unlocking your phone for use on multiple carriers:

"Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad."

If their response only applies to situations where you've let your service contract expire, it doesn't seem to allow you to unlock your phone for use on multiple carriers while under contract with the carrier from which the phone was purchased. Could you clarify whether you're satisfied that their approach would avoid criminal liability in such a situation?

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

#207

Post by ncallaway » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 10:59 PM UTC

leetrout wrote: post #128

moxie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I believe step 4 is something like Jed Bartlet's response to Ted Marcus in the West Wing episode "20 Hours in LA" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc77OgcrSW8).

The president is a human starting gun. If Obama made a press release saying "We will fix this," it _instantly_ becomes a major part of the national dialog. Putting out a positive response saying "we support this and want to make it happen" is a weaker form of that. It puts it in articles, newspapers, on the minds of the FCC, the Library of Congress, Representatives and Senators.

Getting legislation changed is (and probably should be) a _huge_ hurdle. Step 1 is to put the problem in front of people that have the power to make changes. This does that in a big way.

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

#208

Post by hojoff79 » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 11:00 PM UTC

moxie wrote: post #93

sinak wrote: post #2

Hey guys, petition starter here. Just wanted to thank anyone who signed for their support. I just got off the phone with the White House and they're really enthusiastic about getting this fixed. We also discussed fixing Section 1201 of the DMCA permanently, and they've agreed to continue the conversation on that. When I originally posted this to HN at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 there were a lot of ve…

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.

The White House response is now the lead article on the home page of the Wall Street Journal. This petition has elevated the issue to a mainstream discussion in a way it was not previously. I think most skeptics would have to agree that type of response certainly constitutes a win. Short of a referendum (which is not possible here), what else could you be hoping for?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732349450457834...

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

#209

Post by aioprisan » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 11:01 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #182

dhimes wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to understand that nothing could change. The White House has responded that they are on our side. Obama is not a tsar: he can't go in and change the law. So to detractors, I say: You turned the key in the ignition and the car started. You still have to drive the damn thing to get where you need to be.

He can't go in and change the law by himself. He can go in and initiate the process that would lead to the change in the law - and he successfully did it many times for things that matter to him, like raising taxes. When we see that happening, then we could say something changed. But before that it's just words, and politicians are professionals in telling people what they want to hear, it costs them nothing. >>>> Yo…

Actually, he can issue an executive order with the same language used by the Library of Congress, but he chose not to do so.

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

#210

Post by moxie » Mon, Mar 04, 2013, 11:01 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #200

moxie wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, I just think it's a tough sell when the difference between the non-believer case which sees this as ineffective, and the believer case that sees this as a "win," is sufficiently low expectations about what this achieves (nothing). The larger question is a tension, not about what this process produces, but about what this process reproduces . The really dangerous aspect of ineffective but affirming processes…

> We the People You're confused about who "We the People" are. "We the People" are not the technolgenstia that hangs out on HN. "We the People" are my wife's parents in rural Oregon. There are things they care about, but this is not one of those things. "What this process reproduces" is inaction on issues that don't rile up more than a tiny minority of people. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

""" > "We the People" are not the technolgenstia that hangs out on HN. "We the People" are my wife's parents in rural Oregon. There are things they care about, but this is not one of those things. """

Processes like this affirm the logic that government fails us because we the people are too apathetic, or too unaware, or too stupid, or too anything at all to yield our immense power (!) as we ought. That, yes, if we enlightened/progressive few could only mobilize, inform, or educate the public, then everything would work out beautifully!

Power can rest easy as long as we place blame on ourselves and not them for our alienated position in modern society, and that will continue until we recognize the lack of agency that we have, rather than reproducing processes which give us a false sense of agency.