Comments on: Petition to reverse ban on cellphone unlocking needs your sig!

By: Heevee Lister

Heevee Lister — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:55:00 +0000

I’d sign the petition, but I’d have to register, which I won’t do. I don’t like having to register for this comment system, either. BB seems to be an advocate for anonymity on the net, so … hmm.

By: Patrick Watson

Patrick Watson — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:36:00 +0000

Yes and no. As usual for Intellectual Property issues, it’s more complex that it would seem. The bigger implication of this issue is the question of what consumers get to do with devices that they have purchased.

Ignoring that larger issue, I fully support that phone companies need to be able to protect their investment (subsidized hardware). However, that’s part of what early-termination clauses are for. Phone companies have used the increasing cost of phones as a reason for increasing ETFs over the last few years. If there’s an ETF, there doesn’t need to be a lock on the phone, aside from forcing exorbitant roaming fees.

By: johnshopkins

johnshopkins — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:32:00 +0000

it’s a new law so the providers like cricket, t mobile have to adapt to it or go under the bus. There are still ways to switch your phone but It makes it much less convenient to sign up for a low cost prepaid service.

By: Boundegar

Boundegar — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:32:00 +0000

Could somebody explain this to me? Because here in Cincinnati there are stores that openly advertise they will unlock your phone for you. Most are Cricket stores, which, I would think, would have a corporate policy on advertising illegal services. Am I completely missing the point?

By: Joel Moore

Joel Moore — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:22:00 +0000

Oh. So really the law we need is one that forces them to unlock phones at the end of the contract.

By: Patrick Watson

Patrick Watson — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:08:00 +0000

Except many carriers refuse to unlock phones when the contract is up.

By: Joel Moore

Joel Moore — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:58:00 +0000

I thought the new law only prevented you from unlocking a phone that is under active contract. (i.e one that’s been subsidized by the carrier). If you want an unlocked phone you can still pay full price for one, right? Or you can wait until the contract is up and then get it unlocked. If that understanding is correct then I don’t see what the problem is. If we expect to be able to move our phones to whatever carrier we want whenever we want then we may as well start getting used to paying $600+ for cutting edge hardware.

By: wygit

wygit — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:05:00 +0000

It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do little. – Sydney Smith

By: $28084830

$28084830 — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:15:00 +0000

Great, another one of those white house petitions that does absolutely nothing.

By: Andrew Reid

Andrew Reid — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:33:00 +0000

Trotskyism is a dangerous business. Foregoing available reforms to enhance the contradictions and bring the system into crisis is very high-risk, crises can break in surprising directions.

Or maybe I’m just getting old…

By: Navin_Johnson

Navin_Johnson — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:04:00 +0000

DeFazio is one of the good ones. One of the very few Democrats who can be called progressive or actually liberal.

By: dioptase

dioptase — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:58:00 +0000

I’d rather the ban wasn’t overturned … yet.

If it stays in place, the fecal matter will impact the wind device. Enough people might sit up and take notice of the root of the problem.

By: Cowicide

Cowicide — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:27:00 +0000

They made the requirements higher in response to getting so many frivolous petitions at the 25K mark. It’s yet to be seen if the 100K mark will help the situation, only time will tell.

Thank you for signing!

By: wygit

wygit — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:22:00 +0000

OK, that’s lame, and I signed, but why 100,000?
I thought it took 25,000 signatures to get a response. Does 100K signatures do anything that 25K signatures doesn’t do?