3 ms·

Should phone companies get to force you to use phones you rent from them, instead of having the freedom to bring your own?

Matheus28 4y ago
If that's their business model and they want to, sure. I'd guess that most wouldn't because it's not as profitable (they'd lose too many customers).
- josephcsible 4y ago
  That's exactly what phone companies used to do, and they only stopped when the government made them stop. It was more profitable for them, at our expense.
  - Matheus28 4y ago
    AFAIK you've always been able to bring your own phone. They just wouldn't unlock your subsidized phone after the contract ended (which I find unfair, but it's in the contract people signed, so...). Regardless, I think this line of thought is becoming too off-topic. Why should the first party be serving content to people using third party apps that generate them no revenue? Just like websites are free to block adblock users, app apis should be free to block third party app users.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      I'm not talking about cell phones. I'm talking about rotary dial phones back in the days of Ma Bell.
- witheld 4y ago
  That was literally how phones worked on the beginning- AT&T had to be taken to court to stop it.
  - amatecha 4y ago
    Exactly - until legal action happened. I think internet user rights have a LONG way to go, and I can only pray that stuff like "forced to look at insipid, manipulative advertising so you can continue to talk to your family" may indeed become a thing of the past. I currently have an Inbox of multiple messages from family members awaiting me, except I refuse to log into Facebook to view them. The only remaining notification email I have left enabled for Facebook is exactly that -- private messages. This way I can contact the relevant person elsewhere and ask them what the message was. This is the kind of "bending over backwards" I have to do to avoid the surveillance-capitalism crap I'm coerced towards by these platforms that can do essentially whatever they want AND demand exactly how we are _allowed_ to interact with them. Why can't I use an unofficial Facebook Messenger client and read the <100 bytes of communication my family member wanted to send me? Ahh yes I have to agree to a hundred-page ToS and subject myself to ads and privacy-invading user tracking to see those few bytes. This is fine.
- vintermann 4y ago
  I don't think there should be "freedom of business model". We aren't obliged to respect and comply with your choice of way of getting rich. If your business model is dependent on people looking at you in the "right" way then tough luck.
  - theamk 4y ago
    I don't think there should be "freedom to use my stuff but my ignore rules" model - if a person (ot a company) is providing a service, they should be able to do it the way they like. Don't like the rules? Don't use the service. It there was fraud invoved, one party may get damage/compensation.. But forcing someone to provide service is just not right. (With the exception of monopolies of course. Let's regulate them.)
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Should your power company be able to impose a rule on you that you must not plug any Samsung-branded appliances into any outlets in your house? Re your "monopolies" parenthetical, what if you live somewhere where you can pick what company generates your power? Would this be okay in those places?
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        Nobody has a monopoly on power generation, $30k can get you a self sufficient solar setup so obviously power companies should be allowed to create whatever conditions they want...... /s
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The United states government disagrees with you.
Karunamon 4y ago
I don't think the same set of interests are in play there. Phone companies have a government granted monopoly on things like wireless spectrum and public rights-of-way for wiring and other infrastructure, not to mention subsidies and tax breaks. I can't come up with a good justification why a private company on the Internet cannot dictate how you interact with them. Facebook isn't infrastructure.
judge2020 4y ago
https://reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/trfw5r/anyone_else_frustrated_with_att_whitelisting/ https://reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/trfw5r/anyone_else_frustra...
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Do you support AT&T's behavior there?
chaostheory 4y ago
Meta isn't a utility that's been granted a legal monopoly / duopoly by the government, so it's not a great analogy.
- yaddaor 4y ago
  Should websites be able to dictate which programs can access them? In a way a website is just an API too.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    They do. Many of them expect Chrome. While Safari and Firefox are now much better supported than years past due to most sites complying with web standards, I still see some annoying incompatibilities here and there with older finance websites. I didn’t like it, so I switched to a larger bank. Your argument would have more teeth if meta had a monopoly. It doesn’t

Matheus28 4y ago

If that's their business model and they want to, sure. I'd guess that most wouldn't because it's not as profitable (they'd lose too many customers).

josephcsible 4y ago
That's exactly what phone companies used to do, and they only stopped when the government made them stop. It was more profitable for them, at our expense.
- Matheus28 4y ago
  AFAIK you've always been able to bring your own phone. They just wouldn't unlock your subsidized phone after the contract ended (which I find unfair, but it's in the contract people signed, so...). Regardless, I think this line of thought is becoming too off-topic. Why should the first party be serving content to people using third party apps that generate them no revenue? Just like websites are free to block adblock users, app apis should be free to block third party app users.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    I'm not talking about cell phones. I'm talking about rotary dial phones back in the days of Ma Bell.
witheld 4y ago
That was literally how phones worked on the beginning- AT&T had to be taken to court to stop it.
- amatecha 4y ago
  Exactly - until legal action happened. I think internet user rights have a LONG way to go, and I can only pray that stuff like "forced to look at insipid, manipulative advertising so you can continue to talk to your family" may indeed become a thing of the past. I currently have an Inbox of multiple messages from family members awaiting me, except I refuse to log into Facebook to view them. The only remaining notification email I have left enabled for Facebook is exactly that -- private messages. This way I can contact the relevant person elsewhere and ask them what the message was. This is the kind of "bending over backwards" I have to do to avoid the surveillance-capitalism crap I'm coerced towards by these platforms that can do essentially whatever they want AND demand exactly how we are _allowed_ to interact with them. Why can't I use an unofficial Facebook Messenger client and read the <100 bytes of communication my family member wanted to send me? Ahh yes I have to agree to a hundred-page ToS and subject myself to ads and privacy-invading user tracking to see those few bytes. This is fine.
vintermann 4y ago
I don't think there should be "freedom of business model". We aren't obliged to respect and comply with your choice of way of getting rich. If your business model is dependent on people looking at you in the "right" way then tough luck.
- theamk 4y ago
  I don't think there should be "freedom to use my stuff but my ignore rules" model - if a person (ot a company) is providing a service, they should be able to do it the way they like. Don't like the rules? Don't use the service. It there was fraud invoved, one party may get damage/compensation.. But forcing someone to provide service is just not right. (With the exception of monopolies of course. Let's regulate them.)
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Should your power company be able to impose a rule on you that you must not plug any Samsung-branded appliances into any outlets in your house? Re your "monopolies" parenthetical, what if you live somewhere where you can pick what company generates your power? Would this be okay in those places?
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Nobody has a monopoly on power generation, $30k can get you a self sufficient solar setup so obviously power companies should be allowed to create whatever conditions they want...... /s
mrguyorama 4y ago
The United states government disagrees with you.

Karunamon 4y ago

I don't think the same set of interests are in play there. Phone companies have a government granted monopoly on things like wireless spectrum and public rights-of-way for wiring and other infrastructure, not to mention subsidies and tax breaks. I can't come up with a good justification why a private company on the Internet cannot dictate how you interact with them. Facebook isn't infrastructure.

judge2020 4y ago

https://reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/trfw5r/anyone_else_frustrated_with_att_whitelisting/ https://reddit.com/r/ATT/comments/trfw5r/anyone_else_frustra...

josephcsible 4y ago
Do you support AT&T's behavior there?

chaostheory 4y ago

Meta isn't a utility that's been granted a legal monopoly / duopoly by the government, so it's not a great analogy.

yaddaor 4y ago
Should websites be able to dictate which programs can access them? In a way a website is just an API too.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  They do. Many of them expect Chrome. While Safari and Firefox are now much better supported than years past due to most sites complying with web standards, I still see some annoying incompatibilities here and there with older finance websites. I didn’t like it, so I switched to a larger bank. Your argument would have more teeth if meta had a monopoly. It doesn’t