3 ms·

OK, something I don't understand. What's to stop someone from opening a store that sells unlocked phones? Is it because of the lack of carrier discount? If tha

OK, something I don't understand. What's to stop someone from opening a store that sells unlocked phones? Is it because of the lack of carrier discount? If that's the case, people have already voted with their money on what they value more.

betterunix 14y ago
"people have already voted with their money on what they value more" 1. We do not vote with money in America. Poor people get as much of a vote as rich people in this country. 2. By making jailbreaking illegal, the government is giving carriers a special legal status that makes it harder for anyone else to compete. If you want a market-based solution to life's problems, you cannot have the government swoop in and give special privilege to certain players.
- jzworkman 14y ago
  Your point number 1 is a little naive. Money and interest groups drive policy. While the poor may have just as much vote in an election, the power to change policy generally is focused on the interest groups that most support that politician. So while people may not "vote with money" policy is very much money driven.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    Sure, that is how it works in practice, but nothing in the constitution of this country says, "Money buys laws!" We are generally unhappy with the idea that wealthy corporations have hijacked our legal system, because most Americans believe their vote matters just as much as every other person's vote (or at least every other person in their district).
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      > Sure, that is how it works in practice Which is all that matters. How it should work in theory, matters very little. > If you want a market-based solution to life's problems Big "if", for many things, many don't want the depth of their wallet to determine their access to necessary services.
- steve-howard 14y ago
  Dollar voting is not about buying literal votes. "Voting with your money" means you spend your money on the "best" choice and are essentially endorsing what you pay for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting I'd disagree with the notion as applied here, though, because buying an unlocked phone is rigged to be a bad choice because so few carriers offer cheaper service prices for unsubsidized handsets.
kunle 14y ago
Many stores carry unlocked phones, but the locking of phones and the discount are specifically linked. You can buy an unlocked, unsubsidized phone from any carrier, but if you buy it on contract, it will likely be locked. Not entirely sure this applies across ALL carriers, but it does apply to ATT/Sprint/TMO I believe.
jws 14y ago
In th US, carriers discount the hardware and make it up in the contract. If you pay fully for your hardware, the carriers still charge you the same monthly amount and just make a lot more profit off of you. We may have voted, but "own my hardware and just pay for service" wasn't on the ballot.
darkarmani 14y ago
> If that's the case, people have already voted with their money on what they value more. Yes, but when they voted (before jan 26), it was legal to unlock your phone. This law is like changing the terms of the contract mid-term.

betterunix 14y ago

"people have already voted with their money on what they value more" 1. We do not vote with money in America. Poor people get as much of a vote as rich people in this country. 2. By making jailbreaking illegal, the government is giving carriers a special legal status that makes it harder for anyone else to compete. If you want a market-based solution to life's problems, you cannot have the government swoop in and give special privilege to certain players.

jzworkman 14y ago
Your point number 1 is a little naive. Money and interest groups drive policy. While the poor may have just as much vote in an election, the power to change policy generally is focused on the interest groups that most support that politician. So while people may not "vote with money" policy is very much money driven.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Sure, that is how it works in practice, but nothing in the constitution of this country says, "Money buys laws!" We are generally unhappy with the idea that wealthy corporations have hijacked our legal system, because most Americans believe their vote matters just as much as every other person's vote (or at least every other person in their district).
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    > Sure, that is how it works in practice Which is all that matters. How it should work in theory, matters very little. > If you want a market-based solution to life's problems Big "if", for many things, many don't want the depth of their wallet to determine their access to necessary services.
steve-howard 14y ago
Dollar voting is not about buying literal votes. "Voting with your money" means you spend your money on the "best" choice and are essentially endorsing what you pay for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting I'd disagree with the notion as applied here, though, because buying an unlocked phone is rigged to be a bad choice because so few carriers offer cheaper service prices for unsubsidized handsets.

kunle 14y ago

Many stores carry unlocked phones, but the locking of phones and the discount are specifically linked. You can buy an unlocked, unsubsidized phone from any carrier, but if you buy it on contract, it will likely be locked. Not entirely sure this applies across ALL carriers, but it does apply to ATT/Sprint/TMO I believe.

jws 14y ago

In th US, carriers discount the hardware and make it up in the contract. If you pay fully for your hardware, the carriers still charge you the same monthly amount and just make a lot more profit off of you. We may have voted, but "own my hardware and just pay for service" wasn't on the ballot.

darkarmani 14y ago

> If that's the case, people have already voted with their money on what they value more. Yes, but when they voted (before jan 26), it was legal to unlock your phone. This law is like changing the terms of the contract mid-term.