7 ms·
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
by uvdiv 14y ago
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 obligation."
The White House response doesn't support unlocking phones, only unlocking phones after contracts are expired. Which isn't at all what the petition complains about. They evaded it entirely.
No, it's lower than that. They're pretending to agree with the petition, in the tone of their writing; but when you read the fine print, they don't. It's fucking doublespeak.
- ericb 14y agoAgreed. Criminal penalties for unlocking! Could this be more draconian? Contract law is normally covered by civil penalties. And the current administration supports it.
- dmix 14y agoTripartism [1] and neo-corporatism [2], for the win again. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
- readme 14y agoHave you considered that maybe they just overlooked the inconsistency you found? Never attribute to malice what you can to ignorance.
- zem 14y agowell, someone had to have put that phrase in there deliberately. your contract is an agreement to pay the cellphone carrier a certain monthly fee for a certain number of months, with early termination fees written in, all of which you are already bound to by civil law. it should have nothing to do with phone unlocking.
- lwat 14y agoThere's zero chance the white house overlooked anything accidentally here. These responses are VERY carefully crafted and reviewed by dozens of lawyers and other white house staff.
- dfxm12 14y agoUsually, when you become bound by a service agreement, you get a phone at a $200 discount. The fine print generally lets you break this service agreement - for a $200 fee. I agree the "other obligation" bit is vague, and thus scary. Obviously, the phone seller would like to nickle and dime you throughout the length of a 2 year service agreement, but when you enter a service agreement, you are entering a contract that you can break, and you are getting something for your troubles. The government should be interested in making an even playing field for the market & consumers. I don't see what's inherently wrong here.
- AnthonyMouse 14y agoThe wrong part is thinking that imposing criminal penalties for what amounts to breach of contract is at all a reasonable outcome.
- px43 14y agoWhy 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.
- uvdiv 14y agoWhy would you unlock a phone when you are still on your contract? So that you can switch telecoms when you're travelling, to avoid extortionate fees. This is one of the complaints in the petition.
- zero_intp 14y agoGoing overseas is a great example. I take my original unlocked t-mobile nexus one out of the states and am able to buy a sim and get local phone service for very inexpensive rates.
- bbrian 14y agoIf you desperately want to leave your network but don't want to drop, e.g., €300 in one day for the privilege, you should be able to leave and continue paying off the €50/month that you've signed up to and to do what you want with the handset.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- monochromatic 14y agoAlso, "We totally agree that Congress should do something about that. Not us though. We're not gonna do anything."
- dionidium 14y agoYou realize that that's the system of government we have in the United States, right?
- monochromatic 14y agoYou realize that the Librarian of Congress serves at the pleasure of the president, right?
- dionidium 14y agoHuh? As others have said, if you are bound by a service agreement or other obligation then you won't be going to another carrier anyway. That's all they're trying to say. You're being needlessly dramatic.