4 ms·

"Look, just because it's in your pocket and you get to use it as soon as you leave the store does not mean you own it." So who owns it? When last I checked, t

"Look, just because it's in your pocket and you get to use it as soon as you leave the store does not mean you own it." So who owns it? When last I checked, there was no line of credit, I am allowed to sell the phone to someone else without informing the carrier, and I am responsible for repairing any damage or replacing the phone if it is rendered non-functional. It sounds like I paid the carrier's price, signed a contract, and then owned the phone (while being locked into a contract). There is more to this than just the carrier's contract. Let's say I travel to another country, and I want to pay for a phone plan there so that I do not have to pay roaming charges. I'll need to unlock my phone to do that...and now by law I cannot (at least not here in America). For that matter, suppose I am here in America and I want to have two contracts with two different carriers on the same phone...once again, the law stops me. This is, plain and simple, a law that protects the carriers' business model in ways that other businesses are not protected. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the free market is relevant here. It is not a free market when some players get special privileges and protections not available to other players. Cell phone companies get lots of special privileges, and this is just one more to add to that list.

anigbrowl 14y ago
Why don't you read your contract and pay particular attention to the bit where it talks about transfer of title? As someone who doesn't sign these kinds of contracts and hasn't for years, I'm not sure what the exact position of the carrier is without downloading and analyzing a phone contract, which I don't feel like doing right now. The differences from leasing a car are for obvious reasons. If you don't make the payments on a car, a repo guy comes along and takes your car away. Bit difficult to do that on a phone, so they hit you with an early termination fee instead and you agree to it as part of the contract terms. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the free market is relevant here. It is not a free market when some players get special privileges and protections not available to other players. Cell phone companies get lots of special privileges, and this is just one more to add to that list. I didn't mention the free market, but since you bring it up, the players within the phone industry have similar privileges. Saying that they get different privileges from, say, auto retailers is pointless, because they're not int he same market. Although I'm no fan of the major cell companies, I could point out that they also bear the burden of paying billions up front for lease of spectrum, whereas manufacturers of cars just have to get the thing running and into the hands of the would-be driver, who then pays over time for road use through taxes on fuel etc. You want to unlock the phone overseas, then do it overseas where you won't be subject to US law. You want to have two contracts on the same phone, the second one is going to be month-to-month by definition because the second carrier has no property interest in the phone. you can easily get out of your contract by paying the ETF. As I said elsewhere, I don't like these contractual provisions either, which is why I don't enter into such contracts. I do own my own phone, because I paid for it. This is what people in other parts of the world do, because the rock-bottom prices (with contract!) are not on offer in most other parts of the world.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "the players within the phone industry have similar privileges" I suppose that would be true if we exclude all the electronics shops that could make a business charging a small fee to unlock phones. "I could point out that they also bear the burden of paying billions up front for lease of spectrum" Which actually helps the cell companies more than it hurts them, since it basically rules out a large number of potential competitors. A coffee shop can run a wifi network, but that gets extremely limited bandwidth and extremely limited power. Amateur radio operators have fewer restrictions on power, but are completely tied up in other regulations. Large areas of the United States are served by only a handful of cell carriers, whose service is overpriced and mediocre at best. There are two possible solutions to that situation: abandon market-based solutions and create a monopoly that is heavily regulated to protect consumers from abusive practices, or embrace market-based solutions and reduce the barriers to competition (say, opening cell phone bands to unlicensed secondary users with established rules for settling interference disputes). Right now, we are not really pursuing either strategy, and in the mean time we are falling behind other countries in terms of wireless deployment. "You want to unlock the phone overseas, then do it overseas where you won't be subject to US law" OK, sure, but that just means that American businesses that might unlock phones (say, businesses at international airports) cannot exist. It still helps the cell carriers' business model, just not as much as it might have (it reduces the convenience and introduces potential language barriers). "You want to have two contracts on the same phone, the second one is going to be month-to-month by definition because the second carrier has no property interest in the phone" Neither carrier has a property interest in the phone. Nobody is charged a fee for breaking their phone while under contract; they are expected to just buy another phone. "you can easily get out of your contract by paying the ETF." So what? That is not the issue. Nobody is suggesting that people should be able to terminate their contracts without paying a fee. The issue is whether or not people will be able to unlock their phones, which is completely orthogonal to the issue of contracts.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Neither carrier has a property interest in the phone. Nobody is charged a fee for breaking their phone while under contract; they are expected to just buy another phone. You know perfectly well that you retain liability for the ETF, which is a proxy for the phone, and reflective of the impracticality of repossessing it. And the administration supports the right to unlock your phone out of contract. While it's in contract, and non-unlocking is a contractual provision, that's between you and your carrier. If you find the non-unlocking provision of the contract offensive, as I do, then don't enter into such a contract.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Why don't you read your contract and pay particular attention to the bit where it talks about transfer of title? As someone who doesn't sign these kinds of contracts and hasn't for years, I'm not sure what the exact position of the carrier is without downloading and analyzing a phone contract, which I don't feel like doing right now. The differences from leasing a car are for obvious reasons. If you don't make the payments on a car, a repo guy comes along and takes your car away. Bit difficult to do that on a phone, so they hit you with an early termination fee instead and you agree to it as part of the contract terms. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the free market is relevant here. It is not a free market when some players get special privileges and protections not available to other players. Cell phone companies get lots of special privileges, and this is just one more to add to that list. I didn't mention the free market, but since you bring it up, the players within the phone industry have similar privileges. Saying that they get different privileges from, say, auto retailers is pointless, because they're not int he same market. Although I'm no fan of the major cell companies, I could point out that they also bear the burden of paying billions up front for lease of spectrum, whereas manufacturers of cars just have to get the thing running and into the hands of the would-be driver, who then pays over time for road use through taxes on fuel etc. You want to unlock the phone overseas, then do it overseas where you won't be subject to US law. You want to have two contracts on the same phone, the second one is going to be month-to-month by definition because the second carrier has no property interest in the phone. you can easily get out of your contract by paying the ETF. As I said elsewhere, I don't like these contractual provisions either, which is why I don't enter into such contracts. I do own my own phone, because I paid for it. This is what people in other parts of the world do, because the rock-bottom prices (with contract!) are not on offer in most other parts of the world.

betterunix 14y ago
"the players within the phone industry have similar privileges" I suppose that would be true if we exclude all the electronics shops that could make a business charging a small fee to unlock phones. "I could point out that they also bear the burden of paying billions up front for lease of spectrum" Which actually helps the cell companies more than it hurts them, since it basically rules out a large number of potential competitors. A coffee shop can run a wifi network, but that gets extremely limited bandwidth and extremely limited power. Amateur radio operators have fewer restrictions on power, but are completely tied up in other regulations. Large areas of the United States are served by only a handful of cell carriers, whose service is overpriced and mediocre at best. There are two possible solutions to that situation: abandon market-based solutions and create a monopoly that is heavily regulated to protect consumers from abusive practices, or embrace market-based solutions and reduce the barriers to competition (say, opening cell phone bands to unlicensed secondary users with established rules for settling interference disputes). Right now, we are not really pursuing either strategy, and in the mean time we are falling behind other countries in terms of wireless deployment. "You want to unlock the phone overseas, then do it overseas where you won't be subject to US law" OK, sure, but that just means that American businesses that might unlock phones (say, businesses at international airports) cannot exist. It still helps the cell carriers' business model, just not as much as it might have (it reduces the convenience and introduces potential language barriers). "You want to have two contracts on the same phone, the second one is going to be month-to-month by definition because the second carrier has no property interest in the phone" Neither carrier has a property interest in the phone. Nobody is charged a fee for breaking their phone while under contract; they are expected to just buy another phone. "you can easily get out of your contract by paying the ETF." So what? That is not the issue. Nobody is suggesting that people should be able to terminate their contracts without paying a fee. The issue is whether or not people will be able to unlock their phones, which is completely orthogonal to the issue of contracts.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Neither carrier has a property interest in the phone. Nobody is charged a fee for breaking their phone while under contract; they are expected to just buy another phone. You know perfectly well that you retain liability for the ETF, which is a proxy for the phone, and reflective of the impracticality of repossessing it. And the administration supports the right to unlock your phone out of contract. While it's in contract, and non-unlocking is a contractual provision, that's between you and your carrier. If you find the non-unlocking provision of the contract offensive, as I do, then don't enter into such a contract.