3 ms·

"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

"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.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "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." No, I know no such thing; all I see is a cell phone company using a loss leader strategy, and the US government affording them special protections for that strategy. On paper and elsewhere, you own your phone -- end of story. There is no issue of repossession because there is no line of credit involved. Furthermore, even if there were a line of credit here, credit card companies are able to go after delinquent accounts even in cases where repossession is infeasible, and often with amounts of money that are much larger than the price of a typical phone. It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments. The service is still at a massive premium even with the contract, and the early termination fee is only tangentially related to the price of the phone. The sole purpose of selling the phones at a discount is to entice consumers into paying for contracts; it is a classic loss leader strategy. "While it's in contract, and non-unlocking is a contractual provision" Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments. Who ever said it was? Arguing with you is turning out to be a colossal waste of time; every time you run into problems you gin up a straw man and attack that. This is my last contribution to this thread. Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so. I've already addressed that points. The administration has expressed its support for people being able to unlock their phone when its out of contract. So if the administration gets what it wants and Congress updates the law, your complaints will be moot. If you don't like the terms of offer in a discount cellphone contract, then don't enter into such a contract.
    - 14y ago

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.

betterunix 14y ago
"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." No, I know no such thing; all I see is a cell phone company using a loss leader strategy, and the US government affording them special protections for that strategy. On paper and elsewhere, you own your phone -- end of story. There is no issue of repossession because there is no line of credit involved. Furthermore, even if there were a line of credit here, credit card companies are able to go after delinquent accounts even in cases where repossession is infeasible, and often with amounts of money that are much larger than the price of a typical phone. It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments. The service is still at a massive premium even with the contract, and the early termination fee is only tangentially related to the price of the phone. The sole purpose of selling the phones at a discount is to entice consumers into paying for contracts; it is a classic loss leader strategy. "While it's in contract, and non-unlocking is a contractual provision" Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments. Who ever said it was? Arguing with you is turning out to be a colossal waste of time; every time you run into problems you gin up a straw man and attack that. This is my last contribution to this thread. Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so. I've already addressed that points. The administration has expressed its support for people being able to unlock their phone when its out of contract. So if the administration gets what it wants and Congress updates the law, your complaints will be moot. If you don't like the terms of offer in a discount cellphone contract, then don't enter into such a contract.
  - 14y ago