Hacker News Reader

Comment by uvdiv | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Agreed. Criminal penalties for unlocking!

Could this be more draconian? Contract law is normally covered by civil penalties. And the current administration supports it.

Tripartism [1] and neo-corporatism [2], for the win again.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartism

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Usually, 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.

The wrong part is thinking that imposing criminal penalties for what amounts to breach of contract is at all a reasonable outcome.

Why 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.

Why 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.

Going 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.

If 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.

Huh? 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.

Have you considered that maybe they just overlooked the inconsistency you found? Never attribute to malice what you can to ignorance.

well, 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.

There'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.

Also, "We totally agree that Congress should do something about that. Not us though. We're not gonna do anything."

You realize that that's the system of government we have in the United States, right?

You realize that the Librarian of Congress serves at the pleasure of the president, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com