Comments on: The most ridiculous law of 2013 (so far)

By: Rocks

Rocks — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:22:27 +0000

Warner Todd Huston on January 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

This is a specious argument. In getting the low priced phone you have to sign a contract which states you will pay them a certain amount for 2 years. If you decide to stop using their service and not pay you are hit with an Early Termination Fee whose intended purpose is to cover the unpaid cost of the hardware the provider will not now receive because you are terminating. The hardware is not subsidized, you are paying off a loan for the cost over 2 years. Fail to due that and you owe the total cost as a Termination Fee immediately.

Once you have paid for the phone you should be able to do anything you wish with it the same as any other appliance you purchase.

By: Flange

Flange — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:08:54 +0000

Warner Todd Huston on January 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Fair enough argument, but the flip side to that is if the carriers don’t want people to do it on their subsidized phones, don’t subsidize those phones. Once they sell the phone to me it’s MINE, whether it was subsidized or not. I think your argument makes more sense if the phone was being leased.

By: blink

blink — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:00:48 +0000

I disagree to this extent… when cell carriers sell the phone cheap or give them for free as part of a cell package, then the new owner should not be allowed to unlock it.

Warner Todd Huston on January 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

But you’re still under contract to pay that carrier for the next two years whether you have a phone or not. A person should be allowed to throw their phone off a cliff or use it to control a new robot. They should also be allowed to use it with a different carrier. It’s their choice to pay two carriers simultaneously.

What if they decide to give their iPhone to their wife and get another phone to use with their existing carrier? They should be allowed to convert the iPhone to their wife’s carrier.

By: Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:48:12 +0000

I disagree to this extent… when cell carriers sell the phone cheap or give them for free as part of a cell package, then the new owner should not be allowed to unlock it. After all, he just got a subsidized phone. If you want a phone that you can use with any carrier, then man up and pay the full price for the phone and stop buying subsidized hardware. It seems reasonable to me for a cell service provider to expect that when it gives away a phone or sells it at half price because it is tied to its own service that the company has a right to expect it to stay tied to its service.

By: Mark1971

Mark1971 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:42:23 +0000

The fact that Republicans in Congress will just look at this and shrug their shoulders tells you just how empty and meaningless the GOP has become.

By: Flange

Flange — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:39:08 +0000

Only in a country far down the path of totalitarianism can the position of Librarian of Congress become a position in which you can wield power on every day citizens. In a free society the Librarian’s power over citizens would be limited to telling them “Shhhh” if they make too much noise, with their jurisdiction limited to the Library of Congress.

By: apostic

apostic — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:37:27 +0000

This kind of overreach is what conservatives can use to take the limited government, free market message to a new generation. Will they? Hells, no. They’re way too stupid and incompetent. besser tot als rot on January 28, 2013 at 3:34 PM

but but but ... ObamaPhones!

By: besser tot als rot

besser tot als rot — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:34:38 +0000

This kind of overreach is what conservatives can use to take the limited government, free market message to a new generation. Will they? Hells, no. They’re way too stupid and incompetent.

By: Cindy Munford

Cindy Munford — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:32:31 +0000

Early days, early days.