They don't, but if the threshold is met, there will be a response.
Just give it to some first year/junior staffer as a writing exercise and have someone higher up glance it over before rubber stamping it for publishing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
White House Petition Lobbies to Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They don't, but if the threshold is met, there will be a response.
Just give it to some first year/junior staffer as a writing exercise and have someone higher up glance it over before rubber stamping it for publishing.
I am all for this, however that will mean the carriers will no longer add a sub to the price, so everyone will sell and unlocked phone, but you will pay full price for your device, actually might not be too bad, would force me to keep my device longer anyway.
I wouldn't mind this as much if the big carriers would have a separate sim-only plan. They charge the same regardless of whether you subsidized a phone with them or not.
The lack of guns certainly did not diminish the UK in having one of the highest crime rates in Europe. Perhaps you are the ones needing protection from your own populous.
You can sell it if you want but you're still required to pay off the contract. So you can sell your phone for $600 but you're still going to pay $2000 to end the contract.
White House response: "Oh you guys. . . "
After not building the Deathstar, I've really lost my hope in this presidency accomplishing anything.
----------
Our guns aren't to protect us from our own populous, they are to protect us from an over reaching government. Our right to own them is so that we have a physical power to ensure our unalienable rights remain protected. Quite simply, we have our arms to overthrow our government should they ever treat us the way Brittan did prior to 1776. This is a nation of the people and our arms are one of the checks and balances to ensure it remains that way. Hunting and self defense is just icing on the cake.
Brittan reports crimes inaccurately when compared to other nations rate of crime. The crime there is horrible. Brittan covers that up. Some of our safest towns are the most armed towns. The ones with high crime rates are the ones that have the highest amount of gun control. Armed citizens reduce crime rates here.
After not building the Deathstar, I've really lost my hope in this presidency accomplishing anything.
----------
Our guns aren't to protect us from our own populous, they are to protect us from an over reaching government. Our right to own them is so that we have a physical power to ensure our unalienable rights remain protected. Quite simply, we have our arms to overthrow our government should they ever treat us the way Brittan did prior to 1776. This is a nation of the people and our arms are one of the checks and balances to ensure it remains that way. Hunting and self defense is just icing on the cake.
Brittan reports crimes inaccurately when compared to other nations rate of crime. The crime there is horrible. Brittan covers that up. Some of our safest towns are the most armed towns. The ones with high crime rates are the ones that have the highest amount of gun control. Armed citizens reduce crime rates here.
100,533
I was able to sign the petition just fine, but my free unlock isn't working
We must've crashed the serevers
I was able to sign the petition just fine, but my free unlock isn't working
We must've crashed the serevers
So you're only buying a gun to protect yourself from your own government because you can't really trust it, okay...
It doesn't sound like a nation of the people, based on what you just said and just looking at the title of this thread :s
*Britain
Well I don't know where you got this from but I live there and it's quite nice tbh, even our police don't have to have guns
Sure. (oh come on)
I don't get why it should be illegal coming from outside the states it boggles my mind.
I mean surely if it were to be 'illegal' you would need to prove it was in someway causing monetary loss to the network provider?
So surely it can only be illegal if you get a phone unlock it and don't pay your monthly contract. Am i missing something here? Even a contract locks you into payments that you must pay at cancellation if you default...
Wouldn't it just be better to have all phones unlocked and not subsidize any phone with a contract?
I assume phone companies are relying on you completing a contract and being too lazy to unlock the phone and continue with high monthly repayments but having already completed your subsidized portion of your deal.
The way I see it if you buy a product it is your product. Unfortunately under a Hire Purchase contract like mobile phones you don't own it until you finish your minimum term but just because you don't own the phone shouldn't mean you can't use it on another providers network if you pay your monthly repayments.
Hey go figure!
I mean surely if it were to be 'illegal' you would need to prove it was in someway causing monetary loss to the network provider?
So surely it can only be illegal if you get a phone unlock it and don't pay your monthly contract. Am i missing something here? Even a contract locks you into payments that you must pay at cancellation if you default...
Wouldn't it just be better to have all phones unlocked and not subsidize any phone with a contract?
I assume phone companies are relying on you completing a contract and being too lazy to unlock the phone and continue with high monthly repayments but having already completed your subsidized portion of your deal.
The way I see it if you buy a product it is your product. Unfortunately under a Hire Purchase contract like mobile phones you don't own it until you finish your minimum term but just because you don't own the phone shouldn't mean you can't use it on another providers network if you pay your monthly repayments.
Hey go figure!
Ignorance should not be tolerated on this forum, where are the moderators when you really need them, calling someone on this forum sheep is trolling, yet uneducated, ignorant, remarks are. Keep up the good work macrumors.
I wonder if the international travelers are a significant portion of the population compared to folks who would shop between service providers in their home country. I suspect the second is not only more numerous, but since we are talking about not just a prepaid chip for a two week trip that you do once or twice per year, but your day in and day out month after month contract that you are taking from AT&T to T-Mobile, that the second group is where the real money is.
But yes this locking is just an all around bad thing for consumers.
Agreed. I grew up in the U.K., still have family there, gun ownership is illegal and crime rates involving illegal firearms are practically non-existent, especially when compared to the U.S. These gun toting, "our g'ment isa gonna get us" hillbillies don't speak for the majority here, which at an average high of 92%, believe gun laws should be stricter, and in some cases banning firearms. I cannot tell you how many times I've read or seen news that so and so shot their [insert family member or neighbor] by accident. Most illegal firearms recovered in cities with "Guns for Cash" programs (NYC being a big one, and just recently L.A. had two rocket launchers turned in!) can be traced back to the original owner (assuming the S/N hasn't been chiseled away), and not surprisingly it is generally a caucasian male, mid 30's who bought the gun for personal protection then either lost it or sold it for cash.
PS If you truly believe a gun is going to protect you from a government gone "rogue", get a grip, if your government becomes a police state, over half our federal spending is placed in our military budget, they have weapons that make your guns look like toaster ovens.
I thought the purpose of locking a phone was to make sure the customer would keep using the carriers services through the contract period otherwise they charge you the ETF (Early Termination Fee) which is more or less the difference of the subsidized discount on the phone. I don't understand why we should make it illegal to unlock a phone without the carriers permission, even more when the contract has expired or is terminated by either party. Either way, the consumer ends up with the bill of the full retail price of the phone. Instead, all phones should be sold unlocked but those that are subsidized should be attached to a contract with an ETF that fits the difference of the phone to make sure they can recover the discount price and then lower pricing for plans to make the contract more affordable so less people default. Surely if MetroPCS offers 4GLTE for $40-60/month, the BIG3 can do the same...
This is ridiculous, even T-mobile that participates in the cellphone locking practice launched a campaign, or w/e you want to call it, to make it convenient for people to bring their iPhone over to T-mobile from OTHER CARRIERS......
What do you guys think?
This is ridiculous, even T-mobile that participates in the cellphone locking practice launched a campaign, or w/e you want to call it, to make it convenient for people to bring their iPhone over to T-mobile from OTHER CARRIERS......
What do you guys think?
Yes, they love the control they have over people by forcing them into long contracts and making them stay with that carrier. It's probably one of the most aggressive business models around, and I just don't like it.
Yes, but then you pay ridiculous amounts of money for a phone that will be obsolete and useless in about two years. The unlocked price is far too high to make it worth it, and it's not being pushed down since no one is buying them. It's not what they want us to buy so they make it difficult.
I think smartphones are great but the business model is too rigid: you can either get a contract like everyone else and be locked in, or pay a huge one-off price, in addition to pay-as-you-go (which is also more expensive especially for data).
Considering this is in response to them passing a law to make it ILLEGAL, I'd say no.
And if you have paid it off the carriers will unlock it for you, all within the law and free.
Basically this guy cares because if this ruling isn't reversed then he's a criminal and his business will be shut down. Nothing more or less. If he cared about the people he'd be asking that phones never be locked in the first place. But he wants them locked so he can make his money unlocking them
----------
They will say something. Which will be to pull a Jim Dalrymple and just say 'Nope'. After all, you signed a contract to stay with the carrier and once that contract is fulfilled the carriers will unlock your phone just fine. But until then you agreed to stay, pay their roaming etc and they have the right to protect their contract.
That is how the government will view it.
----------
That 83 year old is how it was ever not illegal in the first place. The original law is worded such that even jailbreaking is illegal. That old man is the one that decided that jailbreaking without using it for piracy etc was not illegal.
----------
ETFs decrease over time. If you play out your whole contract thee is no ETF. And if you buy out your contract you didn't pay in the phone costs for the remaining period
----------
Not me. I refuse to sign it because its a petition to protect his business. Not us.
Give me a petition making locking illegal from day one and to require carriers to separate line item the phone costs payback and I'll be the first to sign it. Because THAT is in our favor.
Umm, no. The customer is getting the shaft on network and locking policies by the carriers that participate it in it. Again, If you bought an iPhone 4 for VZW or Sprint, and you wanted to switch carriers to ATT, and you were still under contract with VZW or Sprint, you'd have to pay their ETF, start new service with ATT, buy a new iPhone, and are stuck with another iPhone that can't be used. That's another $450 at the least coming out of your pocket, plus a phone that you can't use.
There, the carriers have you by the gonads, whereas if the network were all standardized, we could buy our phone directly from the maker, and take it to any carrier we choose. As I've said before, Europe, Australia, Japan, and various other places have been that way since the late 90s. The USA is the only one behind that curve, with the exception of Cingular, PacBell, and ATT, which were all using GSM at that time. VZW, Sprint, and others were all CDMa, so we were very fragmented compared to the rest of the world.
Now with LTE, there is no need to have a phone locked to a carrier. In fact, there is no need for the carrier to even sell the phone! Let them operate their network, while we buy the phone from the manufacturer. We take it wherever we want to go, they put the money into keeping their spectrum of the network stable, and remain just as competitive. win/win/win for everyone.
We'll remind you of that the next time you have to travel overseas and pay the exorbitantly high roaming fees, that could be as high as your airfare to get overseas, which for you, as the consumer could have been avoided by having the ability to drop in a sim for a network local to where you are, and PAYG. Either way, you wouldn't be breaking your contract with your local carrier, as you would still have it when you returned!
If you aren't doing any illegal activity with your legally purchased phone, why should the LoC care about the legality of what you are doing? You're equating this as 'guilty until proven innocent', which contrary to either ignorance or naivety, is not how this country runs.
And according to the law, any phone purchased before 1/26/13 can be unlocked without having to get the carrier's approval or completely fulfilling the contract. So your post is bollocks.
BL.