or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Unlocked iPhones - Write Your Legislators
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unlocked iPhones - Write Your Legislators

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I am currently working with my legislator to introduce legislation to stop cell phone carriers from locking cell phones. This of course would require Apple to sell unlocked iPhones to use on any compatible network, and it would bring the cellular industry in alignment with other networks (land lines, cable, etc.). Nobody buys a locked television or a locked land line telephone that will only work with one particular network, and the same should be true of cellular phones.

Since the phone industry and Apple are huge, they can easily spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on lobbyists to try to prevent such legislation from even being introduced, let alone debated.

Please write your representatives and senators to urge them to make manufacturers offer unlocked cell phones. Locked cell phones may be offered for a discount while under contract, but would require unlocking once the contract ends (maximum of 24 months for a contract). Currently locked cell phones could be unlocked once 50% of the contract duration is fulfilled (maximum 12 months). Manufacturers would be required to offer unlocked versions of cell phones for additional fees.

If enough people write their legislators, this can become a reality.
post #2 of 25
Under this fascist administration that never saw a corporate giveaway that it didn't adore?

Keep dreaming. Maybe in 2009 you'd have a chance to get some traction on something like this.
post #3 of 25
How about this , how about not buying any locked phones . You have a choice you know . Let the free market work , it is infinitely better than getting the government involved . The more the government is involved , the more it will get worse .

And oh Puck , you have no idea of what fascism really is . Fascism meant that people like Maureen Dowd , Dan Rather and others of their kind would be in prison by now or worse dead , the government would take control of all the media , critics would be silenced . Since I had seen nothing of a kind , then your use of fascism seemed to stem from irrational hatred of this administration . BTW , look at Ferdinand Marcos , I grew up under his rule and compare this with the Bush administration . I have a much better chance in surviving this administration than under Marcos . And btw , the lobbyists paid real good money to Democrats as well .
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 
It's likely that legislation will not be passed until 2009 at the earliest given the time a bill takes to be drafted, debated, etc.
post #5 of 25
Southerndoc, is your overall goal to reduce the amount of locked phones, to unlock the iPhone, or to eliminate all locked phones forever? I'm just curious.

As Wil said in his first paragraph, we have a choice as to what we buy. If buying a certain phone requires being locked into using a certain cell phone carrier/service for a period of time, so be it. If the consumer doesn't like it, don't buy the phone. If the other cell phone carriers/services don't like it, let them design and produce their own phones.

People should be held accountable for their own decisions, including what they purchase and what contracts they sign. Like you said, nobody buys a locked television to work with only one particular network. However, if those networks gave away free televisions people would start signing up in droves. I can see it now, “Sign up for our five year contract and for just $150 a month that includes hundreds of channels (including those like HBO), broadband internet, plus it all comes with a free 42’ plasma tv. We’ll even install it for you.”

All cellular companies want to be defined by their brand and what qualities make them better than their competition. If all phones can always be used on any network, what’s the incentive for any network to improve how phones work on it? Why should they invest money researching when it makes more sense to wait for someone else to do it then just market ways to convince those consumers to take their phones to their network?

In short, southerndoc, is anyone thinking about all the different sizes and kinds of networks out there? Some are small, some are large, some have extensive 3G coverage while others don’t. A few offer tv services, ring tones, while others don’t. Plus let’s not forget coverage plans, price packages, options, customer service, etc.. Are you so certain that all the various networks are on equal footing to both support and improve current and future features that we, as consumers, may want or need?

What’s the advantage, for any network or cell phone manufacturer, from a business point of view, to unlock any specific phone, if they don’t have to?
post #6 of 25
Thread Starter 
Kephisto, my motive is clear. I do a lot of international work overseas and would prefer to use an unlocked SIM card while traveling overseas in countries in Africa where AT&T has no established presence. I am a happy AT7t customer, and even if my iPhone is unlocked, I will not cancel with them. In fact, I have been an AT&T customer for about 15 years when it was BellSouth Mobility and Cingular.

When I wrote AT&T with my request for an unlock code for the specific purpose of using the phone overseas where they have no established presence and where I would be using another carrier's network via international roaming, I was refused an unlock code. To AT&T's credit, I was offered a free unlocked cell phone. I cannot afford to spend $3 per minute for local phone calls while working in an African country (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Liberia) for a month at a time. Plus, the local physicians cannot afford to dial a US number to reach me, which necessitates a local SIM card.

I can easily use a SIM card in my unlocked RAZR or an unlocked phone that AT&T has offered to provide me free of charge, but I enjoy the functionality of my iPhone. I like how it stores all my contacts and all its additional features, and it will soon include a much needed feature that I will use frequently while overseas (ePocrates medical drug database, which has been confirmed by their CEO that it will be developed for the iPhone when the SDK is released early next year).

When I travel overseas, I also take my laptop computer. Thankfully it's not locked to a particular power company, internet provider, etc. as I can use it there. Apple could easily make it one voltage type only.

My problem is with cellular companies locking cell phones at all. Land line phones, cable operators, power companies, etc. do not do this because the federal government requires interoperability. The same should be required of the cellular industry. By unlocking cell phones (not just the iPhone) it encourages competition, which is why the networks have no advantage (and actually have a huge disadvantage) to unlock cell phones. For those that want a discounted phone, they will have the opportunity to buy locked phones at a discount.
post #7 of 25
The legislation won't say that the unlocked phone will be cheap so figure about a grand. That might be fine if you can write it off on your company, but its rather irrelevant for those of us with fewer means. More power to you though and best of luck.
post #8 of 25
"This fascist administration."

Heh. I think perhaps your accusations would hold more water if you'd said 'this capitalistic society' and 'maybe once the revolution comes'.

Anyone who considers the US to be 'fascist' should try living under an actual fascist government sometime. You know, the type where you could be jailed without trial for criticizing the government.

Whiners.
post #9 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by southerndoc View Post

Kephisto, my motive is clear. I do a lot of international work overseas and would prefer to use an unlocked SIM card while traveling overseas in countries in Africa where AT&T has no established presence. I am a happy AT7t customer, and even if my iPhone is unlocked, I will not cancel with them. In fact, I have been an AT&T customer for about 15 years when it was BellSouth Mobility and Cingular.

When I wrote AT&T with my request for an unlock code for the specific purpose of using the phone overseas where they have no established presence and where I would be using another carrier's network via international roaming, I was refused an unlock code. To AT&T's credit, I was offered a free unlocked cell phone. I cannot afford to spend $3 per minute for local phone calls while working in an African country (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Liberia) for a month at a time. Plus, the local physicians cannot afford to dial a US number to reach me, which necessitates a local SIM card.

I can easily use a SIM card in my unlocked RAZR or an unlocked phone that AT&T has offered to provide me free of charge, but I enjoy the functionality of my iPhone. I like how it stores all my contacts and all its additional features, and it will soon include a much needed feature that I will use frequently while overseas (ePocrates medical drug database, which has been confirmed by their CEO that it will be developed for the iPhone when the SDK is released early next year).

When I travel overseas, I also take my laptop computer. Thankfully it's not locked to a particular power company, internet provider, etc. as I can use it there. Apple could easily make it one voltage type only.

My problem is with cellular companies locking cell phones at all. Land line phones, cable operators, power companies, etc. do not do this because the federal government requires interoperability. The same should be required of the cellular industry. By unlocking cell phones (not just the iPhone) it encourages competition, which is why the networks have no advantage (and actually have a huge disadvantage) to unlock cell phones. For those that want a discounted phone, they will have the opportunity to buy locked phones at a discount.


Doc , how about using a satellite phone service , you could bring your sat. phone anywhere else in the world
. it is expensive , but at least it meets all your requirements especially in regards to your medical work in Africa and the added benefit is this , you could use it for your internet access when you are out on the field .
post #10 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

Doc , how about using a satellite phone service , you could bring your sat. phone anywhere else in the world
. it is expensive , but at least it meets all your requirements especially in regards to your medical work in Africa and the added benefit is this , you could use it for your internet access when you are out on the field .

Because it's expensive and local physicians must dial a US-based number that is an international call for them. Local calls are very cheap in Africa, but international calling is incredibly expensive.

At any rate, I *DO* have a satellite phone, but it's used only for emergencies when I'm in areas where there is no cellular reception.
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by southerndoc View Post

Because it's expensive and local physicians must dial a US-based number that is an international call for them. Local calls are very cheap in Africa, but international calling is incredibly expensive.

At any rate, I *DO* have a satellite phone, but it's used only for emergencies when I'm in areas where there is no cellular reception.


The problem is this , the cellular towers are privately owned by telecom companies and unless you want the government to nationalized the telecom companies , have the government seize operational control of those towers or the most easiest way to have the telecom companies to play ball is to threaten their licenses in order for you to get what you want or merge them into one large telecom company . Cellular phone makers and their products would only work if the telecom companies would play ball and if there is an incentive for profit for both sides . If you put the Federal , State and Local to interfere in your behalf and ignore the economics of the Free market , sooner or later , the advancement in cellular phone technology would crawl down and stagnate . That is the reason why unlock phones are usually yesterday's technology and can be sold off at a loss and why state of the art phones are locked because the companies owning the towers wants a cut on the action .

The reason why cable companies and landlines are open is this , underground cables and telephone poles . It is much easier to offer interoperability when there are limits on how much you can dig or how much telephone poles you can place which force phone services , cable companies to rent and pay each other for the use of those same lines . Cell phones are not like that , their limitation stems on how far are they from the nearest ATT or other telecom company tower to receive a decent signal . Right now , Apple is doing the right thing and from the look of things Nokia is following suit . Sooner or later the telecom companies would offer high tech smart phones unlocked in order to compete in the free market because their concentration would not on the return of their money via two year contract for their phone subsidies but keeping subscribers who paid their phones full price by selling service in order to maintain healthy profit .
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

The problem is this , the cellular towers are privately owned by telecom companies and unless you want the government to nationalized the telecom companies , have the government seize operational control of those towers or the most easiest way to have the telecom companies to play ball is to threaten their licenses in order for you to get what you want or merge them into one large telecom company . Cellular phone makers and their products would only work if the telecom companies would play ball and if there is an incentive for profit for both sides . If you put the Federal , State and Local to interfere in your behalf and ignore the economics of the Free market , sooner or later , the advancement in cellular phone technology would crawl down and stagnate . That is the reason why unlock phones are usually yesterday's technology and can be sold off at a loss and why state of the art phones are locked because the companies owning the towers wants a cut on the action .

The reason why cable companies and landlines are open is this , underground cables and telephone poles . It is much easier to offer interoperability when there are limits on how much you can dig or how much telephone poles you can place which force phone services , cable companies to rent and pay each other for the use of those same lines . Cell phones are not like that , their limitation stems on how far are they from the nearest ATT or other telecom company tower to receive a decent signal . Right now , Apple is doing the right thing and from the look of things Nokia is following suit . Sooner or later the telecom companies would offer high tech smart phones unlocked in order to compete in the free market because their concentration would not on the return of their money via two year contract for their phone subsidies but keeping subscribers who paid their phones full price by selling service in order to maintain healthy profit .

You are wrong about the landlines. The Federal government, through the courts, forces ATT to open up their landlines to third party devices. Before then ATT prohibited any device but their own (which you rented) from being attached to their system.

I too would like to see an end to locked phones. (And this is why I do not have an iPhone.) And you are wrong about higher prices. Apple, Nokia and Motorola will compete against each other on the devices and Verizon, ATT and T-Mobil will compete on the networks. I was hoping that the iPhone was going to be unlocked and a bigger kick to the nuts of the current system than it is.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

You are wrong about the landlines. The Federal government, through the courts, forces ATT to open up their landlines to third party devices. Before then ATT prohibited any device but their own (which you rented) from being attached to their system.

I too would like to see an end to locked phones. (And this is why I do not have an iPhone.) And you are wrong about higher prices. Apple, Nokia and Motorola will compete against each other on the devices and Verizon, ATT and T-Mobil will compete on the networks. I was hoping that the iPhone was going to be unlocked and a bigger kick to the nuts of the current system than it is.



Please check my post gain , didn't I stated that the landlines are rented and shared ?? I knew that ATT was forced to open their lines through the courts . So maybe I did not made myself clear .

Again, you misread my statement , I ignored the cell phone manufacturers because they were not an issue , people will buy their phones in an unlock market that will meet their needs . Look at the last sentence of my post , didn't I stated service will be an issue for telecom companies in an unlock cell phone market and that will be where their profits would come from which should be in the first place ??
post #14 of 25
I wasn't, and still not, clear on your differentiation between landlines and airways. I read your statement as stating that the landlines were opened because they are inherently different from the airwaves. I am stating stating that in this context they are not different, they are both privately held communications links. One of which has been opened by government edict to third party devices.

In the unlocked cell phone market you can not ignore the cell phone manufacturers. It will be a two part market. First the device and then the network. -- Besides rereading the thread I found that I was reacting more to Kephisto's post then yours in my second paragraph.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #15 of 25
Wil,

When a market is free and open, Government should get out of the way and leave markets do what they do best.

But left to their own devices, markets sometimes get it wrong. Sometimes businesses mislead, monopolize, steal or extort money from customers. At that point, free market principles cannot work and the consumer needs the legislators to act.

Of course if the legislators are bought and paid for by the corporations, then you get an unholy mess.

If you believe in free markets, you sometimes need laws to protect that freedom.

C.
post #16 of 25
Don't you think I know that . Hell , I became a libertarian/conservative because of the same damn issues I have in my home country and now in the US . Free markets work and you are right , it won't be successful if the elected officials are getting paid for by corporations , unions and what have you . It won't succeed unless term limits are instituted to every elected office in the land , the more time legislators stay in office , the more they easily be influenced by free money from lobbyists regardless of political affiliations ( it includes even avowed socialists ).

Enacting more laws to "protect your freedom" is stupid because the more laws you enact , the more restrictions you will have and soon people's liberties are restricted for our own good . No thanks , I rather have less laws and more common sense and personal responsibility than having the government do it for me .

Aresee

The phone companies who uses the landlines built by their competitor pays for it by helping to pay for the maintenance of the said lines , am I correct ? It's unfair for Verizon for example, not to get a small fee from ATT for the use of it's landline infrastructure unless of course you want the government pay for it using our taxes ??


I ignored the cell phone manufacturers in those posts because as you have stated , their products are worthless without the telcoms to use it . The telcoms are the most important because as Kephisto had stated in his posts , not all areas in the US are covered with same service you can expect in New York City , Chicago , LA and San Francisco . But because of the popularity of the iPhone , every telecom companies here in the US are now trying to improve their services not only to entice cell phone manufacturers to develop powerful user friendly phones to compete with the iPhone and offer it to them exclusively first , but also leaving the phones as is with no barriers and restrictions for their use . Now people can use the smart phones from Nokia as what the company envisioned it to be rather than what Verizon , ATT and T-mobile wants it to be . Thanks to Apple who have to make a deal with the devil , there is a very good chance of unlocked cellphones in the future in the US because of competition provided that we don't short circuit the process by having the government do it for those who cannot wait .
post #17 of 25
Carniphage

The best example of monopoly is the BBC , you guys are still paying a TV license regardless of how you use your television set until 2017 and your public officials are considering to replace the TV tax with a computer tax . http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...508650,00.html. And what's worse , there are lot of people in your Parliament that would not act against this type of blatant monopoly abuse . I always have this saying , the worse monopolies are those that comes from the government , you get the worse service , unexplainable fees and the attitude that they know what's good for you whether you agree with it or not and of course , it takes a long time to get rid of them because government bureaucrats don't like to leave their comfy benefits and the professional politicians don't want to lose their supplemental income .
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

Carniphage

The best example of monopoly is the BBC , you guys are still paying a TV license regardless of how you use your television set until 2017 and your public officials are considering to replace the TV tax with a computer tax . http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...508650,00.html. And what's worse , there are lot of people in your Parliament that would not act against this type of blatant monopoly abuse . I always have this saying , the worse monopolies are those that comes from the government , you get the worse service , unexplainable fees and the attitude that they know what's good for you whether you agree with it or not and of course , it takes a long time to get rid of them because government bureaucrats don't like to leave their comfy benefits and the professional politicians don't want to lose their supplemental income .

Wil, you seem to want me to defend the BBC. I am not sure I want to. I would prefer the beeb to evolve into something more like HBO.
European, American and Asian governments have all failed to fully embrace free markets and have instead introduced legislation which defends anti-competitive monopolistic companies.

In the UK, the Murdoch media empire dominates print and pay tv. It's just wrong. The US seems to have much stronger rules preventing one entity having too much influence.
At the same moment, the US seems to be passing laws which effectively outlaw all free wifi networks. Seemingly because the established networks don't like the competition.

I am not getting into a US versus EU battle because both get some things wrong and some things right.

C.
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Wil, you seem to want me to defend the BBC. I am not sure I want to. I would prefer the beeb to evolve into something more like HBO.
European, American and Asian governments have all failed to fully embrace free markets and have instead introduced legislation which defends anti-competitive monopolistic companies.

In the UK, the Murdoch media empire dominates print and pay tv. It's just wrong. The US seems to have much stronger rules preventing one entity having too much influence.
At the same moment, the US seems to be passing laws which effectively outlaw all free wifi networks. Seemingly because the established networks don't like the competition.

I am not getting into a US versus EU battle because both get some things wrong and some things right.

C.


I am not asking you to defend anybody especially BBC , I am telling you the point that government based monopolies are the worst sort of monopoly ever devised by man . That's the point , legislations tend to do what you have posted , the more laws people enact , the less the country and it's government embrace free markets .

Ask yourself why do the Murdoch media empire dominates print and TV in your country , the answer is this , ,people are tired of listening , watching and reading news that have left wing biases that colors their news , their reporting and their editorial . It the media would adopt a general centrist attitude in the reporting of their news and are willing to state the facts and the truth and are willing to hear different opinions , the Murdoch media empire would not be dominant .

As for free WIFI , I don't know what they are reporting to you guys over there , here is an article that states the reason why .http://www.slate.com/id/2174858/ .
post #20 of 25
Sorry Wil,
You clearly are deeply suspicious of Government, and deeply trusting of Rupert Murdoch. lol!

Why do you think that the US is passing legislation to effectively outlaw public WiFi?
a) Because Slate says it is a flop?
b) Because it is a conduit for child pornography?
c) Because telecommunications corporations have seen where it might lead and bribed the politicians to pass legislation?

So yes, I can see why you are suspicious of Government when corruption is so rife.

But do you approve of theft and fraud? Do you think having laws to make it illegal in some way infringes your civil rights? If you believe that, then we can agree to differ. Perhaps you honestly think corporations should be allowed to lie to sell their goods? Perhaps you think they should be allowed to sell goods that fail the next day?
Chant "Caveat Emptor", and everything is forgiven.

Me, I think law should be there to make the world a fairer place. Keep people free from oppression, liars and bullies, and keep markets free of monopolies, cheaters and fraudsters.

The free market can do amazing things. But just like in society, to maintain that freedom, we sometimes have to send the bad-asses to jail.

C.

A mechanism to protect the victim from the bully, or the consumer from the monopoly
post #21 of 25
I distrust the motives of the government that tramples the rights of it's citizens for the "good of the people" and I heard about the British government losing sensitive data on an estimated 25 million british citizens . As for Rupert Murdoch , I only watch Fox local and as for his newspapers , I haven't renewed my subscription to WSJ for the last four years .


Effectively outlawing WiFi , since we are out of topic , it ain' true

a) Chicago was one of the cities that wanted city wide Wifi , they put it on hold because of the cost .

b) A person who dabbles in child pornography won't care if he's using DSL , cable or WiFi , so your point ?

c) I live in Chicago where everything is possible under the table , but if the city wide Wifi was put on indefinite hold , it meant that it is not workable at this time and no amount of bribes will make it possible .

With all due respect , I understand that corporations lie to sell their products and services and make a profit and government lies to protect national secrets and what have you . The difference is this , if the corporations get caught like Enron , they not only get sued by their shareholders , they will lose their clients and they will get hammered by the government . But with the government , well , all we get are hearings and the fall guy in prison .

Laws help people as you have stated , but laws created with an agenda in mind or worse created in haste to right a wrong without long term consideration or ignored advice from knowledgeable critics ( best example ,Sarbanes-Oxley , gun laws in the UK ) are dangerous because it takes a long time for them to repealed if at all and the damage they caused is worse than the situation that created the law in the first place .

So that is the reason why I don't want the legislators involved because if they created a knee jerk legislation to unlock cellphones , we, the consumers will find out the cost out of our own pockets .
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

Effectively outlawing WiFi , since we are out of topic , it ain' true

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html

Any operator of an open WiFi or WiMax network faces a $300,000 fine if a user downloads cartoon porn!

Do you really think this legislation is about decency or is it about protecting the revenues of the cellphone industry?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

With all due respect , I understand that corporations lie to sell their products and services and make a profit and government lies to protect national secrets and what have you . The difference is this , if the corporations get caught like Enron , they not only get sued by their shareholders , they will lose their clients and they will get hammered by the government .

Yes. Hoorah. But it does not happen enough, because legislators are more influenced by the shareholders of companies than the customers of companies. This is true everywhere. Europe, US, Japan. All manner of protectionism abounds.

But I don't think you get what is happening. In a true free market, costs of goods services should fall over time. This means inevitably some big companies, record companies, steel companies and telecommunications companies should fail. Their business model stops working and they cease to be relevant. Just like in nature, evolution happens.

But their money buys them influence and they use legislation to prop up their collapsing business model. They whine to their government. And now it's ILLEGAL to back-up a DVD. Epson wanted to use DMCA to make it ILLEGAL to use 3rd party ink in their printers. (lol) And now it'll be impossible to offer free wireless internet.

Can you see the pattern?

You are saying Government should back-off. I agree. It should back-off helping the big guy to squeeze the little guy. The pendulum needs to swing in the other direction and let market forces really do its stuff.

That means if I OWN a phone. I should be able to do what the frack I like with it. Throw it off a cliff, put it in a blender, ooh, I dunno, connect it to a phone network of MY CHOOSING.


C.
post #23 of 25
Congratulations , now you know why knee jerk legislations are idiotic . Care to add more ???

Let me see , the Big Three car companies are getting their breakfast , lunch and dinner eaten by Toyota , Marshall Fields was sold to Macy's , Carson Pairie's flagship store In Illinois closed down and NYT stock is dropping like a rock and the Virgin superstore closed down over at Mag Mile last summer and you what the problem all these companies have , they cannot adjust to the current market realities .

Money buy influence , like your Parliament and the US Congress ? All the money poured by the Big Three in Congress did not help them against the Japanese auto companies , Microsoft is still getting hammered by the different states in regards to it's monopoly and Apple and other tech companies thru the free market are forcing MS to either improve or die . The only way big companies , corporations to survive the new market place is to adapt , innovate and improve their service . No damn laws , no amount of lobbying , no amount of money paid to legislators can change that very fact . In fact , ask Microsoft what happenned to the sales of Zune 1.0 when people found out that MS will pay 1 dollar to Universal for every Zune Microsoft sell , it tanked .

So you bought a iPhone , yeah , it yours , you can do anything with it BUT you cannot expect Apple to reimburse you for not honoring the agreement . That is where personal responsibility comes in and common sense . Don't expect the government to do it for you .
post #24 of 25
So you accept that Big Business uses legislation to squeeze the little guy
BUT
You don't think the little guy should push back?
(amazing!)

Markets need to be fair and transparent and permit free competition.

* Fair means "no lying" and "stuff should work in the way it is supposed to."
* Transparent means if I buy 3 packs of razor blades, I need to know how much they cost. Not be sent a bill in six weeks time.
* Free competition means when I buy a car, I can fill it up with gas from whoever I chose. That freedom is important because it's good for the consumer AND good for business in general.

The mobile phone industry is a terrible terrible industry. Obscure billing models. Complete absence of transparency. Artificial lock-ins and so on. It's shameful. And market forces can't fix it, because market forces are being blocked by these practices. Free Markets need protecting by the force of law to stop the bad guys from doing this bad stuff. That is EXACTLY what GOVERNMENT IS FOR.
post #25 of 25
Always for the little guy , huh , here is a little hint for you , once the government gets too big , it stops differentiating who is the little guy and who is the big fat corporation when it does public policies . It may look good on paper , but it would be an economic disaster when implemented to all businesses .


Let me do my own interpretation
A) Fairness is about the agreement of two parties on what a product can do as well as it's limitations, the terms and conditions of the use of the product , the cost of the product and the support the buyer would have after he buys the product . If the buyer ignores the T & C and do as he pleases on the product he bought within the warranty period , the seller may not support him . If the seller sold him a lemon or sold him a product that does meet the buyer's expectations , the buyer have the right to return the product to the seller and ask for a refund or an exchange . It takes two to tango in regards to fairness .

B) I don't know what you have there in the UK , but over here , we already know the cost of most of the products here up front . Companies found out it's good for business and it prevents nasty lawsuits as well as congressional hearings .

C) I agree in what you said about free competition , but you also forget that it also applies to businesses both big and small . They have the right to set terms and conditions , to choose their own partners , to set rights and limitations of their products in order to compete . What they don't have is forced you to buy their products , forced you to upgrade against your will and force you to buy a new version of their product when it becomes available and above all , not honor the agreement you and the corporation made when you bought it's product especially when you meet the terms and condition of the sale . Oh , yeah , I forgot , imposing artificial and highly illegal barriers on companies competing against it in the same market or in other words create an illegal monopoly .


I agree with you that the cell phone industry needs work , very , very badly , but having the government enact knee jerk laws will make things worse . If the government wants to reform the cell phone market , have both the consumer and the companies involved in the process and not activists and lobbyists .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Unlocked iPhones - Write Your Legislators