Harry Reid has over 200 bills from the House waiting for him to take to the floor.
Know what you're talking about before spitting it.
I'm not sure it's either fair or correct to characterize it this way. There's a process of moving legislation from start to finish. One step along the way may be that it moves from the House (introduced and passed there) to the Senate, and then there's a process to get it to the Senate floor for a vote. Committee review and considerations, additional debates, maybe some amendments... You make it sound like Reid is holding onto and blocking progress for hundreds of bills, that he is a singular bottleneck. But it just doesn't work like that...
It isn't like Reid is receiving House bills, tossing them on a pile on his desk and ignoring them, and that's where they go to die. He isn't a solo 'gatekeeper'. There's a matter of priorities to consider as well. In any case, I certainly wouldn't characterize a couple of hundred pending bills or other legislation as a 'backlog'...
I wish people would quit calling these phone subsidies. They are Phone Loans. You're still paying full price for the phone and the carrier is simply stretching the repayment plan out over the length of the contract. In fact the only true consumer friendly model would be to separate the phone loan from the service contract. Otherwise it's too hard for the typical consumer to figure out exactly what they are really paying for over the life of the contract. The current model is all smoke and mirrors marketing. You'd think that it would simply be a matter of multiplying the monthly payment times the length of the contract but with ETFs and funky service addons it's never totally clear. But as consumers at least do that basic math to figure out what you are paying. Don't be a dumb consumer, that's what these carriers live off of.
This is going to make the carrier branded phones look kind of goofy once they are off contract.
This is really a problem that should have taken care of itself commercially. If you're getting screwed by your current carrier take your business elsewhere. Again, do the math.
Finally, very sad to see our esteemed government servants are devoting time to something so unimportant to the future of our nation when other much more pressing concerns receive no attention. We should ship the whole lot of them over to Korea to "help" their societies. North or south? Take your pick.
it is my understanding that at&t does not unlock "at&t exclusive" devices. that is what i was asking about.
i was wondering what the CITA regulations or this new bill has to do with "at&t exclusive" devices such as the new amazon kindle phone and the playstation vita. it is my understanding that the no unlock policy will be for 5 years, just like the original iphone.
I don't think you grok the reality of the situation... you are so getting wrapped up in the details you can't see the big picture.
Let me explain it this way: [snip]
With due respect, none of that is relevant to the point we were discussing. I wasn't addressing the ramifications at all.
You said the legislation is pointless and has no actual effect. I said yes it does, it counters an earlier action that prohibited unlocking. That's it.
Whether it is good or bad for consumers wasn't the point.
Forgive my possible ignorance about how subsidisation works, but how does this change make subsidisation impossible? What about subsidisation depends on the device being locked? Surely the phone being locked or not makes no difference to the contract being signed to pay for the phone and service? If what you say is correct and this change would necessitate a move to a markedly different finance arrangement, then what real difference would this make to the consumer? Would service + finance costs exceed the subsidised contract price? Why? Do you really not have credit checks for subsidised phones over there? Why is a locked phone effective as collateral, but an unlocked phone isn't?
I can only compare this to the situation in the UK, where a similar principle has been in place for a while, where carriers offer an unlocking service on handsets. We still have a form of subsidisation as an option when purchasing a new handset, where you enter into a multi year contract (subject to credit check) and pay off the large part of the cost of the phone (there may be a relatively small upfront cost) in a higher monthly cost that includes service and a call/SMS/data package. Maybe the US deals work differently, but phone unlocking being a requirement hasn't had an major effect on the availability of what we call subsidised phones over here.
Fair question. Locking the phone assured the service provider that the customer can't take the phone (till you pay it off, just like a financed car you don't really own it (get the title) 'till you make the last payment) and take it to another provider. Unlocked phones means that the cell provider must now take you at you word that you won't take their phone to another provider. This essentially places the providers in a position of issuing "unsecured credit" to finance the phones (a plan (lower rates unlocked phones) that was already available with most providers)
The difference between who qualifies for secured and unsecured (or "signature") credit is vast. This new "freedom" will simply make ALL financing of phones subject to the level of signature credit (no matter what the circumstance), which will just remove the option for people who need it most.
Again low rate unsubsidized plans already existed. I can afford to buy outright (unlocked) and only pay ~$40/month/phone for unlimited service (talk & text,10GB shared data) But I currently have almost $3K in phones purchased within the last 12 mos, many can't afford that (and don't really have sufficient credit to finance them) This "law" is just another chunk of useless legislation that actually hurts the people it purports to benefit (consumers) because it removes a viable and popular option ("secured" credit via subsidizing locked phones).
Forgive my possible ignorance about how subsidisation works, but how does this change make subsidisation impossible? What about subsidisation depends on the device being locked? Surely the phone being locked or not makes no difference to the contract being signed to pay for the phone and service? If what you say is correct and this change would necessitate a move to a markedly different finance arrangement, then what real difference would this make to the consumer? Would service + finance costs exceed the subsidised contract price? Why? Do you really not have credit checks for subsidised phones over there? Why is a locked phone effective as collateral, but an unlocked phone isn't?
I can only compare this to the situation in the UK, where a similar principle has been in place for a while, where carriers offer an unlocking service on handsets. We still have a form of subsidisation as an option when purchasing a new handset, where you enter into a multi year contract (subject to credit check) and pay off the large part of the cost of the phone (there may be a relatively small upfront cost) in a higher monthly cost that includes service and a call/SMS/data package. Maybe the US deals work differently, but phone unlocking being a requirement hasn't had an major effect on the availability of what we call subsidised phones over here.
Didn't really address that last bit.
You do realize that over here is the US the service providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile & Sprint are the primaries)) will cheerfully unlock your phone, once you have paid for it, yes? (i.e. finish the contract you signed to get the subsidy, normally 2 years but 1 year ("new phone every year") are available for another $20 or so /month)
You can then take that unlocked phone (now your property) to another provider or get a lower monthly (unsubsidized) plan on the current provider. (assuming they offer one, of they don't; change providers as after you have paid for the phone (i.e. completed the contract) you are not beholden to your current provider)
Do you know what those "plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk" are? I think it's a fiction, but ok... I'm open minded. Some examples, maybe?
Meanwhile, what I get that you're saying, basically, is that there's a MAJOR backlog of really important, meaningful, major problem-solving solutions gathering dust on Reid's desk because, you know, that hard-working, deeply-caring and amazingly productive Republican House has clearly sent him a tsunami of MAJOR legislation and our entire government is clearly grinding to a halt because, well, that Reid guy just won't do his job........ Or something? Am I getting that about right, or...?
I'm sure the more than FIFTY times the House has voted to yet again waste the Senate's time (and taxpayer dollars) sending along yet another "repeal the ACA" bill that they know is dead before it starts (and unpopular with the majority of citizens), has nothing to do with it, and is something we should call Reid out on when he lets them stagnate...? I'm not so sure...
Fair question. Locking the phone assured the service provider that the customer can't take the phone (till you pay it off, just like a financed car you don't really own it (get the title) 'till you make the last payment) and take it to another provider. Unlocked phones means that the cell provider must now take you at you word that you won't take their phone to another provider. This essentially places the providers in a position of issuing "unsecured credit" to finance the phones (a plan (lower rates unlocked phones) that was already available with most providers)
But you still have the contract and have to pay the monthly fee, right? I'm sure your carrier won't be overjoyed that you won't be racking up any additional charges, but you still have to pay the charge that you committed to, which includes as part of the package the phone repayment, line rental, and some kind of call/sms/data bundle, right? So they're not especially out of pocket. Or have I misunderstood something?
If there's a threat that a customer might throw caution to the wind and go to another provider even while they're paying the original provider back, well that's just a good incentive for the original provider to give a decent post sale service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyFX
Didn't really address that last bit.
You do realize that over here is the US the service providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile & Sprint are the primaries)) will cheerfully unlock your phone, once you have paid for it, yes? (i.e. finish the contract you signed to get the subsidy, normally 2 years but 1 year ("new phone every year") are available for another $20 or so /month)
You can then take that unlocked phone (now your property) to another provider or get a lower monthly (unsubsidized) plan on the current provider. (assuming they offer one, of they don't; change providers as after you have paid for the phone (i.e. completed the contract) you are not beholden to your current provider)
Sure, that's exactly the same as here, though I believe our situation is slightly better because there's almost complete portability between networks since they all use similar bandwidths. I'm struggling to see what the issue with this law is.
I'm not sure that removing a form of easy credit is such a bad thing. Do you really think it serves low income people well to get themselves tied into expensive cellphone contracts with no checks whatsoever on whether they can afford to pay?
House bills on Business, Energy, VA, Jobs. All those silly waste of time solutions that, oh, wait, not a waste of time.
This is by NO means suggesting the House are the saints, but hardly the lazy do nothing.
A fairly one-sided set of links (aka opinions) there, Richard.... I'm sure we could get an equally one-sided POV from the DEM party website, no? GOP.gov, red alert, etc? Come on.
See, I've read the "jobs bills", every single painfully-devoid-of-actual-solutions bill that the GOP has sent upstream. I am one of those boring people who watches c-span (or maybe just masochistic) and reads bills beyond the summaries on Thomas...
Bills on business (aka the welfare of corporate people over people people), Energy (more subsidies for oil while cutting R&D support to alternative fuels), VA (look at the VA-related bills put forward by the GOP House there, Richard. Look closely. How can you call ANY of those actual "solutions" to the intractable problems there??), and Jobs.... um. Right...
Show me a GOP jobs bill that actually creates jobs or strengthens the economy in any way? Aside from benefitting the top 5% of people and companies? I
If you're going to quote a bill by name or number, please also highlight where YOU think that bill has measurable benefits to the general public? Most importantly those who WANT jobs and simply can't find any...
"Do nothing" does not mean "lazy". It's an obstructionist ideology. Breaking government to prove their mantra that government is a bad, broken waste of time...
Most of what comes out of this House is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..." as the great Bard once put it. Much ado about nothing.
Made to look busy, while accomplishing very little of import..... shall I go on?
No. The subsidies can still exist. The phone companies were never subsidizing the phones, they were not detailing the loan agreement between them and the customer. Congress has done nothing of significance except change the line items on your phone bill.
Now, the question is did congress actually forbid some real subsidies? As someone associated with a large university, part of my bill is discounted by 15%. At one point a bill going through congress was said to have language to eliminate or at least disfavor such subsidies.
And then this graphic, which is designed for the civically illiterate... the ignorati of the masses...
Designed to make a person grumble at that "lazy obstructionist" Senate, and champion the good (GOP) people of the hard-working House except..........
"The House continues doing the work of the people. The Senate? Not so much."
Yeah, except that if you actually know anything about how "the work of the people" works, you will know that those numbers actually say the Senate is doing about as much OR MORE than it usually does...
See, what that graphic doesn't show you is PROCESS.... that we have had some 9,000 pieces of legislation proposed so far in this Congress (which, by the way, doesn't change their "do-nothing" status, see my previous post about, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...").
Of that 9,000 pieces, less than half make it out of Committee.
Of that 4,000 or so that pass the first bar, they are then sent into further rounds of "culling".... discussion, negotiation, budgetary consideration, etc. etc., all part of validation and prioritization...
If a piece of legislation survives all that (and roughly 600 or so have so far during this congress), it goes for a vote on the House floor.
Those that PASS are sent upstream to the Senate, where it undergoes ANOTHER round of validation, debate and discussion, committee consideration, etc, and then.... after another 1/2 to 2/3 of submitted legislation has fallen to the cutting-room floor, the remaining Legislation goes for a vote on the Senate floor. Some are as-is, and pass on to the President for consideration. Others are amended by the Senate and sent back to the House for another vote...
See, those numbers above show a NORMAL ratio of House to Senate passages... and in fact show a rather busy Senate.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, Richard. Do you have a point? Is it to say that the "do-nothing Congress" mantra is amiss? Because, look, there they are earning their paychecks?
I say no, not really... mostly their (the GOP) work has been to obfuscate, obstruct and push back against every civil institution built for our society over the past half century, AND to further the interests of the corporate-person and their wealthy masters.
I can't imagine anyone with half a brain could applaud these people (unless they are directly benefitting in some brazen mercenary way)...
A fairly one-sided set of links (aka opinions) there, Richard.... I'm sure we could get an equally one-sided POV from the DEM party website, no? GOP.gov, red alert, etc? Come on.
See, I've read the "jobs bills", every single painfully-devoid-of-actual-solutions bill that the GOP has sent upstream. I am one of those boring people who watches c-span (or maybe just masochistic) and reads bills beyond the summaries on Thomas...
Bills on business (aka the welfare of corporate people over people people), Energy (more subsidies for oil while cutting R&D support to alternative fuels), VA (look at the VA-related bills put forward by the GOP House there, Richard. Look closely. How can you call ANY of those actual "solutions" to the intractable problems there??), and Jobs.... um. Right...
Show me a GOP jobs bill that actually creates jobs or strengthens the economy in any way? Aside from benefitting the top 5% of people and companies? I
If you're going to quote a bill by name or number, please also highlight where YOU think that bill has measurable benefits to the general public? Most importantly those who WANT jobs and simply can't find any...
"Do nothing" does not mean "lazy". It's an obstructionist ideology. Breaking government to prove their mantra that government is a bad, broken waste of time...
Most of what comes out of this House is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..." as the great Bard once put it. Much ado about nothing.
Made to look busy, while accomplishing very little of import..... shall I go on?
Really? When asked what House proposals are on Reid'd desk, what did you expect, my posting of Senate proposals?
Weather you agree with the solution or not, does not make them not a solution. And the idea of government is to propose, negotiate and pass. As with any negotiation, always one side starts with "I'll sell it to you for $50" then the other "No, I'll give you $35" and so on. That is the art of negotiations.
My point was, the House is not a lazy do nothing. Again, I never said I agreed with any or all of anything they have done. But to say they have done nothing, is simply rhetoric on the Left.
And then this graphic, which is designed for the civically illiterate... the ignorati of the masses...
Designed to make a person grumble at that "lazy obstructionist" Senate, and champion the good (GOP) people of the hard-working House except..........
"The House continues doing the work of the people. The Senate? Not so much."
Yeah, except that if you actually know anything about how "the work of the people" works, you will know that those numbers actually say the Senate is doing about as much OR MORE than it usually does...
See, what that graphic doesn't show you is PROCESS.... that we have had some 9,000 pieces of legislation proposed so far in this Congress (which, by the way, doesn't change their "do-nothing" status, see my previous post about, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...").
Of that 9,000 pieces, less than half make it out of Committee.
Of that 4,000 or so that pass the first bar, they are then sent into further rounds of "culling".... discussion, negotiation, budgetary consideration, etc. etc., all part of validation and prioritization...
If a piece of legislation survives all that (and roughly 600 or so have so far during this congress), it goes for a vote on the House floor.
Those that PASS are sent upstream to the Senate, where it undergoes ANOTHER round of validation, debate and discussion, committee consideration, etc, and then.... after another 1/2 to 2/3 of submitted legislation has fallen to the cutting-room floor, the remaining Legislation goes for a vote on the Senate floor. Some are as-is, and pass on to the President for consideration. Others are amended by the Senate and sent back to the House for another vote...
See, those numbers above show a NORMAL ratio of House to Senate passages... and in fact show a rather busy Senate.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, Richard. Do you have a point? Is it to say that the "do-nothing Congress" mantra is amiss? Because, look, there they are earning their paychecks?
I say no, not really... mostly their (the GOP) work has been to obfuscate, obstruct and push back against every civil institution built for our society over the past half century, AND to further the interests of the corporate-person and their wealthy masters.
I can't imagine anyone with half a brain could applaud these people (unless they are directly benefitting in some brazen mercenary way)...
Back to you.... oh, can-of-worms opener...
Your argument should have been "the House by law has to first pass any legislation" as it does, which is why the Senate probably does not have as much on their end, although they are welcome to submit ideas to the House.
My point to you is, it is NOT a do nothing House, but a do nothing Congress. Neither side makes strides to do the will of the people, or their duty as given by the Constitution.
Quote:
say no, not really... mostly their (the GOP) work has been to obfuscate, obstruct and push back against every civil institution built for our society over the past half century, AND to further the interests of the corporate-person and their wealthy masters.
Not agreeing with the GOP, but it is the belief of this Conservative that smaller government is best for the people. That every government in history has oppressed its people. That the government role in society has grow so far out of the structure set by the founding fathers, it looks more like Europe than the U.S.. I believe in State rights and the people's right to move to a State that passes laws that fit their beliefs. That the federal nanny state should be dissolved back to the role set by our Constitution. Such as border security and protection from evil forces outside the country, and making sure States play nice with commerce. No where did the founders imagine our federal government getting involved with such social issues and civil institutions as we have today.
All that to say this. Whether you agree or not, is not the point, as I'm sure you don't. But if Congress was focused on their Constitutional duties, we would have far less gridlock. Social issue should be left to the States.
LOL Far cry from anything remotely related to Apple
My point to you is, it is NOT a do nothing House, but a do nothing Congress. Neither side makes strides to do the will of the people, or their duty as given by the Constitution.
If Congress was focused on their Constitutional duties, we would have far less gridlock. Social issue should be left to the States.
LOL Far cry from anything remotely related to Apple
Well then I agree with your main point. It certainly IS a do-nothing Congress. Which is what I've been saying from the start. I do blame the GOP (both in the House, and the obstructionist minority in the Senate) for most of it, bringing far too much ideology (and religious fervor!) into the political mix, and abusing systems which have worked so well for us until now.
Also agree we have too much gridlock, but again for the same reasons. Obstructionism (aka acting with an uncompromising adherence to one's ideology) is pretty much all you need to create that gridlock.
"Social issues".... that's a broad generality which I can't agree with. I think there are plenty of things that fall into that category which belong on the Federal level. But then, I'm also for a single-payer National Health system (having enjoyed living with one in Japan for 12 years, you can't imagine how difficult is is returning to our relative stone age...), so perhaps I lean more toward the liberalism our founding fathers exhibited. Being all for states' rights, but also understanding the need to attend to a "common welfare"....
If you are still tied to a 2 year contract you aren't likely to switch carrier as you'll have to pay for the rest of your contract anyway. But could be very useful when you want to travel and would like to switch to a local SIM card...another consumer win!
But you still have the contract and have to pay the monthly fee, right? I'm sure your carrier won't be overjoyed that you won't be racking up any additional charges, but you still have to pay the charge that you committed to, which includes as part of the package the phone repayment, line rental, and some kind of call/sms/data bundle, right? So they're not especially out of pocket. Or have I misunderstood something?
If there's a threat that a customer might throw caution to the wind and go to another provider even while they're paying the original provider back, well that's just a good incentive for the original provider to give a decent post sale service.
Sure, that's exactly the same as here, though I believe our situation is slightly better because there's almost complete portability between networks since they all use similar bandwidths. I'm struggling to see what the issue with this law is.
I'm not sure that removing a form of easy credit is such a bad thing. Do you really think it serves low income people well to get themselves tied into expensive cellphone contracts with no checks whatsoever on whether they can afford to pay?
The newer iPhones (5 and forward) are completely portable between networks (even given the different bands used (which is true in the EU as well BTW) but even across different network protocols as well (CDMA vs GSM, split in the US and Asia, but the EU is fairly standardized on GSM)
On the second part I am really appalled that you think it is ok (or even admirable) to prevent people from getting secured credit (and as usual the straw man of "with no checks whatsoever" do you really believe the cell companies give a phone out with no credit checks? Secured credit is simply at a different level than signature credit is). Who are we (or in this case the government) to insert ourselves as the arbiters as to whether someone should or should not be able to purchase a phone.
But you still have the contract and have to pay the monthly fee, right? I'm sure your carrier won't be overjoyed that you won't be racking up any additional charges, but you still have to pay the charge that you committed to, which includes as part of the package the phone repayment, line rental, and some kind of call/sms/data bundle, right? So they're not especially out of pocket. Or have I misunderstood something?
After re-reading your post I didn't really address this point. The difference is with an unlocked phone is; the only thing that prevents you from taking their phone (remember they are paying the vast majority of the purchase price of the phone) to another network and paying them nothing (simply not paying anything) is your word. That is, in a nutshell, the fundamental difference between signature and secured credit.
And no, most in the US normally don't incur large overages. Most operate within the limits agreed to in the plan.
Actually I'm pretty confident that a service provider would be overjoyed if you ?didn't ?use the phone on their network (i.e. took it to another network) but continued to pay the monthly fees (agreed to in the contract) as they would have their money but wouldn't have the additional load on their network. (backhaul limits and network congestion are a serious issues for service providers in most populated areas here in the US )
Well then I agree with your main point. It certainly IS a do-nothing Congress. Which is what I've been saying from the start. I do blame the GOP (both in the House, and the obstructionist minority in the Senate) for most of it, bringing far too much ideology (and religious fervor!) into the political mix, and abusing systems which have worked so well for us until now.
That's the rub. We see the Left as obstructionist, you see the Right. When is someone going to bring both to the table and work out some ways forward. Sure, we'll never agree on a lot of social issues, but at least we can get done what we do agree on and that might build some trust to work on the sensitive issues.
On the second part I am really appalled that you think it is ok (or even admirable) to prevent people from getting secured credit (and as usual the straw man of "with no checks whatsoever" do you really believe the cell companies give a phone out with no credit checks? Secured credit is simply at a different level than signature credit is). Who are we (or in this case the government) to insert ourselves as the arbiters as to whether someone should or should not be able to purchase a phone.
The nanny state run amuck.
Where did I say anything about prevention? I just said that if carriers tightening up on credit requirements is a side-effect of this law then I don't see that as a bad thing.
On this subject, though very much tangential to what I was talking about, considering that personal debt is proving to be one of the great drivers of poverty, inequality and misery in this age I think there's a very good reason for government to insert rules to limit irresponsible granting of credit. We have usury laws for precisely that reason, and as someone who has had some involvement in debt advice and financial literacy I don't think they're nearly strict enough.
I didn't intend to use a straw man, apologies if it seemed like I did, I haven't got a clear picture of what the credit checks required for entering a cellphone contract in the US are.
Comments
Harry Reid has over 200 bills from the House waiting for him to take to the floor.
Know what you're talking about before spitting it.
I'm not sure it's either fair or correct to characterize it this way. There's a process of moving legislation from start to finish. One step along the way may be that it moves from the House (introduced and passed there) to the Senate, and then there's a process to get it to the Senate floor for a vote. Committee review and considerations, additional debates, maybe some amendments... You make it sound like Reid is holding onto and blocking progress for hundreds of bills, that he is a singular bottleneck. But it just doesn't work like that...
It isn't like Reid is receiving House bills, tossing them on a pile on his desk and ignoring them, and that's where they go to die. He isn't a solo 'gatekeeper'. There's a matter of priorities to consider as well. In any case, I certainly wouldn't characterize a couple of hundred pending bills or other legislation as a 'backlog'...
Clear information here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#current_status=4
There are other websites related to tracking legislation moving through congress, but this is one of the simpler to use...
This is going to make the carrier branded phones look kind of goofy once they are off contract.
This is really a problem that should have taken care of itself commercially. If you're getting screwed by your current carrier take your business elsewhere. Again, do the math.
Finally, very sad to see our esteemed government servants are devoting time to something so unimportant to the future of our nation when other much more pressing concerns receive no attention. We should ship the whole lot of them over to Korea to "help" their societies. North or south? Take your pick.
it is my understanding that at&t does not unlock "at&t exclusive" devices. that is what i was asking about.
i was wondering what the CITA regulations or this new bill has to do with "at&t exclusive" devices such as the new amazon kindle phone and the playstation vita. it is my understanding that the no unlock policy will be for 5 years, just like the original iphone.
I don't think you grok the reality of the situation... you are so getting wrapped up in the details you can't see the big picture.
Let me explain it this way: [snip]
With due respect, none of that is relevant to the point we were discussing. I wasn't addressing the ramifications at all.
You said the legislation is pointless and has no actual effect. I said yes it does, it counters an earlier action that prohibited unlocking. That's it.
Whether it is good or bad for consumers wasn't the point.
Quote:The President is black?
Not sure. According to this picture of him and his gramps, it seems Obama's ears, and head shape must be white?
Forgive my possible ignorance about how subsidisation works, but how does this change make subsidisation impossible? What about subsidisation depends on the device being locked? Surely the phone being locked or not makes no difference to the contract being signed to pay for the phone and service? If what you say is correct and this change would necessitate a move to a markedly different finance arrangement, then what real difference would this make to the consumer? Would service + finance costs exceed the subsidised contract price? Why? Do you really not have credit checks for subsidised phones over there? Why is a locked phone effective as collateral, but an unlocked phone isn't?
I can only compare this to the situation in the UK, where a similar principle has been in place for a while, where carriers offer an unlocking service on handsets. We still have a form of subsidisation as an option when purchasing a new handset, where you enter into a multi year contract (subject to credit check) and pay off the large part of the cost of the phone (there may be a relatively small upfront cost) in a higher monthly cost that includes service and a call/SMS/data package. Maybe the US deals work differently, but phone unlocking being a requirement hasn't had an major effect on the availability of what we call subsidised phones over here.
Fair question. Locking the phone assured the service provider that the customer can't take the phone (till you pay it off, just like a financed car you don't really own it (get the title) 'till you make the last payment) and take it to another provider. Unlocked phones means that the cell provider must now take you at you word that you won't take their phone to another provider. This essentially places the providers in a position of issuing "unsecured credit" to finance the phones (a plan (lower rates unlocked phones) that was already available with most providers)
The difference between who qualifies for secured and unsecured (or "signature") credit is vast. This new "freedom" will simply make ALL financing of phones subject to the level of signature credit (no matter what the circumstance), which will just remove the option for people who need it most.
Again low rate unsubsidized plans already existed. I can afford to buy outright (unlocked) and only pay ~$40/month/phone for unlimited service (talk & text,10GB shared data) But I currently have almost $3K in phones purchased within the last 12 mos, many can't afford that (and don't really have sufficient credit to finance them) This "law" is just another chunk of useless legislation that actually hurts the people it purports to benefit (consumers) because it removes a viable and popular option ("secured" credit via subsidizing locked phones).
Forgive my possible ignorance about how subsidisation works, but how does this change make subsidisation impossible? What about subsidisation depends on the device being locked? Surely the phone being locked or not makes no difference to the contract being signed to pay for the phone and service? If what you say is correct and this change would necessitate a move to a markedly different finance arrangement, then what real difference would this make to the consumer? Would service + finance costs exceed the subsidised contract price? Why? Do you really not have credit checks for subsidised phones over there? Why is a locked phone effective as collateral, but an unlocked phone isn't?
I can only compare this to the situation in the UK, where a similar principle has been in place for a while, where carriers offer an unlocking service on handsets. We still have a form of subsidisation as an option when purchasing a new handset, where you enter into a multi year contract (subject to credit check) and pay off the large part of the cost of the phone (there may be a relatively small upfront cost) in a higher monthly cost that includes service and a call/SMS/data package. Maybe the US deals work differently, but phone unlocking being a requirement hasn't had an major effect on the availability of what we call subsidised phones over here.
Didn't really address that last bit.
You do realize that over here is the US the service providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile & Sprint are the primaries)) will cheerfully unlock your phone, once you have paid for it, yes? (i.e. finish the contract you signed to get the subsidy, normally 2 years but 1 year ("new phone every year") are available for another $20 or so /month)
You can then take that unlocked phone (now your property) to another provider or get a lower monthly (unsubsidized) plan on the current provider. (assuming they offer one, of they don't; change providers as after you have paid for the phone (i.e. completed the contract) you are not beholden to your current provider)
Do you know what those "plenty of bills sitting on Reid's desk" are? I think it's a fiction, but ok... I'm open minded. Some examples, maybe?
Meanwhile, what I get that you're saying, basically, is that there's a MAJOR backlog of really important, meaningful, major problem-solving solutions gathering dust on Reid's desk because, you know, that hard-working, deeply-caring and amazingly productive Republican House has clearly sent him a tsunami of MAJOR legislation and our entire government is clearly grinding to a halt because, well, that Reid guy just won't do his job........ Or something? Am I getting that about right, or...?
I'm sure the more than FIFTY times the House has voted to yet again waste the Senate's time (and taxpayer dollars) sending along yet another "repeal the ACA" bill that they know is dead before it starts (and unpopular with the majority of citizens), has nothing to do with it, and is something we should call Reid out on when he lets them stagnate...? I'm not so sure...
Yeah, real hard, just Google it.
http://www.gop.gov/house-versus-senate-by-the-numbers/
http://www.gop.gov/looking-for-bill/
http://thehill.com/video/house/327235-house-sends-tenth-funding-bill-to-the-senate ;
http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/04/30/house-gop-jabs-senate-democrats-sitting-jobs-bills/
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2014/05/on-harry-reids-desk-dozens-of-house-passed-va-reform-bills-sitting-on-harry-reids-desk/
http://www.gop.gov/10-reasons-senate-democrats-should-act-on-house-passed-jobs-bills/
And so many more links, but you get the idea.
House bills on Business, Energy, VA, Jobs. All those silly waste of time solutions that, oh, wait, not a waste of time.
This is by NO means suggesting the House are the saints, but hardly the lazy do nothing.
Fair question. Locking the phone assured the service provider that the customer can't take the phone (till you pay it off, just like a financed car you don't really own it (get the title) 'till you make the last payment) and take it to another provider. Unlocked phones means that the cell provider must now take you at you word that you won't take their phone to another provider. This essentially places the providers in a position of issuing "unsecured credit" to finance the phones (a plan (lower rates unlocked phones) that was already available with most providers)
But you still have the contract and have to pay the monthly fee, right? I'm sure your carrier won't be overjoyed that you won't be racking up any additional charges, but you still have to pay the charge that you committed to, which includes as part of the package the phone repayment, line rental, and some kind of call/sms/data bundle, right? So they're not especially out of pocket. Or have I misunderstood something?
If there's a threat that a customer might throw caution to the wind and go to another provider even while they're paying the original provider back, well that's just a good incentive for the original provider to give a decent post sale service.
Didn't really address that last bit.
You do realize that over here is the US the service providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile & Sprint are the primaries)) will cheerfully unlock your phone, once you have paid for it, yes? (i.e. finish the contract you signed to get the subsidy, normally 2 years but 1 year ("new phone every year") are available for another $20 or so /month)
You can then take that unlocked phone (now your property) to another provider or get a lower monthly (unsubsidized) plan on the current provider. (assuming they offer one, of they don't; change providers as after you have paid for the phone (i.e. completed the contract) you are not beholden to your current provider)
Sure, that's exactly the same as here, though I believe our situation is slightly better because there's almost complete portability between networks since they all use similar bandwidths. I'm struggling to see what the issue with this law is.
I'm not sure that removing a form of easy credit is such a bad thing. Do you really think it serves low income people well to get themselves tied into expensive cellphone contracts with no checks whatsoever on whether they can afford to pay?
Yeah, real hard, just Google it.
http://www.gop.gov/house-versus-senate-by-the-numbers/
http://www.gop.gov/looking-for-bill/
http://thehill.com/video/house/327235-house-sends-tenth-funding-bill-to-the-senate ;
http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/04/30/house-gop-jabs-senate-democrats-sitting-jobs-bills/
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2014/05/on-harry-reids-desk-dozens-of-house-passed-va-reform-bills-sitting-on-harry-reids-desk/
http://www.gop.gov/10-reasons-senate-democrats-should-act-on-house-passed-jobs-bills/
And so many more links, but you get the idea.
House bills on Business, Energy, VA, Jobs. All those silly waste of time solutions that, oh, wait, not a waste of time.
This is by NO means suggesting the House are the saints, but hardly the lazy do nothing.
A fairly one-sided set of links (aka opinions) there, Richard.... I'm sure we could get an equally one-sided POV from the DEM party website, no? GOP.gov, red alert, etc? Come on.
See, I've read the "jobs bills", every single painfully-devoid-of-actual-solutions bill that the GOP has sent upstream. I am one of those boring people who watches c-span (or maybe just masochistic) and reads bills beyond the summaries on Thomas...
Bills on business (aka the welfare of corporate people over people people), Energy (more subsidies for oil while cutting R&D support to alternative fuels), VA (look at the VA-related bills put forward by the GOP House there, Richard. Look closely. How can you call ANY of those actual "solutions" to the intractable problems there??), and Jobs.... um. Right...
Show me a GOP jobs bill that actually creates jobs or strengthens the economy in any way? Aside from benefitting the top 5% of people and companies? I
If you're going to quote a bill by name or number, please also highlight where YOU think that bill has measurable benefits to the general public? Most importantly those who WANT jobs and simply can't find any...
"Do nothing" does not mean "lazy". It's an obstructionist ideology. Breaking government to prove their mantra that government is a bad, broken waste of time...
Most of what comes out of this House is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..." as the great Bard once put it. Much ado about nothing.
Made to look busy, while accomplishing very little of import..... shall I go on?
Now, the question is did congress actually forbid some real subsidies? As someone associated with a large university, part of my bill is discounted by 15%. At one point a bill going through congress was said to have language to eliminate or at least disfavor such subsidies.
And then this graphic, which is designed for the civically illiterate... the ignorati of the masses...
Designed to make a person grumble at that "lazy obstructionist" Senate, and champion the good (GOP) people of the hard-working House except..........
"The House continues doing the work of the people. The Senate? Not so much."
Yeah, except that if you actually know anything about how "the work of the people" works, you will know that those numbers actually say the Senate is doing about as much OR MORE than it usually does...
See, what that graphic doesn't show you is PROCESS.... that we have had some 9,000 pieces of legislation proposed so far in this Congress (which, by the way, doesn't change their "do-nothing" status, see my previous post about, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...").
Of that 9,000 pieces, less than half make it out of Committee.
Of that 4,000 or so that pass the first bar, they are then sent into further rounds of "culling".... discussion, negotiation, budgetary consideration, etc. etc., all part of validation and prioritization...
If a piece of legislation survives all that (and roughly 600 or so have so far during this congress), it goes for a vote on the House floor.
Those that PASS are sent upstream to the Senate, where it undergoes ANOTHER round of validation, debate and discussion, committee consideration, etc, and then.... after another 1/2 to 2/3 of submitted legislation has fallen to the cutting-room floor, the remaining Legislation goes for a vote on the Senate floor. Some are as-is, and pass on to the President for consideration. Others are amended by the Senate and sent back to the House for another vote...
See, those numbers above show a NORMAL ratio of House to Senate passages... and in fact show a rather busy Senate.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, Richard. Do you have a point? Is it to say that the "do-nothing Congress" mantra is amiss? Because, look, there they are earning their paychecks?
I say no, not really... mostly their (the GOP) work has been to obfuscate, obstruct and push back against every civil institution built for our society over the past half century, AND to further the interests of the corporate-person and their wealthy masters.
I can't imagine anyone with half a brain could applaud these people (unless they are directly benefitting in some brazen mercenary way)...
Back to you.... oh, can-of-worms opener...
A fairly one-sided set of links (aka opinions) there, Richard.... I'm sure we could get an equally one-sided POV from the DEM party website, no? GOP.gov, red alert, etc? Come on.
See, I've read the "jobs bills", every single painfully-devoid-of-actual-solutions bill that the GOP has sent upstream. I am one of those boring people who watches c-span (or maybe just masochistic) and reads bills beyond the summaries on Thomas...
Bills on business (aka the welfare of corporate people over people people), Energy (more subsidies for oil while cutting R&D support to alternative fuels), VA (look at the VA-related bills put forward by the GOP House there, Richard. Look closely. How can you call ANY of those actual "solutions" to the intractable problems there??), and Jobs.... um. Right...
Show me a GOP jobs bill that actually creates jobs or strengthens the economy in any way? Aside from benefitting the top 5% of people and companies? I
If you're going to quote a bill by name or number, please also highlight where YOU think that bill has measurable benefits to the general public? Most importantly those who WANT jobs and simply can't find any...
"Do nothing" does not mean "lazy". It's an obstructionist ideology. Breaking government to prove their mantra that government is a bad, broken waste of time...
Most of what comes out of this House is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..." as the great Bard once put it. Much ado about nothing.
Made to look busy, while accomplishing very little of import..... shall I go on?
Really? When asked what House proposals are on Reid'd desk, what did you expect, my posting of Senate proposals?
Weather you agree with the solution or not, does not make them not a solution. And the idea of government is to propose, negotiate and pass. As with any negotiation, always one side starts with "I'll sell it to you for $50" then the other "No, I'll give you $35" and so on. That is the art of negotiations.
My point was, the House is not a lazy do nothing. Again, I never said I agreed with any or all of anything they have done. But to say they have done nothing, is simply rhetoric on the Left.
And then this graphic, which is designed for the civically illiterate... the ignorati of the masses...
Designed to make a person grumble at that "lazy obstructionist" Senate, and champion the good (GOP) people of the hard-working House except..........
"The House continues doing the work of the people. The Senate? Not so much."
Yeah, except that if you actually know anything about how "the work of the people" works, you will know that those numbers actually say the Senate is doing about as much OR MORE than it usually does...
See, what that graphic doesn't show you is PROCESS.... that we have had some 9,000 pieces of legislation proposed so far in this Congress (which, by the way, doesn't change their "do-nothing" status, see my previous post about, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...").
Of that 9,000 pieces, less than half make it out of Committee.
Of that 4,000 or so that pass the first bar, they are then sent into further rounds of "culling".... discussion, negotiation, budgetary consideration, etc. etc., all part of validation and prioritization...
If a piece of legislation survives all that (and roughly 600 or so have so far during this congress), it goes for a vote on the House floor.
Those that PASS are sent upstream to the Senate, where it undergoes ANOTHER round of validation, debate and discussion, committee consideration, etc, and then.... after another 1/2 to 2/3 of submitted legislation has fallen to the cutting-room floor, the remaining Legislation goes for a vote on the Senate floor. Some are as-is, and pass on to the President for consideration. Others are amended by the Senate and sent back to the House for another vote...
See, those numbers above show a NORMAL ratio of House to Senate passages... and in fact show a rather busy Senate.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, Richard. Do you have a point? Is it to say that the "do-nothing Congress" mantra is amiss? Because, look, there they are earning their paychecks?
I say no, not really... mostly their (the GOP) work has been to obfuscate, obstruct and push back against every civil institution built for our society over the past half century, AND to further the interests of the corporate-person and their wealthy masters.
I can't imagine anyone with half a brain could applaud these people (unless they are directly benefitting in some brazen mercenary way)...
Back to you.... oh, can-of-worms opener...
Your argument should have been "the House by law has to first pass any legislation" as it does, which is why the Senate probably does not have as much on their end, although they are welcome to submit ideas to the House.
My point to you is, it is NOT a do nothing House, but a do nothing Congress. Neither side makes strides to do the will of the people, or their duty as given by the Constitution.
Not agreeing with the GOP, but it is the belief of this Conservative that smaller government is best for the people. That every government in history has oppressed its people. That the government role in society has grow so far out of the structure set by the founding fathers, it looks more like Europe than the U.S.. I believe in State rights and the people's right to move to a State that passes laws that fit their beliefs. That the federal nanny state should be dissolved back to the role set by our Constitution. Such as border security and protection from evil forces outside the country, and making sure States play nice with commerce. No where did the founders imagine our federal government getting involved with such social issues and civil institutions as we have today.
All that to say this. Whether you agree or not, is not the point, as I'm sure you don't. But if Congress was focused on their Constitutional duties, we would have far less gridlock. Social issue should be left to the States.
LOL Far cry from anything remotely related to Apple
My point to you is, it is NOT a do nothing House, but a do nothing Congress. Neither side makes strides to do the will of the people, or their duty as given by the Constitution.
If Congress was focused on their Constitutional duties, we would have far less gridlock. Social issue should be left to the States.
LOL Far cry from anything remotely related to Apple
Well then I agree with your main point. It certainly IS a do-nothing Congress. Which is what I've been saying from the start. I do blame the GOP (both in the House, and the obstructionist minority in the Senate) for most of it, bringing far too much ideology (and religious fervor!) into the political mix, and abusing systems which have worked so well for us until now.
Also agree we have too much gridlock, but again for the same reasons. Obstructionism (aka acting with an uncompromising adherence to one's ideology) is pretty much all you need to create that gridlock.
"Social issues".... that's a broad generality which I can't agree with. I think there are plenty of things that fall into that category which belong on the Federal level. But then, I'm also for a single-payer National Health system (having enjoyed living with one in Japan for 12 years, you can't imagine how difficult is is returning to our relative stone age...), so perhaps I lean more toward the liberalism our founding fathers exhibited. Being all for states' rights, but also understanding the need to attend to a "common welfare"....
The rest we can leave for another day.
And yeah, about those new iPhones.....!
But you still have the contract and have to pay the monthly fee, right? I'm sure your carrier won't be overjoyed that you won't be racking up any additional charges, but you still have to pay the charge that you committed to, which includes as part of the package the phone repayment, line rental, and some kind of call/sms/data bundle, right? So they're not especially out of pocket. Or have I misunderstood something?
If there's a threat that a customer might throw caution to the wind and go to another provider even while they're paying the original provider back, well that's just a good incentive for the original provider to give a decent post sale service.
Sure, that's exactly the same as here, though I believe our situation is slightly better because there's almost complete portability between networks since they all use similar bandwidths. I'm struggling to see what the issue with this law is.
I'm not sure that removing a form of easy credit is such a bad thing. Do you really think it serves low income people well to get themselves tied into expensive cellphone contracts with no checks whatsoever on whether they can afford to pay?
The newer iPhones (5 and forward) are completely portable between networks (even given the different bands used (which is true in the EU as well BTW) but even across different network protocols as well (CDMA vs GSM, split in the US and Asia, but the EU is fairly standardized on GSM)
On the second part I am really appalled that you think it is ok (or even admirable) to prevent people from getting secured credit (and as usual the straw man of "with no checks whatsoever" do you really believe the cell companies give a phone out with no credit checks? Secured credit is simply at a different level than signature credit is). Who are we (or in this case the government) to insert ourselves as the arbiters as to whether someone should or should not be able to purchase a phone.
The nanny state run amuck.
But you still have the contract and have to pay the monthly fee, right? I'm sure your carrier won't be overjoyed that you won't be racking up any additional charges, but you still have to pay the charge that you committed to, which includes as part of the package the phone repayment, line rental, and some kind of call/sms/data bundle, right? So they're not especially out of pocket. Or have I misunderstood something?
After re-reading your post I didn't really address this point. The difference is with an unlocked phone is; the only thing that prevents you from taking their phone (remember they are paying the vast majority of the purchase price of the phone) to another network and paying them nothing (simply not paying anything) is your word. That is, in a nutshell, the fundamental difference between signature and secured credit.
And no, most in the US normally don't incur large overages. Most operate within the limits agreed to in the plan.
Actually I'm pretty confident that a service provider would be overjoyed if you ?didn't ?use the phone on their network (i.e. took it to another network) but continued to pay the monthly fees (agreed to in the contract) as they would have their money but wouldn't have the additional load on their network. (backhaul limits and network congestion are a serious issues for service providers in most populated areas here in the US )
Well then I agree with your main point. It certainly IS a do-nothing Congress. Which is what I've been saying from the start. I do blame the GOP (both in the House, and the obstructionist minority in the Senate) for most of it, bringing far too much ideology (and religious fervor!) into the political mix, and abusing systems which have worked so well for us until now.
That's the rub. We see the Left as obstructionist, you see the Right. When is someone going to bring both to the table and work out some ways forward. Sure, we'll never agree on a lot of social issues, but at least we can get done what we do agree on and that might build some trust to work on the sensitive issues.
On the second part I am really appalled that you think it is ok (or even admirable) to prevent people from getting secured credit (and as usual the straw man of "with no checks whatsoever" do you really believe the cell companies give a phone out with no credit checks? Secured credit is simply at a different level than signature credit is). Who are we (or in this case the government) to insert ourselves as the arbiters as to whether someone should or should not be able to purchase a phone.
The nanny state run amuck.
Where did I say anything about prevention? I just said that if carriers tightening up on credit requirements is a side-effect of this law then I don't see that as a bad thing.
On this subject, though very much tangential to what I was talking about, considering that personal debt is proving to be one of the great drivers of poverty, inequality and misery in this age I think there's a very good reason for government to insert rules to limit irresponsible granting of credit. We have usury laws for precisely that reason, and as someone who has had some involvement in debt advice and financial literacy I don't think they're nearly strict enough.
I didn't intend to use a straw man, apologies if it seemed like I did, I haven't got a clear picture of what the credit checks required for entering a cellphone contract in the US are.