Phone-Unlocking Bill Clears Congress, Goes to Obama
Of course it matters...
The "unlocking policies" the carriers, and their shill the CTIA, have come up with are scams for the carriers forcing you one way or the other to take out service with them in order to unlock a handset. Unless of course you are the 5 percent of users who know you need your device unlocked before your contract runs out. Most people don't and haven't, and wont keep service with the old carrier in order to unlock it either so they take the phone home and keep it, prolly unused in a drawer or they agree to the reaming and trade it in for the $16 they are told it is worth.
...
(continues)
I am all for this bill, but it is NOT going to bring about the wireless utopia so many people seem to think it will.
I avidly disagree. Care to back those statements up with facts?
>>I am all for this bill, but it is NOT going to bring about the wireless utopia so many people seem to think it will.
No one thinks it will bring about a utopia. People just want a basic and reasonable right given back to them. You may not care, but a lot of people take their rights seriously.
And I have to say, this isn't a majority issue but more of a vocal minority issue (in my opinion). It should be changed, but at the same time I agree that if the phone isn't "owned" yet then the carrier isn't obligated to unlock it for domestic use. I sell phones so I understand some of the economics of this (some, not all).
What you don't understand is the concept of ownership. Every person who buys a subsidized device from a carrier owns the device the day he takes it home. After that what remains is a monetary obligation to the carrier. But the device becomes the sole property of the consumer when he brings it home. Don't believe me? Name one instance of a cellular carrier ever repossessing a cellular device.
Furthermore, if these devices are merely leased to consumers until they're paid for, as so many of the uninformed on t...
(continues)
This forum is closed.