Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Obama Signs Cell Phone Unlocking Bill Into Law, iPhone Unlocking No Longer Illegal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can tell the law is powerless and irrelevant to nearly everyone because it got unanimous approval by the legislative branch.
No doubt!
----------
And Bill Clinton just reported this week that he had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden before 9/11, but didn't.
What's on your list of legitimate reasons for being critical of this president?
When was the last time the Senate passed a federal budget? Heck, Harry Reid won't even allow a vote on a budget.
----------
Just asking Four of Nine.
And yet the Federal government remains funded.
How many times has the House voted to repeal Obamacare/Romneycare/Heritage Foundationcare? 40 and counting.
What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
By the way, Bohner won't bring up anything for a House vote unless he can pass it solely on Republican votes so your comment regarding Reid is the pot calling the kettle black.
Got tired of trying to get over all the political posts. I was trying to find any reliable information about any changes of policy by AT&T.
I am afraid this law does nothing to change AT&T's policies for unlocking. I mean, they will still wait until the contract is over (2 years). Funny thing is that before the advent of the iPhone AT&T would unlock phones (remember the Motorola Razr?) a few months into the contract. Not now. As most people have noted, one is under contract to pay termination fees, etc. I don't buy the argument that the phone belongs to AT&T until the contract is completed. I have never heard of AT&T or anybody else asking a customer to return their phone because it belongs to them. AT&T and other carriers are just artificially making things harder to customers that can still go to a third party unlocked and get the phone unlocked. I think it would be a good gesture from their part to change the unlocking policies and allow for unlocking through their official channel earlier than the 2 years.
I am afraid this law does nothing to change AT&T's policies for unlocking. I mean, they will still wait until the contract is over (2 years). Funny thing is that before the advent of the iPhone AT&T would unlock phones (remember the Motorola Razr?) a few months into the contract. Not now. As most people have noted, one is under contract to pay termination fees, etc. I don't buy the argument that the phone belongs to AT&T until the contract is completed. I have never heard of AT&T or anybody else asking a customer to return their phone because it belongs to them. AT&T and other carriers are just artificially making things harder to customers that can still go to a third party unlocked and get the phone unlocked. I think it would be a good gesture from their part to change the unlocking policies and allow for unlocking through their official channel earlier than the 2 years.
If it's "quite obvious" to you why there should be no exceptions to the DMCA, you should explain why.
That's begging the question. Good is in the eye of the beholder; there is no absolute standard for "goodness". What we can be sure is that such Executive Branch decisions will be politically motivated. I can imagine that smartphones were dropped by the Executive Branch to create a populist "problem" for the government to "fix". Why not just have the Librarian of Congress do the right thing this time around?
Actually, all service animals. And that's a terrible metaphor, since the service animal rules are part of the ADA.
That's a second conjecture you made. Calling the legal state [fundamentally] changed because a small number of carriers sell their phones unlocked doesn't logically follow. The only good reason to change the rule would be if there were no need for the exception.
Why couldn't the Librarian just have done the right thing? WTF did he change his mind? What happened when he checked with the WH on this dogmatic decision? What "good" was supposed to happen by banning user unlocking?
Sure, I did -- just ask AT&T for an unlock code -- you contract on it is guaranteed to have expired
In no particular order, I'd list killing US citizens via drone strike without due process, NSA intrusions into citizen privacy, rewarding Wall St with policies favorable to them at the expense of citizen taxpayers, escalation of US military involvement in Afghanistan and political prosecution of whistle blowers come to mind.. I'm sure there are others if I really thought about it..
How about you?
Couldn't you throw that list at most presidents, no matter which side of the house they are on?
talk about drifting from reality ... smh
check this out:
http://mrconservative.com/2013/01/3348-24-statistics-on-obama/2/
The response was in answer to hudson1.
But the "Everybody else does it" isn't much of an excuse either, is it?
Last edited:
Apparently 5 people do already agree with me and sorry. I thought this was an open, free speech forum where I didn't have to be careful about **** I say. I don't, quite frankly give a **** who I'm insulting because it is my right to share my views so you should be the one showing "a little intelligence"
----------
Nope, that site isn't biased at all.
Yes, thank You.
It's nice to see at least one person on this board that shares my opinion..... This thread was an eye opener
It's nice to see at least one person on this board that shares my opinion..... This thread was an eye opener
Like who? I hear this assertion waaaaaaaaay more from conservatives than from liberals.
"Messiah", etc, were all coined by conservatives.
----------
Who's thinks that? These people seem as real as Reagan's Welfare Queen (i.e. they don't seem to exist).
And I'm talking NOW, not 5 minutes after he was elected.