Hey guys, petition starter here. Just wanted to thank anyone who signed for their support. I just got off the phone with the White House and they're really enthusiastic about getting this fixed. We also discussed fixing Section 1201 of the DMCA permanently, and they've agreed to continue the conversation on that.
When I originally posted this to HN at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 there were a lot of very skeptical responses to the effect of "petitions don't have any effect". The optimist in me is glad they were wrong. The White House seem to be genuinely committed to helping push through a piece of legislation to fix this. If there's something about government that bugs you, it's worth trying to do something about it.
Also, we're launching a campaign to ask Congress to change Section 1201 of the DMCA, with backing from the EFF, Reddit and others.
I hate to break it to you, but their response was effectively: "we agree with you but we respect the process that brought us to this fucked-up state and look forward to continuing to work with congress".
Petitions don't have any effect other than getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement. In that sense, they work perfectly.
If you have some information from the phone call that wasn't in the official response, then it's probably worth sharing it here. Otherwise, the official statement seems to absolutely confirm the doubts of the original skeptical responses.
Wow this is an awesome step and please keep us appraised of how things are going or if more help is needed. It is this kind of optimism that demands changes from the government.
Sometimes it takes the people speaking up about an issue for the government to get a sense of what the people want.
Now for anyone else tho is on here call your congressmen and senators! They really do care what you think and about the public opinion even above what lobbyists have to say.
Sinak, good job on raising the issue, and getting the White House, the Library of Congress and the FCC to all respond. This is a win for democracy. You must feel great today.
For those getting all worked up about how it is still illegal to unlock cell phones, think of it like this. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent/crack software security - period. You phone is locked by software. Up til January, there was an exemption for phones. Now there's not. The problem isn't "unlocking phones". The problem is "you can't alter something expensive you've bought and paid for in full".
In a way this is good. Regular people will get pissed at the carrier for not unlocking their phone at the end of their contract. And suddenly regular people will see how bad the DMCA is. The DMA targets not just Movie Pirates.
Petitions do absolutely work, but not how you think. They aren't for convincing the people they're directed at. They're for mobilizing the people who signed them and deepening their commitment to the cause. Signing your name to a statement has an effect on your self perception which causes you to act in a way that is consistent with the statement.
Signing a petition to the White House and having the White House respond "we agree with you" does not mean that you convinced them. It means they agree with you.
You realize the moment President Obama expresses support for this, it will die in congress or be filibustered to death?
It's also highly suspect of this administration actually supporting this - HIGHLY suspect. It goes against many things they've done to try to force more commerce and money exchanging hands.
The White House answered an entirely different question from the one asked!
Emphasis mine:
* "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network."
* "...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."
The White House response doesn't support unlocking phones, only unlocking phones after contracts are expired. Which isn't at all what the petition complains about. They evaded it entirely.
No, it's lower than that. They're pretending to agree with the petition, in the tone of their writing; but when you read the fine print, they don't. It's fucking doublespeak.
1. The White House thinks this is a good idea, but it is not within their powers to implement change under the current law.
2. These rules (DMCA exceptions) fall under the Library of Congress, and the White House has recommended a review of said rules.
3. The LoC has also responded and agreed to re-review these exceptions: "We also agree with the administration that the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context." [2]
4. In an amicus-like capacity, the FCC has also responded and commented on the current regulatory regime: "From a communications policy perspective, this raises serious competition and innovation concerns, and
for wireless consumers, it doesn't pass the common sense test. The FCC is examining this issue, looking
into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers' ability to
unlock their mobile phones." [3]
(end summary)
The Library of Congress could choose to reinstate the unlocking exception, which they at least purport to be reviewing. Or, the FCC could step in and claim regulatory oversight and create new regulations. Neither of those actions require direct congressional intervention, and both appear to have much higher visibility as a consequence of this petition.
The White House understands the petition and claims to agree. However, they aren't going to do anything about it other than wait for the "legislature" to address the issue.
You might as well petition the corporate owners of the major cell. carriers, as they are probably the only ones who will do anything about this.
So you can do what I just did, write your congressional representative and include a copy of the statement from the Whitehouse. My argument was simply, this is what the people want, the executive branch agrees, its up to you guys to make it happen so please do so. I can only imagine how hard it will be to be re-elected if you were to not support such legislation when it came up in favor of one of your big donors (AT&T). Sincerely, ....
The process is slow, but it is pretty durable. I've got both the petition and the Whitehouse response in my notebook, and we're in an 'off' year but next year we'll put a bunch of new candidates up for congress, this will come out again as a test to see if they did what was demanded or not. So the stage is set assuming we use the tools given us :-)
The executive branch of gov't cannot make laws. It's that simple. But if they needed to somehow override something without waiting for Congress, there are vehicles like Executive Orders. But they are more like exceptions and statements of policy, and still not substitutes for legislation.
Either way, the ideal solution here IS for congress to draft legislation. That is the only solution that'll be permanent, long term, and clearer to discuss (or dismiss) in courts.
In no way shape or form, is this AT ALL an urgent matter that they have to address by doing an Executive Order. As much as I'd love to have my iPhone unlocked, it ranks near to the bottom of what I'd like the President to focus his energy on, especially when signing Executive Orders that are supposed to actually carry weight.
If we want Obama to sign an executive order, then we must present a case as to why this is so urgent that it can't wait for Congress to draft legislation.
This is the best we could've hoped for, without really wishing that Obama was a dictator that could wave his hands and invent laws overnight.
Edit: I for one fully support what ChuckMcM says - at this point, we should contact our congressmen and tell them this is important to us, and that we want to see legislation drafted sooner rather than later.
You do know that the executive branch doesn't actually write laws, right? By the definitions of the U.S. Constitution, the "legislature" in fact is required to write laws that can address the issue.
The Executive branch can influence or request actions of Congress, and it sounds like they're trying to do just that. But they don't have a magic sword that can cut through bureaucracy, which it seems that many people are criticizing them for not having. :/
This is pretty much the outcome of every single petition on the whitehouse site.
-Someone requests some completely common sense thing happen.
-Thing interferes with huge company making lots of money.
-Whitehouse says something like "while we agree with you, we wont do anything to help, cheers!".
Or you might want to take "DR" less literally and actually read the statement and realize that changing unlocking rules doesn't require legislative intervention. The Library of Congress oversees the designation of DMCA exceptions, and the specific act in question was the non-renewal of an existing unlocking exemption. The LoC stated today (as part of a coordinated response to the petition) that this set of exemptions will be re-reviewed: http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html
It's extra funny because this White House doesn't actually meet with the legislature. I think they had something like a 9-minute meeting with the Speaker of the House during the whole sequester-deadline rigamarole -- and that mostly as a token gesture after they were getting called out for not meeting with the legislature.
Obligatory Disclaimer: No comment is herein offered on the merits of the positions of the Republican Speaker of the House or the Democrat President with regards to the recent sequester-deadline rigamarole.
Hold that thought. If something actually happens, then I as a citizen of the USA will tentatively join you in your shock and awe. It would almost certainly be the first time something tangible and beneficial came from this.
The experienced cynic in me also says it would probably be the last time, as it would be a clear symbol to our many lobbies that this platform is a serious threat to their continued profit glut.
Responses are guaranteed after 10k signatures, which is a bit more achievable than the (current) 100k in the US. If they get to 100k then they have to be debated in parliament.
Highest number of signatures is for saving badgers. Which seems very English :)
it may or may not work in the short term but there's nothing like an outside perspective to make you appreciate what you have.
its true that the legislative branch has to pass this, but at the very least the political climate changes (slightly, around this issue after a public statement) and the people involved feel empowered which both have at least the potential to recreate the situation
as an American, I'm glad that we are at least able to get an official response from the White House, but deeply pessimistic about their ability to deliver on the policies they claim to support. this isn't really a win for democracy. its a win for a mass communications platform but it has no real impact on getting shit done. congress is a mess and we're no closer to a solution.
What's this fuss about petitions? Last time I checked, the form of government in the US was a republic, that is the offices of government are appointed by and derive their legitimacy from the people as a whole.
We as a people should not have to petition the White House to grow sense and pass sensible laws, in the way one petitions a monarch. This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset.
I agree with this and I think you are being downvoted unfairly.
The "wrong mindset" is one in which you complain to the President/White House/Executive Branch any time "the government" does something you disagree with. The scope of what they can change when it comes to domestic law is very small.
When "the government" does something you don't like, the far better person to petition is your Congressman and Congress as a whole, the branch of government which passed this law (and all laws) in the first place.
To the contrary, the right to petition the government is one of the key points in the Declaration of Independence and is boldly enshrined within the first amendment to the US constitution (without which the Constitution would not have been adopted).
"...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."
Right. This is a solved problem. We have contracts for a reason: to establish and enforce obligations. Get rid of these ridiculous locks. Either that or harden them and get rid of contracts.
The Obama administration isn't perfect. (What administration is?) However they do seem to understand society's generational lag in understanding technology. They understand that the generation in charge is out of touch and so will unknowingly perpetrate heinous rules interfering with the way the society of people in their 20's actually use and understand technology.
Then again, maybe it's just because Obama is a smartphone user. (Is he still using a Blackberry?)
my response to their response (sent via the "what did you think form")
I don't think you adequately addressed the larger issues raised by DMCA. Cell phones and tablet carrier locking is only one of the anti-consumer anti-user results of the law.
Not being able to install a different OS without illegal procedures such as "rooting" and "cracking" the device remain an outstanding issue for all ARM based devices. This limits competition and unfairly privledges the position of the device manufacturer over the user.
A device is a physical item. It is not rented it is sold. One should have full control over their own devices. Today, sadly, we (the people of the USA) are subject to an over-reaching law which prevents us from legally using our devices to their fullest potential.
As witnessed in the recent volatility of the tablet and smart phone market, commericial players come and go frequently. When they leave, they leave their customers stranded. With out a legal means to change the OS of their devices they are left with insecure outdated software which puts them, their employers and their family at risk.
Please consider expanding your approach to include a full range of consumer protections.
This is a promising response, although one part is of (possibly unfounded) concern:
"And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network."
This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.
And I see no problem with that. If you're on contract, your cell provider gave you your phone for free (or at a very steep discount) in exchange for your agreeing to use it exclusively with them for the next 1-2 years. Having the phone locked to only work on their network is part of that agreement.
Don't like that part of the agreement? Don't sign it, and pay the full price for the phone.
> This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.
You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated. They agree to buy your phone for you if you agree to n-months of service.
Meaning you'll have to opt out of your contract (and pay early termination fees) prior to unlocking. At which point, you will have paid for your device in full. I think this is completely reasonable.
I agree with the skeptics that the petition was not a sufficient condition to affect change. However, I do not believe the petition starter ever claimed that the petition would be sufficient.
I also agree with the petition starter that the petition might prove to be a necessary condition to affect the change. It is too early to tell, but this is a good start.
I don't agree with anyone that claims that since a petition is not sufficient, it's a waste of time. That's just lazy fatalism.
Heck, even lobbyists start with conversations that don't go anywhere. The trick is what happens next, that might not have happened if not for the initial conversation.
The other day I downloaded a new programming framework and spent 30 minutes learning it, but it didn't turn into an award-winning website product. So clearly those 30 minutes were a waste of time I guess.
On a different note... After reading the library of Congress response to the White House response here http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html I'm not sure what their actual response is.
Read: Nothing will come of this. President Obama also said he would veto CISPA, close Guantanamo Bay, curb ICE, pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, end indefinite detention, defend labor rights, stop hiring former lobbyists in the White House, end the practice of recess appointments, oppose FISA, and end the use of drones to assassinate terrorists, among many other blatant lies.
When I train our employees to respond to customer support issues, I always make sure that in every response they do as much as possible to "drive an issue to a close". Not every issue can be fixed, but at the very least we can give the user a clear understanding of a) precisely what the state of affairs is and why, b) whether or not we can fix it and why, c) if we can fix it, who's responsible for the fix and when it's likely to make it into mainline and d) if we can't fix it, what the workaround is.
We never ever just say "we agree with you". It's always "we agree with you, and here's how Bob is going to fix this by March". I know that the political machine is much more complicated then a startup of 12, but they don't even try. After having read the whole thing, I'm left with no more understanding of where things are going than I did before I read it.
It is sad how irrelevant "We the people" really is. It gives people an illusion that the government actually cares. The response to this petition is essentially "we agree with you and we will work towards ... {bullshit here}." I signed a few of the petitions to see what would happen, but I think I am going to stop now as it's just a waste of time; a trap, nicely put in place by the administration. The only way petitions would matter if they led to real actions, but it would be suicidal on the part of the government to try and intervene with telecom companies; wouldn't be very helpful for the next election, that's all. Oh... sigh.
[+] [-] sinak|13 years ago|reply
When I originally posted this to HN at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 there were a lot of very skeptical responses to the effect of "petitions don't have any effect". The optimist in me is glad they were wrong. The White House seem to be genuinely committed to helping push through a piece of legislation to fix this. If there's something about government that bugs you, it's worth trying to do something about it.
Also, we're launching a campaign to ask Congress to change Section 1201 of the DMCA, with backing from the EFF, Reddit and others.
Sign up at http://fixthedmca.org - should be launching the site tomorrow.
[+] [-] sneak|13 years ago|reply
Petitions don't have any effect other than getting a response that's designed to get you to stop complaining from a false sense of achievement. In that sense, they work perfectly.
[+] [-] moxie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinklarge|13 years ago|reply
Sometimes it takes the people speaking up about an issue for the government to get a sense of what the people want.
Now for anyone else tho is on here call your congressmen and senators! They really do care what you think and about the public opinion even above what lobbyists have to say.
[+] [-] unreal37|13 years ago|reply
For those getting all worked up about how it is still illegal to unlock cell phones, think of it like this. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent/crack software security - period. You phone is locked by software. Up til January, there was an exemption for phones. Now there's not. The problem isn't "unlocking phones". The problem is "you can't alter something expensive you've bought and paid for in full".
In a way this is good. Regular people will get pissed at the carrier for not unlocking their phone at the end of their contract. And suddenly regular people will see how bad the DMCA is. The DMA targets not just Movie Pirates.
[+] [-] mistercow|13 years ago|reply
Signing a petition to the White House and having the White House respond "we agree with you" does not mean that you convinced them. It means they agree with you.
[+] [-] akarpenko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Legion|13 years ago|reply
How badass did you feel writing that? I feel badass for you.
Good job. Well done.
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
That doesn't really move the needle, does it?
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
It's also highly suspect of this administration actually supporting this - HIGHLY suspect. It goes against many things they've done to try to force more commerce and money exchanging hands.
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
Emphasis mine:
* "And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network."
* "...neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."
The White House response doesn't support unlocking phones, only unlocking phones after contracts are expired. Which isn't at all what the petition complains about. They evaded it entirely.
No, it's lower than that. They're pretending to agree with the petition, in the tone of their writing; but when you read the fine print, they don't. It's fucking doublespeak.
[+] [-] gmisra|13 years ago|reply
1. The White House thinks this is a good idea, but it is not within their powers to implement change under the current law.
2. These rules (DMCA exceptions) fall under the Library of Congress, and the White House has recommended a review of said rules.
3. The LoC has also responded and agreed to re-review these exceptions: "We also agree with the administration that the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context." [2]
4. In an amicus-like capacity, the FCC has also responded and commented on the current regulatory regime: "From a communications policy perspective, this raises serious competition and innovation concerns, and for wireless consumers, it doesn't pass the common sense test. The FCC is examining this issue, looking into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers' ability to unlock their mobile phones." [3]
(end summary)
The Library of Congress could choose to reinstate the unlocking exception, which they at least purport to be reviewing. Or, the FCC could step in and claim regulatory oversight and create new regulations. Neither of those actions require direct congressional intervention, and both appear to have much higher visibility as a consequence of this petition.
----
[1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...
[2] http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-041.html
[3] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013...
[+] [-] JagMicker|13 years ago|reply
The White House understands the petition and claims to agree. However, they aren't going to do anything about it other than wait for the "legislature" to address the issue.
You might as well petition the corporate owners of the major cell. carriers, as they are probably the only ones who will do anything about this.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
The process is slow, but it is pretty durable. I've got both the petition and the Whitehouse response in my notebook, and we're in an 'off' year but next year we'll put a bunch of new candidates up for congress, this will come out again as a test to see if they did what was demanded or not. So the stage is set assuming we use the tools given us :-)
[+] [-] atonse|13 years ago|reply
The executive branch of gov't cannot make laws. It's that simple. But if they needed to somehow override something without waiting for Congress, there are vehicles like Executive Orders. But they are more like exceptions and statements of policy, and still not substitutes for legislation.
Either way, the ideal solution here IS for congress to draft legislation. That is the only solution that'll be permanent, long term, and clearer to discuss (or dismiss) in courts.
In no way shape or form, is this AT ALL an urgent matter that they have to address by doing an Executive Order. As much as I'd love to have my iPhone unlocked, it ranks near to the bottom of what I'd like the President to focus his energy on, especially when signing Executive Orders that are supposed to actually carry weight.
If we want Obama to sign an executive order, then we must present a case as to why this is so urgent that it can't wait for Congress to draft legislation.
This is the best we could've hoped for, without really wishing that Obama was a dictator that could wave his hands and invent laws overnight.
Edit: I for one fully support what ChuckMcM says - at this point, we should contact our congressmen and tell them this is important to us, and that we want to see legislation drafted sooner rather than later.
[+] [-] MichaelGG|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arbitrage|13 years ago|reply
The Executive branch can influence or request actions of Congress, and it sounds like they're trying to do just that. But they don't have a magic sword that can cut through bureaucracy, which it seems that many people are criticizing them for not having. :/
[+] [-] ryguytilidie|13 years ago|reply
-Someone requests some completely common sense thing happen. -Thing interferes with huge company making lots of money. -Whitehouse says something like "while we agree with you, we wont do anything to help, cheers!".
Cool, thanks representatives of the people?
[+] [-] gmisra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|13 years ago|reply
Obligatory Disclaimer: No comment is herein offered on the merits of the positions of the Republican Speaker of the House or the Democrat President with regards to the recent sequester-deadline rigamarole.
[+] [-] mikeash|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesCRR|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obviouslygreen|13 years ago|reply
The experienced cynic in me also says it would probably be the last time, as it would be a clear symbol to our many lobbies that this platform is a serious threat to their continued profit glut.
[+] [-] spwestwood|13 years ago|reply
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/departments
Responses are guaranteed after 10k signatures, which is a bit more achievable than the (current) 100k in the US. If they get to 100k then they have to be debated in parliament.
Highest number of signatures is for saving badgers. Which seems very English :)
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257
Started by (now Dr) Brian May.
[+] [-] SworDsy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphorm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|13 years ago|reply
We as a people should not have to petition the White House to grow sense and pass sensible laws, in the way one petitions a monarch. This is the wrong way of combating the laws that come out of Congress thanks to lobbyist influence. It encourages the wrong mindset.
[+] [-] GabrielF00|13 years ago|reply
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[+] [-] brown9-2|13 years ago|reply
I agree with this and I think you are being downvoted unfairly.
The "wrong mindset" is one in which you complain to the President/White House/Executive Branch any time "the government" does something you disagree with. The scope of what they can change when it comes to domestic law is very small.
When "the government" does something you don't like, the far better person to petition is your Congressman and Congress as a whole, the branch of government which passed this law (and all laws) in the first place.
[+] [-] mcherm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibejoeb|13 years ago|reply
Right. This is a solved problem. We have contracts for a reason: to establish and enforce obligations. Get rid of these ridiculous locks. Either that or harden them and get rid of contracts.
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
Then again, maybe it's just because Obama is a smartphone user. (Is he still using a Blackberry?)
[+] [-] timtadh|13 years ago|reply
I don't think you adequately addressed the larger issues raised by DMCA. Cell phones and tablet carrier locking is only one of the anti-consumer anti-user results of the law.
Not being able to install a different OS without illegal procedures such as "rooting" and "cracking" the device remain an outstanding issue for all ARM based devices. This limits competition and unfairly privledges the position of the device manufacturer over the user.
A device is a physical item. It is not rented it is sold. One should have full control over their own devices. Today, sadly, we (the people of the USA) are subject to an over-reaching law which prevents us from legally using our devices to their fullest potential.
As witnessed in the recent volatility of the tablet and smart phone market, commericial players come and go frequently. When they leave, they leave their customers stranded. With out a legal means to change the OS of their devices they are left with insecure outdated software which puts them, their employers and their family at risk.
Please consider expanding your approach to include a full range of consumer protections.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rallison|13 years ago|reply
"And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network."
This makes it sound like unlocking a phone while you are still on contract would not be excepted.
[+] [-] duskwuff|13 years ago|reply
Don't like that part of the agreement? Don't sign it, and pay the full price for the phone.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|13 years ago|reply
I don't have a problem with that. The phone's essentially lease-to-own at that point.
As soon as the subsidy is paid - via monthly contracts or early termination fees - it should be unlockable.
[+] [-] onedognight|13 years ago|reply
You don't really own the phone until the contract that got you the phone is terminated. They agree to buy your phone for you if you agree to n-months of service.
[+] [-] rjv|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalJack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tunesmith|13 years ago|reply
I also agree with the petition starter that the petition might prove to be a necessary condition to affect the change. It is too early to tell, but this is a good start.
I don't agree with anyone that claims that since a petition is not sufficient, it's a waste of time. That's just lazy fatalism.
Heck, even lobbyists start with conversations that don't go anywhere. The trick is what happens next, that might not have happened if not for the initial conversation.
The other day I downloaded a new programming framework and spent 30 minutes learning it, but it didn't turn into an award-winning website product. So clearly those 30 minutes were a waste of time I guess.
[+] [-] ericjeepn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wonderdonkey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coffeemug|13 years ago|reply
We never ever just say "we agree with you". It's always "we agree with you, and here's how Bob is going to fix this by March". I know that the political machine is much more complicated then a startup of 12, but they don't even try. After having read the whole thing, I'm left with no more understanding of where things are going than I did before I read it.
[+] [-] knodi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirillzubovsky|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsilence|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logn|13 years ago|reply
Right, this should go well for us then.
[+] [-] Scramblejams|13 years ago|reply
Vibrant, competitive wireless market? Coulda fooled me.
[1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...
[+] [-] Pro_bity|13 years ago|reply