Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Network World)   White House replies to petition: "It's time to legalize cell phone unlocking"   (networkworld.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, White House, SIM lock, Librarian of Congress, DMCA  
•       •       •

14280 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2013 at 4:19 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-04 02:49:34 PM  
Outrage in 5... 4... 3...
 
2013-03-04 02:56:04 PM  
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "re-legalize"
 
2013-03-04 03:02:02 PM  
Wow, now let's hope that this has some teeth and doesn't take 2 more years to implement.
 
2013-03-04 03:05:44 PM  

show me: Wow, now let's hope that this has some teeth and doesn't take 2 more years to implement.


Well, it's the President supporting deregulation, so it has an approximately zero percent chance of getting through the House.
 
2013-03-04 03:05:45 PM  
i1135.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-04 03:10:56 PM  

GAT_00: show me: Wow, now let's hope that this has some teeth and doesn't take 2 more years to implement.

Well, it's the President supporting deregulation, so it has an approximately zero percent chance of getting through the House.


I don't think it's so much deregulation as that it'll be a very narrow DMCA exemption for device unlocking.

Personally, I think the Copyright Office was doing some goofy gas when it issued its revised DMCA exemptions. What is the logic for making rooting and jailbreaking a phone perfectly legal for phones (i.e. exempt from DMCA), but illegal for tablets (i.e. not exempt from the DMCA) while simultaneously making it illegal to unlock your phone for different carriers?

It's this bizarre hodgepodge of exemptions that simply makes no sense whatsoever.
 
2013-03-04 04:08:16 PM  
Will Obama spend political capital on such an issue? I am wondering if this is only a glorified press release.
 
2013-03-04 04:22:20 PM  

Rincewind53: I believe the phrase you're looking for is "re-legalize"


De-criminalize.
 
2013-03-04 04:23:00 PM  
FTA: The issue came to a head recently when the Library of Congress allowed to expire an exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that until then protected those who would unlock their cell phones and those carriers who would court their business.

The Library of Congress? I didn't realize they had legislative or regulatory authority.
 
2013-03-04 04:23:26 PM  
I'd view this one as an easy win for Obama.  The law pisses of a bunch of people and only benefits a few big corporations.
 
2013-03-04 04:23:38 PM  

GAT_00: Well, it's the President supporting deregulation, so it has an approximately zero percent chance of getting through the House.


And he's probably only supporting it on Obamaphones!!
 
2013-03-04 04:23:47 PM  

Mr Guy: Rincewind53: I believe the phrase you're looking for is "re-legalize"

De-criminalize.


Whatever.
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-04 04:25:35 PM  

MBooda: De-criminalize.

Whatever.


Perspective matters.  If you emphasize the legalizing part, you emphasize the government giving back, as if they are being generous and offering something new.  De-criminalize points out that it's only illegal because of contractual profitability butthurtz.
 
2013-03-04 04:25:45 PM  
OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?
 
2013-03-04 04:26:29 PM  
Can we please lock stolen cellphones?   Other countries do this, which means other countries don't have a market for stolen cellphones.   We have the technology, and the ability--it's built into the systems.    However, our wireless providers would rather sign a new subscriber than shut down a stolen phone, and that is ridiculous.
 
2013-03-04 04:27:00 PM  

kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?


Cablevision is suing Viacom in court over that right now. Stay tuned.
 
2013-03-04 04:27:35 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I'd view this one as an easy win for Obama.  The law pisses of a bunch of people and only benefits a few big corporations.


I agree, as long as he does what the corporations say, they'll make sure he wins.
 
2013-03-04 04:30:31 PM  

kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?


No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye
 
2013-03-04 04:31:09 PM  
How about game consoles? PS3s are going to start hitting the pawn shops for a lot cheaper with the release of the PS4. I'd like to set up some linux on a dozen or two running together.
 
2013-03-04 04:31:52 PM  
If I buy a computer or gadget or tool from you, You no longer get to tell me what to do with it. 
It is mine.
Unless I mod it to kill, you STFU and take my money.
Once.
That is it.
It's a machine.
I bought it.
Kiss it goodbye.
You want to make money selling widgets?
Sell more widgets.
If I figure out how to hack a satellite and get free calls for life, fark you.
How the fark do you think the farking internet was invented?
 
2013-03-04 04:33:51 PM  
This is somewhat bad news for my buddy. He makes a small wad of cash by unlocking cellphones for people. From what I've seen on Craigslist, there are quite a few people who make their meager ends meet this way.
 
2013-03-04 04:34:46 PM  

Rhypskallion: Can we please lock stolen cellphones?   Other countries do this, which means other countries don't have a market for stolen cellphones.   We have the technology, and the ability--it's built into the systems.    However, our wireless providers would rather sign a new subscriber than shut down a stolen phone, and that is ridiculous.


This.

I'd like to see three things:
1. Phones which are not locked to a particular network.
2. Phones without network-specific crap. (That is, I want "stock" firmware from the phone manufacturer rather than from the network.)
3. Coordination with international authorities to block phones that have been stolen.
 
2013-03-04 04:34:47 PM  
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.

Gee, I wonder what the response from cell-phone and tablet makers will be.
 
2013-03-04 04:35:32 PM  
Even if we make it legal to unlock phones, it's not like the phone companies are going to make it easy for you.
 
2013-03-04 04:35:43 PM  
I thought I heard the sound of lobbyist briefcases clicking, the shuffle of feet, and doors slamming...

Good to know that was actually real.
 
2013-03-04 04:38:05 PM  

vudukungfu: If I buy a computer or gadget or tool from you, You no longer get to tell me what to do with it.


If you buy a phone outright, it's not going to be locked. If you take out a loan with your cell phone company like most people, they're going to lock the phone to make sure you keep paying.

Car loans often work the same way if you have poor credit. The bank can flip a switch if you miss to many lease payments and "your" car won't start anymore.
 
2013-03-04 04:40:24 PM  

DicksWii: How about game consoles? PS3s are going to start hitting the pawn shops for a lot cheaper with the release of the PS4. I'd like to set up some linux on a dozen or two running together.


Download the v3.15 or earlier firmware and you're good to go. You won't be able to connect to the PSN, but heck, you're building a linux cluster so why would you?
 
2013-03-04 04:40:33 PM  

heypete: I'd like to see three things:
1. Phones which are not locked to a particular network.
2. Phones without network-specific crap. (That is, I want "stock" firmware from the phone manufacturer rather than from the network.)
3. Coordination with international authorities to block phones that have been stolen.


Good news - your first two requests are already available.
 
2013-03-04 04:40:52 PM  

cman: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye


Who watches women's breasts on TV these days?
 
2013-03-04 04:41:36 PM  

MrEricSir: If you take out a loan with your cell phone company like most people, they're going to lock the phone to make sure you keep paying


Why would you do that?

never mind, I do tech support for consumers who farked up.
People aren't too bright.

"taking out a load with a cell phone company. . . . "
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahha*gasp*ahhahahahahahaha h ahahahahahahahahaha

/Doesn't own one.
/Not even a itterbug.
//If I can't see what is in it and know there is no tracing device, I'm not carrying it.

GPS + Drones = Not good.
 
2013-03-04 04:41:56 PM  

kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?


I'm really not a fan of a la carte programming.  Every proposal I've seen seems guaranteed to raise prices, to offset the losses of dropping package models, and to kill any hope of niche programming.
 
2013-03-04 04:42:19 PM  

heypete: 2. Phones without network-specific crap. (That is, I want "stock" firmware from the phone manufacturer rather than from the network.)


Verizon used to be the absolute world's worst about that garbage. They disabled a number of a phone's OEM built-in functions and required a fee to 'activate' them, or forced people to purchase apps to do something that the phone is designed to do natively. Not that many years ago, they even charged people a fee to enable bluetooth on some of their bluetooth models and locked early GPS chips to be accessible only by purchased-from-Verizon software.
 
2013-03-04 04:43:26 PM  
Did he ever finish solving the BCS playoff thingy, cuz that was really important?
 
2013-03-04 04:43:38 PM  

Mr Guy: MBooda: De-criminalize.

Whatever.

Perspective matters.  If you emphasize the legalizing part, you emphasize the government giving back, as if they are being generous and offering something new.  De-criminalize points out that it's only illegal because of contractual profitability butthurtz.


"De-criminalize" is often used to refer to a middle ground between something being legal and something being illegal, often in regards to drug law enforcement. I don't think that is where anyone wants to go with  phone-unlocking.
 
2013-03-04 04:44:36 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

I'm really not a fan of a la carte programming.  Every proposal I've seen seems guaranteed to raise prices, to offset the losses of dropping package models, and to kill any hope of niche programming.


So the only alternative is bend over, grab your ankles, grit your teeth and think about How I Met Your Mother reruns.
 
2013-03-04 04:45:01 PM  
What people aren't understanding here is that to utilize 4G some phones have to be designed specifically for certain frequencies. Unlocking it may do you no good anyway
 
2013-03-04 04:45:50 PM  

cman: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye


The even bigger issue would be that the prices would likely go up for the same packages that most people have now, and channel diversity would suffer.  The big draw channels subsidize the lesser viewed ones at the moment, and if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

Plus, the really popular channels would end up being a lot more expensive anyway.  If they did go ala carte it wouldn't be a '$5 per month per channel' type of model.  ESPN, TNT, USA, etc would likely draw larger prices making any actual savings pretty minimal.
 
2013-03-04 04:45:58 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: The law pisses of a bunch of people and only benefits a few big corporations.


Which is exactly why the Republicans will filibuster this until the end of time.

/Good on Obama for choosing the right answer, though.
//No snark intended.
 
2013-03-04 04:46:12 PM  

vudukungfu: MrEricSir: If you take out a loan with your cell phone company like most people, they're going to lock the phone to make sure you keep paying

Why would you do that?

never mind, I do tech support for consumers who farked up.
People aren't too bright.

"taking out a load with a cell phone company. . . . "
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahha*gasp*ahhahahahahahaha h ahahahahahahahahaha

/Doesn't own one.
/Not even a itterbug.
//If I can't see what is in it and know there is no tracing device, I'm not carrying it.

GPS + Drones = Not good.


What the fark is wrong with you?
 
2013-03-04 04:46:14 PM  
Why don't we do something really noteworthy and nuke CDMA

/or whatever, so we end up with A STANDARD
//ONE.
///standard. one.
 
2013-03-04 04:46:39 PM  

Target Builder: "De-criminalize" is often used to refer to a middle ground between something being legal and something being illegal, often in regards to drug law enforcement. I don't think that is where anyone wants to go with phone-unlocking.


In this context, it's the exact same thing.  They added a criminal penalty to something that absolutely shouldn't have one.
 
2013-03-04 04:47:24 PM  

dv-ous: The Library of Congress? I didn't realize they had legislative or regulatory authority.


Lots of regulatory authority here in the US Copyright Office, located within, and under the budget of the Library of Congress.  (Been here 22 years.)  Lots of statues specifically empower the Register of Copyright or the Librarian of Congress to implement their regulation.
 
2013-03-04 04:47:52 PM  
Once we criminalized the phone unlocking, only criminals had unlocked phones.
 
2013-03-04 04:48:27 PM  

vudukungfu: MrEricSir: If you take out a loan with your cell phone company like most people, they're going to lock the phone to make sure you keep paying

Why would you do that?

never mind, I do tech support for consumers who farked up.
People aren't too bright.

"taking out a load with a cell phone company. . . . "
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahha*gasp*ahhahahahahahaha h ahahahahahahahahaha

/Doesn't own one.
/Not even a itterbug.
//If I can't see what is in it and know there is no tracing device, I'm not carrying it.

GPS + Drones = Not good.


Speaking of not being too bright, if you don't understand why loans exist or why people take them out, I have some bad news for you.
 
2013-03-04 04:48:55 PM  

Mattyb710: vudukungfu: MrEricSir: If you take out a loan with your cell phone company like most people, they're going to lock the phone to make sure you keep paying

Why would you do that?

never mind, I do tech support for consumers who farked up.
People aren't too bright.

"taking out a load with a cell phone company. . . . "
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahha*gasp*ahhahahahahahaha h ahahahahahahahahaha

/Doesn't own one.
/Not even a itterbug.
//If I can't see what is in it and know there is no tracing device, I'm not carrying it.

GPS + Drones = Not good.

What the fark is wrong with you?


He's stupid.
 
2013-03-04 04:54:55 PM  

RexTalionis: Cablevision is suing Viacom in court over that right now. Stay tuned.


And these guys support that suit very strongly.

http://www.americancable.org/

I'll be at their "Summit" next week, I imagine there will be a lot of talk about it.  I can chime in about that if there's ever a relevant thread, later.
 
2013-03-04 04:56:29 PM  
There's a hole in there response big enough to drive a truck through. They will only support unlocking /if/ your phone is paid for and off contract. For most people that means your two year old phone that has seen better days and that you don't want to use anymore. The majority of people with a smartphone are going to gain nothing from this at all.

Unless you pay cash for the full price of your phone up front (typically $5-$600 for a smart phone) you won't gain from this at all. Even if you do, nothing says that the carrier can't play games by claiming your phone is unsupported or some other such thing. This is nothing more than political hot air, move along, move along.
 
2013-03-04 04:58:36 PM  

MrEricSir: if you don't understand why loans exist or why people take them out


Hey, I'll borrow money from a bank.
they are FDIC insured.
Fly by night telecom?
No way
 
2013-03-04 04:58:40 PM  

cman: Will Obama spend political capital on such an issue? I am wondering if this is only a glorified press release.


I knew it wouldn't take long for the "Obama is saying something I agree with? I AM OUTRAGED AT HIM!!" posts.
 
2013-03-04 04:58:44 PM  

Rincewind53: I believe the phrase you're looking for is "re-legalize"I'll believe it when I see it.


FTFY. Anybody believe the telcos will let this through? Not a chance. The lobbyists will be wining and dining like crazy tonight. Probably free hookers and blow for all, too. Whatever limits consumer freedom and choice.
 
2013-03-04 05:01:13 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: I'd view this one as an easy win for Obama.  The law pisses of a bunch of people and only benefits a few big corporations.


Well except his has no legislative power and I believe the FCC panel is made up of appointees from past administrations. So it's not like he really has the power to do that much about it on his own.
 
2013-03-04 05:06:01 PM  

vudukungfu: MrEricSir: if you don't understand why loans exist or why people take them out

Hey, I'll borrow money from a bank.
they are FDIC insured.
Fly by night telecom?
No way


FDIC insurance... on a loan? Riiiiight....
 
2013-03-04 05:06:05 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: cman: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye

The even bigger issue would be that the prices would likely go up for the same packages that most people have now, and channel diversity would suffer.  The big draw channels subsidize the lesser viewed ones at the moment, and if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

Plus, the really popular channels would end up being a lot more expensive anyway.  If they did go ala carte it wouldn't be a '$5 per month per channel' type of model.  ESPN, TNT, USA, etc would likely draw larger prices making any actual savings pretty minimal.


Well, then it would appear that the provider has an incentive to throw a lot of channels in for free or for a token amount then, don't they? And, let's be honest...it's not the channel, but the company that owns the channel that sets the price. Soon, there will be an ESPN/ABC price, an NBC/Universal price, etc.
 
2013-03-04 05:11:48 PM  
shocked government pays attention to petitions. first time i've read of such. hooray!
 
2013-03-04 05:13:20 PM  
dv-ous:The Library of Congress? I didn't realize they had legislative or regulatory authority.

When they say "shush" you shush.
 
2013-03-04 05:14:55 PM  
It is cool, all else being equal, that the White House has made a solid statement of position on this. Even if it adds up to nothing it's still an actual, clear statement on the side of... you know, human beings instead of predatory legal fictions. For once.
 
2013-03-04 05:16:32 PM  
www.networkworld.com

'Yo, Obama...legalize it'
 
2013-03-04 05:18:16 PM  
obomgo just want's us to lavish it with praise while it destroys our country!
 
2013-03-04 05:20:24 PM  
Oh no, niche channels will go away.  Good.  Let them and their programming go to the internet where they belong.
 
2013-03-04 05:20:43 PM  

RexTalionis: GAT_00: show me: Wow, now let's hope that this has some teeth and doesn't take 2 more years to implement.

Well, it's the President supporting deregulation, so it has an approximately zero percent chance of getting through the House.

I don't think it's so much deregulation as that it'll be a very narrow DMCA exemption for device unlocking.

Personally, I think the Copyright Office was doing some goofy gas when it issued its revised DMCA exemptions. What is the logic for making rooting and jailbreaking a phone perfectly legal for phones (i.e. exempt from DMCA), but illegal for tablets (i.e. not exempt from the DMCA) while simultaneously making it illegal to unlock your phone for different carriers?

It's this bizarre hodgepodge of exemptions that simply makes no sense whatsoever.


The idiocy of it is that they're approaching it from the DMCA perspective - the anti-circumvention bits of the law, specifically.  So, it comes down to what the manufacturer/provider has specifically DRM-locked and what they haven't.  On phones, the network is DRM-locked, but root is not (supposedly).  On tablets, it's all DRM-locked, so therefore it's all illegal.

The reason they changed their interpretation (at least, this is my understanding) is that there's now federal caselaw that says when you buy a device with DRM-locked software, you're actually licensing the software instead of purchasing it, so now you don't have first-sale to protect you.
 
2013-03-04 05:22:03 PM  
img29.imageshack.us

/for the moment.
//Also, for the Death Star reply.
 
2013-03-04 05:23:11 PM  

Rhypskallion: Can we please lock stolen cellphones?   Other countries do this, which means other countries don't have a market for stolen cellphones.   We have the technology, and the ability--it's built into the systems.    However, our wireless providers would rather sign a new subscriber than shut down a stolen phone, and that is ridiculous.


You may not have looked into this recently, but it's already happening. AT&T and Verizon are now actively blocking stolen phones by the IMEI's. I think T-Mobile, too. Google around a bit and you'll find it.
Ironically, it's because congress finally figured out what you said... other countries have been doing it for a while, and threatened to start making laws about it.
 
2013-03-04 05:35:26 PM  

RexTalionis: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

Cablevision is suing Viacom in court over that right now. Stay tuned.


What channels do I have to pay for to stay tuned?
 
2013-03-04 05:35:55 PM  
In Canada its illegal not to unlock phones. You people are nuts. Regulatory capture isn't rife, it's absolute in the US.
 
gja
2013-03-04 05:36:26 PM  
Cool, it will become completely legal.

/not like it ever would stop me from unlocking/jailbreaking/rooting phones
 
2013-03-04 05:36:52 PM  
Wow...Fark broke a story before Reddit.  I guess there's a first time for everything...
 
2013-03-04 05:45:40 PM  

kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?


Nobody's forcing you to buy any cable channels. At least I hope not!
 
2013-03-04 05:46:28 PM  

vudukungfu: How the fark do you think the farking internet was invented?


Al Gore?
 
2013-03-04 05:46:37 PM  
Make it legal.
Tax it.
Use the funds to provide people with treatment.
 
2013-03-04 05:50:38 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.


KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!
 
2013-03-04 05:51:04 PM  

Masterstuff: Some 'Splainin' To Do: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

I'm really not a fan of a la carte programming.  Every proposal I've seen seems guaranteed to raise prices, to offset the losses of dropping package models, and to kill any hope of niche programming.

So the only alternative is bend over, grab your ankles, grit your teeth and think about How I Met Your Mother reruns.


That doesn't change the very real possibility that al a carte will end up causing more problems for consumers for exactly the reasons that I listed. It's certainly true that very, very few people would see their rates go  downif al a carte was required. Sure you can buy just the five stations that you want, but expect to pay at or above the package rate for the privilege.

But even more to the point, maybe you could complain about ankle grabbing in the bad old days where cable monopolies where the only game in town, before there was a real Internet. These days? Not so much. If cable package plans piss you off, there are non-cable options like Netflix or more, ahem, gray market alternatives, if you are really desperate for current programming.
 
2013-03-04 05:56:51 PM  

onyxruby: There's a hole in there response big enough to drive a truck through. They will only support unlocking /if/ your phone is paid for and off contract. For most people that means your two year old phone that has seen better days and that you don't want to use anymore. The majority of people with a smartphone are going to gain nothing from this at all.

Unless you pay cash for the full price of your phone up front (typically $5-$600 for a smart phone) you won't gain from this at all. Even if you do, nothing says that the carrier can't play games by claiming your phone is unsupported or some other such thing. This is nothing more than political hot air, move along, move along.


Seems to me like the carriers will just reduce or eliminate the subsidies for phones. The increased competition may end up making them cheaper but I wouldn't bet on it.
 
2013-03-04 06:00:37 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: In Canada its illegal not to unlock phones. You people are nuts. Regulatory capture isn't rife, it's absolute in the US.


Yes, but you are still Canada.
 
2013-03-04 06:04:12 PM  

crabsno termites: TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!


QVC, unfortunately, would likely end up surviving, and likely be free.  However, I'd worry about Speed, History, Game Show Network, AMC, SyFy, etc (not that I watch all of those, but many don't have mass appeal).  Or, in a bid to survive, the channels will go full-retard and start programming an even more endless lineup of cheap-to-produce brain-sapping reality shows.
 
2013-03-04 06:12:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: the channels will go went full-retard many years ago

Get with the times

 
2013-03-04 06:20:36 PM  
Telcos are just flat out moronic.

My father and I wanted to switch me back to Verizon this weekend to take advantage of a special offer that would have cut back on the bill. Couldn't do it because of contract restrictions, even though doing so would have sacrificed a $10/mo dumbphone line for a $40+/mo smartphone line. Verizon would have come out on top and they still wouldn't let us.

Make CDMA networks and phone contracts illegal. They're hurting competition. I'm tired of every dick in the EU getting better smartphone choices when that continent has done jack shiat to develop those sorts of devices.
 
2013-03-04 06:22:11 PM  

Rhypskallion: Can we please lock stolen cellphones?   Other countries do this, which means other countries don't have a market for stolen cellphones.   We have the technology, and the ability--it's built into the systems.    However, our wireless providers would rather sign a new subscriber than shut down a stolen phone, and that is ridiculous.


Metro PCS is the big one. They take a lot of stolen phones on as subscribers. We have databases and everything showing it.
 
2013-03-04 06:23:13 PM  

Deucednuisance: RexTalionis: Cablevision is suing Viacom in court over that right now. Stay tuned.

And these guys support that suit very strongly.

http://www.americancable.org/

I'll be at their "Summit" next week, I imagine there will be a lot of talk about it.  I can chime in about that if there's ever a relevant thread, later.


Hey, would love to hear any insights out of that.
 
2013-03-04 06:24:09 PM  

Marine1: Telcos are just flat out moronic.

My father and I wanted to switch me back to Verizon this weekend to take advantage of a special offer that would have cut back on the bill. Couldn't do it because of contract restrictions, even though doing so would have sacrificed a $10/mo dumbphone line for a $40+/mo smartphone line. Verizon would have come out on top and they still wouldn't let us.

Make CDMA networks and phone contracts illegal. They're hurting competition. I'm tired of every dick in the EU getting better smartphone choices when that continent has done jack shiat to develop those sorts of devices.


My bill with AT&T would be the same whether I paid for my phone in full or if I take the subsidized price with a contract, so I don't mind signing up for another two years every two years to pay $199 or $99 for a phone instead of $500.  Yes, I know there are MVNOs that offer cheaper service, but many of them don't support all of the features that you get with the flagship network contract like visual voicemail, or they have much more limited 4G access or other gotchas.
 
2013-03-04 06:25:56 PM  

bmihura: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

Nobody's forcing you to buy any cable channels. At least I hope not!


The last time I inquired about getting cable service I asked about getting the SciFi channel (yes, that long ago).  They said it was only available in a premium package that included HBO, ESPN, etc.  I only wanted basic cable and SciFi, I did not want HBO or ESPN.  So I told them to forget it.  So technically they weren't forcing me to buy any channels.  But they didn't offer the one channel I wished without being forced to buy a bunch of crap I was not interested in paying for.
 
2013-03-04 06:27:53 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Marine1: Telcos are just flat out moronic.

My father and I wanted to switch me back to Verizon this weekend to take advantage of a special offer that would have cut back on the bill. Couldn't do it because of contract restrictions, even though doing so would have sacrificed a $10/mo dumbphone line for a $40+/mo smartphone line. Verizon would have come out on top and they still wouldn't let us.

Make CDMA networks and phone contracts illegal. They're hurting competition. I'm tired of every dick in the EU getting better smartphone choices when that continent has done jack shiat to develop those sorts of devices.

My bill with AT&T would be the same whether I paid for my phone in full or if I take the subsidized price with a contract, so I don't mind signing up for another two years every two years to pay $199 or $99 for a phone instead of $500.  Yes, I know there are MVNOs that offer cheaper service, but many of them don't support all of the features that you get with the flagship network contract like visual voicemail, or they have much more limited 4G access or other gotchas.


They have all of the extras in other countries, contract-free. They've found a way to make money doing it... so much, in fact, that three of the four major American telcos are either partly owned or wholly owned by foreign companies in the same field (Deutsche Telekom = T-Mobile, Vodafone = 45% of Verizon, Softbank = potentially 70% of Sprint PCS).
It's time to make some changes. I usually don't like government intervention, but... tough.
 
2013-03-04 06:30:42 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: crabsno termites: TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!

QVC, unfortunately, would likely end up surviving, and likely be free.  However, I'd worry about Speed, History, Game Show Network, AMC, SyFy, etc (not that I watch all of those, but many don't have mass appeal).  Or, in a bid to survive, the channels will go full-retard and start programming an even more endless lineup of cheap-to-produce brain-sapping reality shows.


All of these channels would do better as streaming over a network vs a cable slot.  Ala carte will likely mean the death of niche channels - over cable tv - all the more reason to cut the cord as they say.

I cut it two years ago, switched to a Roku and I don't miss it one bit.  Some shows are hard to come by though because of contractual compensation issues.  These issues would get straightened out much faster if ala carte becomes a reality.

Cable TV is destined to become the realm of reality tv and "i don't care what's on" kind of viewing.  Everything else should move to streaming.
 
2013-03-04 06:32:12 PM  

gameshowhost: Why don't we do something really noteworthy and nuke CDMA

/or whatever, so we end up with A STANDARD
//ONE.
///standard. one.


LTE was supposed to be that standard... The marriage of the best parts of CDMA and GSM into one beautiful thing. Then the carriers got a hold of it.
 
2013-03-04 06:34:52 PM  

MrEricSir: vudukungfu: MrEricSir: if you don't understand why loans exist or why people take them out

Hey, I'll borrow money from a bank.
they are FDIC insured.
Fly by night telecom?
No way

FDIC insurance... on a loan? Riiiiight....


Look. If a hooker isn't insisting on condoms every single time, don't let her make you and egg salad sandwich from scratch.
 
2013-03-04 06:35:48 PM  
It's like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, and Benghazi all over again! Truly Owebama is history's greatest monster.
 
2013-03-04 06:39:22 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: TuteTibiImperes: crabsno termites: TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!

QVC, unfortunately, would likely end up surviving, and likely be free.  However, I'd worry about Speed, History, Game Show Network, AMC, SyFy, etc (not that I watch all of those, but many don't have mass appeal).  Or, in a bid to survive, the channels will go full-retard and start programming an even more endless lineup of cheap-to-produce brain-sapping reality shows.

All of these channels would do better as streaming over a network vs a cable slot.  Ala carte will likely mean the death of niche channels - over cable tv - all the more reason to cut the cord as they say.

I cut it two years ago, switched to a Roku and I don't miss it one bit.  Some shows are hard to come by though because of contractual compensation issues.  These issues would get straightened out much faster if ala carte becomes a reality.

Cable TV is destined to become the realm of reality tv and "i don't care what's on" kind of viewing.  Everything else should move to streaming.


I like the idea of streaming, but ISPs would have to give up on broadband caps to make it work as a primary viewing solution (and since most ISPs are also the cable company, they have little incentive to do that...).  I have Dish, and to get a lot of the out-of-market sports channels I want (I live in SEC land, but follow CAA Football/Basketball), I have to have what is pretty much the top tier they offer.  At the end of the day even though I don't watch the vast majority of the channels I have, I like having access to them because if something comes on that I do want to watch on one of them, I can.  I could probably save a bunch just by buying the games I want to see via the websites/streaming-providers of the schools hosting the games and just getting the rest of what I want from iTunes, Amazon and Netflix, but paying per show would make me think to much about whether something was worth watching or not, and I'd probably err on the side of saving the money in most cases and not expose myself to a lot of things I've ended up liking.
 
2013-03-04 06:47:03 PM  

tgambitg: gameshowhost: Why don't we do something really noteworthy and nuke CDMA

/or whatever, so we end up with A STANDARD
//ONE.
///standard. one.

LTE was supposed to be that standard... The marriage of the best parts of CDMA and GSM into one beautiful thing. Then the carriers got a hold of it.


It should still be possible to make a universal LTE phone, but you'd need a quadband radio covering 700/1700/1900/2100mhz just to cover the spectrum of all of the US carriers.  Throw in other countries using 1500/1800/2600 and other frequency ranges and a truly universal world phone ends up being a lot more complicated than it should really have to be.  Plus, I don't think that all of the US carriers are even doing voice over LTE yet.
 
2013-03-04 06:50:41 PM  
img9.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-04 06:52:53 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: TheDirtyNacho: TuteTibiImperes: crabsno termites: TuteTibiImperes: if people have the option to opt-out, a lot of the niche channels could go away.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY QVC! ALL SIX CHANNELS OF IT!

QVC, unfortunately, would likely end up surviving, and likely be free.  However, I'd worry about Speed, History, Game Show Network, AMC, SyFy, etc (not that I watch all of those, but many don't have mass appeal).  Or, in a bid to survive, the channels will go full-retard and start programming an even more endless lineup of cheap-to-produce brain-sapping reality shows.

All of these channels would do better as streaming over a network vs a cable slot.  Ala carte will likely mean the death of niche channels - over cable tv - all the more reason to cut the cord as they say.

I cut it two years ago, switched to a Roku and I don't miss it one bit.  Some shows are hard to come by though because of contractual compensation issues.  These issues would get straightened out much faster if ala carte becomes a reality.

Cable TV is destined to become the realm of reality tv and "i don't care what's on" kind of viewing.  Everything else should move to streaming.

I like the idea of streaming, but ISPs would have to give up on broadband caps to make it work as a primary viewing solution (and since most ISPs are also the cable company, they have little incentive to do that...).  I have Dish, and to get a lot of the out-of-market sports channels I want (I live in SEC land, but follow CAA Football/Basketball), I have to have what is pretty much the top tier they offer.  At the end of the day even though I don't watch the vast majority of the channels I have, I like having access to them because if something comes on that I do want to watch on one of them, I can.  I could probably save a bunch just by buying the games I want to see via the websites/streaming-providers of the schools hosting the games and just getting the rest of what I want from iTunes, Amazon and Netflix, but paying p ...



I'm not sure we have broadband caps, or if we do, they're high enough that typical viewing patterns don't touch them.  Most of the money on a cable bill actually goes right back out to the channel owners.

There's still much work to be done in streaming.  It would behoove providers like Amazon to give free show trials - watch the first episode, if you like it? Then pay for the rest of the season.  This still comes out far less costly than paying a $120+ cable bill every month.  There may well be some kind of legal or contractual reason why they don't do this more.

There also still isn't much in the way of standard compensation contracts with regards to streaming, which is why bizarre things like some shows on Hulu can be watched on a computer, but not a device like a Roku, even though you could just hook your laptop up to a TV.  Netflix seems to have avoided this somehow.

I hope with a la carte becoming a reality these issues will get resolved faster.  The present system of cable tv content distribution is not a well functioning or efficient market.
 
2013-03-04 06:53:32 PM  
Corvus: cman: Will Obama spend political capital on such an issue? I am wondering if this is only a glorified press release.

I knew it wouldn't take long for the "Obama is saying something I agree with? I AM OUTRAGED AT HIM!!" posts.

I am sorry for my extreme burst of anger. I know I lost my cool, but its just that Obama is destroying our country. I need to at every opportunity biatch about how black he is.

/If you took my comment as outrage then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension
 
2013-03-04 06:54:14 PM  

cman: Corvus: cman: Will Obama spend political capital on such an issue? I am wondering if this is only a glorified press release.

I knew it wouldn't take long for the "Obama is saying something I agree with? I AM OUTRAGED AT HIM!!" posts.


I am sorry for my extreme burst of anger. I know I lost my cool, but its just that Obama is destroying our country. I need to at every opportunity biatch about how black he is.

/If you took my comment as outrage then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension
//AND Fixt. Damn HTML box keeps screwing my text up
 
2013-03-04 06:56:31 PM  
Now everyone will want a White House petition.
 
2013-03-04 07:05:49 PM  

RexTalionis: GAT_00: show me: Wow, now let's hope that this has some teeth and doesn't take 2 more years to implement.

Well, it's the President supporting deregulation, so it has an approximately zero percent chance of getting through the House.

I don't think it's so much deregulation as that it'll be a very narrow DMCA exemption for device unlocking.

Personally, I think the Copyright Office was doing some goofy gas when it issued its revised DMCA exemptions. What is the logic for making rooting and jailbreaking a phone perfectly legal for phones (i.e. exempt from DMCA), but illegal for tablets (i.e. not exempt from the DMCA) while simultaneously making it illegal to unlock your phone for different carriers?

It's this bizarre hodgepodge of exemptions that simply makes no sense whatsoever.


I testified at a DMCA exemption hearing once. The Copyright Office has less of a grasp on technology than the average 12-year-old.
 
2013-03-04 07:14:48 PM  

vudukungfu: How the fark do you think the farking internet was invented?


A a truck carrying tubes crashed on Al Gore's lawn.
 
2013-03-04 07:16:47 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Plus, I don't think that all of the US carriers are even doing voice over LTE yet.


That is correct.  Most of the carriers are still using their respective 3G networks for voice, and are unlikely to change until either they need that spectrum for something else, or (more likely) the 3G equipment becomes obsolete and too expensive to maintain.

I could see CDMA going away within a few generations if a few major telecom equipment manufacturers (e.g. Cisco, Huawei)  decided to stop producing CDMA equipment, but GSM usage is still growing faster than LTE (especially in Africa), so I doubt it's going to go away any time soon.
 
2013-03-04 07:35:13 PM  

vudukungfu: MrEricSir: If you take out a loan with your cell phone company like most people, they're going to lock the phone to make sure you keep paying

Why would you do that?

never mind, I do tech support for consumers who farked up.
People aren't too bright.

"taking out a load with a cell phone company. . . . "
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahha*gasp*ahhahahahahahaha h ahahahahahahahahaha

/Doesn't own one.
/Not even a itterbug.
//If I can't see what is in it and know there is no tracing device, I'm not carrying it.

GPS + Drones = Not good.


The tin foil can be found on aisle 12.

I suggest heavey duty in your case.
 
2013-03-04 07:36:20 PM  

Theaetetus: DicksWii: How about game consoles? PS3s are going to start hitting the pawn shops for a lot cheaper with the release of the PS4. I'd like to set up some linux on a dozen or two running together.

Download the v3.15 or earlier firmware and you're good to go. You won't be able to connect to the PSN, but heck, you're building a linux cluster so why would you?


Yeah, because the machine will *totally* accept and load up that old firmware!

Oh wait, no it won't. It'll reject anything older than the firmware its on, as soon as you go past that level (and all ps3s for sale now are past that) you're stuck unless you have a hardware flasher.
 
2013-03-04 07:36:28 PM  

MrEricSir: vudukungfu: If I buy a computer or gadget or tool from you, You no longer get to tell me what to do with it.

If you buy a phone outright, it's not going to be locked. If you take out a loan with your cell phone company like most people, they're going to lock the phone to make sure you keep paying.

Car loans often work the same way if you have poor credit. The bank can flip a switch if you miss to many lease payments and "your" car won't start anymore.


After the contract is up, my debt to the carrier is paid. After that, it's my phone. My device.

Using your analogy, I would either keep paying the bank or wouldn't be allowed to drive on roads not owned by the bank. Or something.

I don't know. Stupid law... ER...regulation.
 
2013-03-04 07:37:40 PM  
Ah! More time spent on the issues that really matter.
 
2013-03-04 07:37:44 PM  

Gothnet: Yeah, because the machine will *totally* accept and load up that old firmware!


http://www.ps3hax.net/2011/06/qa-flag-downgrade-firmware-3-55-to-3-4 13 -15-tutorial/
 
2013-03-04 07:45:32 PM  
Will they legalize changing the pressure settings on my CPAP machine now?
 
2013-03-04 07:56:34 PM  

kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?


Pretty sure nobody is forcing you to pay for all those channels.
 
2013-03-04 07:58:41 PM  

onyxruby: There's a hole in there response big enough to drive a truck through. They will only support unlocking /if/ your phone is paid for and off contract.


That's not exactly what they said.  They simply said that there shouldn't be anything preventing you from manipulating your phone -- whether legal or technological -- when such a situation does arise.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it will stay illegal when you ARE under contract.  They didn't say anything concrete about what sort of changes to policy might be made, they only agreed with the petition that unlocking your phone shouldn't be illegal, and enumerated the reasons why.
 
2013-03-04 07:59:46 PM  

cman: its just that Obama is destroying our country. I need to at every opportunity biatch about how black he is.


LMAO XD
 
2013-03-04 08:14:53 PM  

cman: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye


I've never understood how we can be told men and women are equals in the eyes of the law and that gender discrimination is illegal, yet also told men's breasts are A-OK to see outside, on TV, etc, while women's are not.
 
2013-03-04 10:15:39 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: cman: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye

I've never understood how we can be told men and women are equals in the eyes of the law and that gender discrimination is illegal, yet also told men's breasts are A-OK to see outside, on TV, etc, while women's are not.


It's more about supply and demand. Nobody wants to see men's boobs. Make it illegal and you'll get $0 in fines. Women's boobs fuel all economic transactions. Much more fines to be had.
 
2013-03-04 10:52:37 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: cman: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

No

Please no

If the government gets involved in regulation of cable networks in a complex fashion we will see FCC obscenity rules apply to these stations. Now, I dont know about you, but I really appreciate the beauty of a woman's breasts. That kind of shiat goes bye-bye

I've never understood how we can be told men and women are equals in the eyes of the law and that gender discrimination is illegal, yet also told men's breasts are A-OK to see outside, on TV, etc, while women's are not.


I don't want women's boobs to be made legal, on a routine basis. Remove the forbidden aspect of nudity and eventually, it all becomes commonplace and unexciting. Yes, there would be a few really, really good looking people who would still attract attention, but those would be few and far between. At one time, in many parts of this country, ANYBODY being topless was against local laws. As men gained the 'right' to appear topless it became run of the mill and now it's not an item of contention even among those who want very strict laws regulating nudity on tv. No, leave them quasi-legal, with HBO and Cinemax being able to show full frontal (at 'appropriate times' whatever that means) and other networks seeing how far they can push that limit instead of it becoming just another over-used stunt that no longer attracts attention.
 
2013-03-04 10:56:34 PM  
Anyone point out that carriers will usually unlock your phone once the contract is up anyway? So unlocking it earlier is still illegal, leaving us worse off than before?
 
2013-03-05 12:41:16 AM  

kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?


I know how you feel.   I hooked up eighty channels and each one stunk.
 
2013-03-05 01:59:08 AM  

Steve Zodiac: No, leave them quasi-legal, with HBO and Cinemax being able to show full frontal (at 'appropriate times' whatever that means) and other networks seeing how far they can push that limit instead of it becoming just another over-used stunt that no longer attracts attention.


Many of you will not be old enough to remember (though may have seen in retrospect), Carlin's "words", or Johnny Carson getting the word "biatch" on OTA television, but it was much the same situation as this.

/biatch biatch biatch biatch.
//fark YOU, FARK FILTER!
 
2013-03-05 05:24:38 AM  

ciberido: kpaxoid: OK.

Can we add to that making it illegal to be forced to buy 300 cable channels when you watch only 2?

I know how you feel.   I hooked up eighty channels and each one stunk.


Here in the UK they have started a package to just buy the channels you want...
 
2013-03-05 05:26:15 AM  
"Legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group" has been around longer and has three times the signatures.  Why hasn't it been responded to?
 
2013-03-05 08:06:46 AM  

Mr Guy: Rincewind53: I believe the phrase you're looking for is "re-legalize"

De-criminalize.


re-de-criminalize

/legal -> DMCA (illegal) -> exception (legal) -> exception repealed (illegal) -> etc...
 
2013-03-05 11:10:50 AM  

MacWizard: I testified at a DMCA exemption hearing once. The Copyright Office has less of a grasp on technology than the average 12-year-old.


Were I not in the employ of said Office I might publicly concur.

But I am, so I won't.

Not that I have that much of a grasp on it, personally.  I use it, sure, but I don't understand how it works all that well.  But I think a lot of the problem comes from legal frameworks about intellectual property that were conceived when movable-type printing presses were an innovation.  Attaching long-term material rights to things that are by their nature ephemeral, when replication of such has moved from "complex and expensive" to "trivial" is bound to have unintended consequences.
 
gja
2013-03-05 02:01:18 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: "Legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group" has been around longer and has three times the signatures.  Why hasn't it been responded to?


Because Jesus x potato
 
2013-03-05 02:37:22 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: "Legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group" has been around longer and has three times the signatures.  Why hasn't it been responded to?


Because while it would be awesome, it would open a bigger can of worms. More people get riled up about religious freedoms than about wireless service freedoms.

And, apple customers excluded, wireless devices are not central to a person's identity to the degree that religion often is.
 
2013-03-05 04:16:47 PM  

Deucednuisance: MacWizard: I testified at a DMCA exemption hearing once. The Copyright Office has less of a grasp on technology than the average 12-year-old.

Were I not in the employ of said Office I might publicly concur.

But I am, so I won't.

Not that I have that much of a grasp on it, personally.  I use it, sure, but I don't understand how it works all that well.


To be fair, I don't think everyone at the Copyright Office is a technological idiot. There were only five people from the CO at the hearing and one or two of them seemed to have some perception. But Mary Beth Peters definitely seemed to have less of a grasp than the average 12-year-old, if the blank stare and rolling of eyes at every technical explanation was any indication. She's the one in charge, which makes it a problem.

But I think a lot of the problem comes from legal frameworks about intellectual property that were conceived when movable-type printing presses were an innovation.  Attaching long-term material rights to things that are by their nature ephemeral, when replication of such has moved from "complex and expensive" to "trivial" is bound to have unintended consequences.

It seems that attaching "long-term material rights" to something that was once for a "limited time" was the first step in the problem. The second was trying to make material rights apply to ones and zeros.

The greatest error of the copyright system, however, was losing sight of the original goal of protecting the authors and creators in favor of protecting those who would exploit their works. When moveable-type printing presses were the issue, the idea was to protect the authors from the publishers. That has long since been abandoned in favor of trying to protect the publishers, record labels and movie studios. The "legal framework" enabled these entities to gain power by keeping replication "complex and expensive" while contracturally relieving the authors and creators of their individual copyright protection (see "work for hire").

Now that replication is trivial, the exploiting entities are the ones the Copyright Office is trying to protect, not the authors and creators, who were cast by the wayside a long time ago. It has failed its mission "to promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system."
 
2013-03-05 04:47:41 PM  

MacWizard: But Mary Beth Peters...'s the one in charge, which makes it a problem.


I have Good News, Everyone!

Ms. Peters retired on the last day of 2010.  She is replaced by the very capable Maria Pallante.

As to the rest, well, we're working on it.  We still have a lot of folks who think about "legal" analysis rather than "technological".

But it would be remiss of me to fail to point out the we do not draft the statutes under which we operate.  The lengthening of the span of a copyright lies at the feet of Congress, not us.  We're largely an Office of Record.

As to transfer of ownership rights, yeah you may have a point.  But this modern world is making it ever more easy for creative people to bypass publishers entirely.  Take a look at http://jococruisecrazy.com/ - pretty much all of the entertainers are self-produced and distributed, and they're all making a living at it.  The boat was full of people doing/wanting to do the same.  A particularly engaging hour was spent on the "Quitting Panel", with a number of creative people at varying stages of their self-made-ness talking about How To Do It.  It was inspiring.  (Yes, I was on the boat, had a great time and have already booked for next year.)
 
2013-03-05 05:48:19 PM  

RexTalionis: Gothnet: Yeah, because the machine will *totally* accept and load up that old firmware!

http://www.ps3hax.net/2011/06/qa-flag-downgrade-firmware-3-55-to-3-4 13 -15-tutorial/


Pretty sure that 3.55 is about 2 years old at this point too, and beyond that the installer changed massively and has not been reverse engineered, so no, you cannot just downgrade a PS3. Beyond this it's illegal, strictly speaking.
 
2013-03-06 09:36:32 AM  

Gothnet: Beyond this it's illegal, strictly speaking.


That's what started this conversation.
 
Displayed 120 of 120 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report