Slashdot Mirror
Bill Proposes Canadian Cellphone Unlocking Rights
SJrX sends in a CBC report that the Canadian New Democratic Party has tabled a bill requiring all cellphone companies to provide unlocked cellphones. (Wikipedia notes, "The party is regarded as falling on the left in the Canadian political spectrum.") This reader adds, "The fact that there is a minority government currently should help this bill's chances of getting passed." "The bill proposes three rules: cellphone carriers would be required to notify customers at the point of purchase whether a phone is locked to work only on their network; they would have to remove such a lock free of charge at any point after the conclusion of the customer's service contract; and they would have to remove it if the customer does not enter into a contract within six months of buying the device up front."
Between laws like this, universal healthcare, low crime, etc. I'm considering hiring a coyote to smuggle me and my family across the border.
Yes, this is a lot like universal healthcare: it's a government unreasonably telling private people what transactions they CANNOT engage in (private insurance in Canada is illegal). This will, of course, increase the cost of cell phones for most people ... the reason prices are low is because they know that you're locked in when they sell it to you.
I am all for consumer information, so I love the part about informing consumers that the phone must only be used with their service. But forcing consumer and business to exchange money for an unlocked phone? Idiocy.
Not everyone lives in a city sucking from the government's teat.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You ever stop and think about WHY healthcare is public?
Of course. It's because many people don't understand, or appreciate, the free market and liberty, and would rather sacrifice those things for the easy, and less-free, way out.
When you allow people with more money to have better healthcare you are putting their lives at a greater value than those less fortunate.
Absolutely untrue. That doesn't begin to make sense. That's like saying when you allow people with more free time to exercise more, you are putting their lives at a greater value than those with less free time who can't exercise more.
Bill Gates could spend billions of dollars keeping himself alive, that most people could not do (and that Canada's health system won't do). That is not putting his life at a greater value: it's allowing him to use his resources as he sees fit.
It's insipidly stupid to think that just because someone can use their own resources to benefit themselves, that this somehow hurts anyone else. It doesn't hurt you, in any way, if Bill Gates buys himself better health care. It has nothing to do with you. You're being a selfish, greedy, envious, whiner.
The first case we had of someone being able to pay more for better healthcare was last year I think. I'm not sure what loophole they used to legally do this. There was a social uproar about it.
Yes, because people in a society are stupid. They do not understand freedom, nor "fairness."
Yeah but does it add-up to $20,000? I could buy a new car with that. I could buy TWO cars if they are Kia imports. Every year. IMHO the services you list still don't add up to the $20,000 I paid.
Especially 30-40% of that tax is wasted on debt interest payment (i.e. nonproductive). Plus a lot of the services you list are actually PRIVATE companies (trash, firefighters, ambulance, etc) not government so they are not funded by taxes. They are funded by the yearly bill I pay upfront, or the bill they send me after usage.
Don't give credit to government for things that are actually private company's services.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This is about phones that are bought and paid for, either via contract or outright.
Yes. You buy a locked phone from a provider, and because it is locked, the company can make more money from it. So by forcing them to unlock it, they will get less money from it, and won't be inclined to offer as much of a discount for it (not to mention the increased labor costs in unlocking phones for people that must be recouped with higher costs).
You're actually arguing for free market principles
I am always arguing for free market principles.
in favour of an anti-competitive practice?
Not anti-competitive, no. Calling this anti-competitive is nonsense. It IS competition. "Anti-competitive" has a specific meaning, and it is not about engaging in competition and trying to gain a competitive advantage, but about trying to eliminate competition. That's obviously not happening here.
You actually believe that this particular behaviour reduces prices to the consumer?
I didn't say that. I said that forcibly removing this free choice will result in increased prices.
>>>a total cost of $12,500.
That's not how you calculate unless you're a Used Car Salesman selling a lie. Or Comcast trying to claim its TV service is worth $10,000 per year in entertainment.
The actual cost is what matters, and food inspection is less than $1 per person. Same applies to all your other inaccurate estimates, and therefore do not add up to $20,000 in actual cost
.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You could make that same argument for privatizing EVERY industry. It's not a good one.
Untrue. Canadians long ago decided that health-care in particular is special.
Irrelevant to what I said. You may think it is special, but the argument used did not treat it specially. I stated the argument used can apply to any industry, and that's true.
the US tops the list in percentage of GDP dedicated to health care
Sure, but with the best outcomes (among those who are paying the most money, which is the majority of us).
Don't worry, my entire family and pretty much everyone around me that I know will vote Conservative. We live in Ontario (I am not in Canada right now, but will vote nevertheless.)
NDP can rot in hell.
You can't handle the truth.