Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 432 Editor's Choice: 45
-
Not illegal, and not wrong
[Read the article: The iPhone has been unlocked. Sadly, it's still not really free]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, it isn't illegal - yet. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act specifically excludes unlocking cell phones. AT&T is in the process of trying to get that changed. They will probably fail, God willing. What we need is a more open cell phone infrastructure, not less. And unless Apple stupidly agreed to never sell iPhones in Europe or Asia, this is not worth fighting over. Unlocked iPhones will be on Ebay 20 minutes after the first shipment arrives in Berlin or Tokyo.
The contract that another poster referred to has nothing to do with it. You sign a contract agreeing to give them $100 a month. In return, AT&T gives you unlimited access to their data network and however many minutes of voice calling comes with the plan now. I have yet to see a cell phone contract where the phone is even mentioned. You can switch phones or upgrade at any time. The contract is for the SIM and the service. And if you terminate early you have to pay the associated fees.
The law prevents cell phone companies from forcing you to stay with them, and it has for over 5 years now. You own your phone, you own your phone number. AT&T used the proper method for preventing customers from switching to T-Mobile - they offered services that are unavailable with another provider. If you want Visual Voicemail, you stay with AT&T. If that service is compelling enough, the market will keep customers with AT&T.
It all depends on where you live. AT&T is by far the best cellular provider in South Florida. T-Mobile is by far the worst. So I wouldn't bother getting my iPhone unlocked if I had one, but not because I don't want to upset them.
-
But mg -
[Read the article: The iPhone has been unlocked. Sadly, it's still not really free]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In 2003, I took my Sony Ericsson smartphone, had T-Mobile unlock it, and put my company issued AT&T SIM in it. Worked like a charm.
The future you speak of is here. Has been for a while.
Unlocking your iPhone takes nothing from Apple, because your obligation to them (if you ever had one) ended the second your credit card went through for the purchase of the phone. And it takes nothing from AT&T, if you sign a contract with them, as long as you pay the termination fees associated with your plan. And the fact is that all you are doing by unlocking it is accelerating what the provider has to do at your request after 90 days.
Cell phone providers have been unable to legally hold customers hostage since 1996, and their last appeal was denied in 2003. So now they play on people's perceptions, like yours. Sadly, I think the end result of all this is going to be AT&T switching to proprietary phones, like everyone but T-Mobile, because the FCC hasn't got the balls to require the true portability that SIMs provide.
-
What's sad is
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that people will miss the point, proclaim their ignorance from the rooftops, and defend their misconceptions to the death.
Papers are afraid of this because it may be offensive? I can hardly see why. It isn't offensive to the followers of Islam, but to people who seek out the religion of the week. It's offensive to those who value the trappings of religion over the substance. It's offensive to those who wrap themselves in dogma while remaining ignorant of doctrine.
In short, it's offensive to people to stupid to read a newspaper, or know they were being insulted if they managed to. But the papers are probably right to be afraid, because there are plenty of other idiots who will take this opportunity to be offended.
-
She is obviously a terrible person
[Read the article: My girlfriend tried cocaine at a party! She was drunk! Oh my God!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As so many people have already pointed out to you.
She gave in to peer pressure. Doesn't matter that she (obviously) doesn't share your abhorrence of drugs, so it was the moral equivalent of going to see a bad movie because the rest of the group wants to go. We live in a world of absolutes.
She helped perpetuate the death and destruction that drugs cause. Well, it would be more accurate to say that the death and destruction are caused by drug laws, but now we are splitting hairs, aren't we?
To be honest, and please don't take this wrong because it's not meant in a negative way, I don't think you hate drugs, I think you are afraid of them. Which is perfectly reasonable, and I'm sure your personal experience justifies it. And I think your reaction is not to the fact that she took drugs, but the fact that she is not afraid of them - which does leave the door open to the possibility that she will do it again.
If you want to resolve this with her, I think the important question is does she want to do it again, and if not, why not? If she says that she didn't like it, then now she knows. If she says it didn't do anything for her you may have a problem. But you are going to need to find someone who is just as vehement and possibly irrational as yourself on this subject to ever be happy if you are unable to leave the past in the past. Better to have someone who has been there, done that, and knows they don't want to do it again than someone who doesn't know and may someday want to find out.