True enough.
Sent from my ADR6400L rusing DroidForums
True enough.
Sent from my ADR6400L rusing DroidForums
You haven't made a logical argument based on the service provided. The WiFi is manufactured into the device. The capability to activate it is in the Android OS. Both of those you are paying full price for in the contract (as demonstrated by their ETF). And, you are paying for the bandwidth in your data contract (or they will charge extra if you exceed it). So, the only service that they can identify an additional cost for is to activate the built-in capability for you. If you do it yourself, then you have relieved them of any cost assoicated with providing that service. Ergo, nothing of value was misappropriated. Turning it around, you could logically argue that, by crippling functionality already built in to a device that you are paying for, they should be obligated to discount the device to compensate you for the loss of value that functionality provides. Which is where they can legitiimately claim that you don't have to buy their broken device. However, they don't have a logical argument for claiming that by repairing what is broken, you have stolen services from them. The most they can do is say that any self-repair work voids their warranty--which appears to be their practice. On the other hand, I do think that bricking your device by fooling around with it and then taking it back and "playing dumb" about how it got bricked so they give you a free replacement actually is "theft of services." What they could legitimately do in that case is refuse to replace it. More reasonably, since they can easily reflash the device to stock, they could just charge a nominal refurb fee (say, $25-$50) for any soft-bricked device to cover the cost of restocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by LtKen
It seems pretty straightforward to me. You bought the device and service based on a set of capabilities and an agreement that you would use your device on their network in a certain way. No more, no less. Tethering isn't on the list.
Ergo, by enabling tethering on your phone, you are using the device on their network in a way that is outside the bounds of the contract. You're stealing.
Again, I don't care, and I do it to, but don't try and convince yourself that you're somehow righteous and on the right side of the law.
Robbing the rich to give to the poor is still robbing. Don't confuse morality with legality.
I see where we are divided. I am certainly not confusing legality with morality. I am also not confusing two different kinds of immorality. You appear to be categorizing any kind of contract violation as "theft." I draw a distinction between theft (which is taking by stealth or force that for which you have not paid) vs. rule-breaking, which is doing something that you may have explicity or tacitly agreed (with or without reservations) not to do. I have made the argument that the functionality of the hotspot and the bandwidth it uses has already been paid for so the act of turning it on is the only added value service--which you can do for yourself without costing the vendor a cent (at the cost of voiding your warranty). The law allows for some rule-breaking (violation of consumer agreements, for example) in the case where there is an imbalance of power between the consumer and the supplier--which is certainly the case with the wireless carriers. Whether you view all rule-breaking (violating the speed limit, crossing lines in a parking lot, etc., etc., where you tacitly agree to the rules by driving in that location) as immoral, let alone, actual theft, greatly depends upon your ethical framework. I have an ethical framework that presumes that rules do not perfectly define morality in all cases and keeping all the rules al the time is neither, moral, rational nor ultimately safe. So, I reserve the right to define some rules as deriving from a morally bereft motive. And, in this case, I argue that relieving the vendor of the expense of provisioning the hotspot on a device that you paid for so you can use a data service you paid for is neither legal nor immoral--even if by doing so, you circumvent the vendor's usurious charge for this simple one-time service. Similar cases have gone to court and been won in the consumer's favor--for example the ability to feed self-generated power back into the electricity grid (thereby reducing the electric bill or even creating a negative bill). The power monopolies made the same arguments as VZW would make and they lost (coerced consumer agreements notwithstanding). I respect your right to categorize all violations of a consumer agreement (written by the vendor without any actual opportunity for consumer negotiation, I might add) as "theft." However, I choose to maintain a more granular perspective--and not simply to justify my choice, either, but more importantly to set the stage for coerced consumers to ultimately prevail in court--should VZW choose to press the issue. That they don't press the issue as a legal one indicates to me that they are afraid that, by risking a court ruling for us few, they will lose their revenue opportunity for the entire paying class. That also indicates where VZW fears the moral line could lie. By your implied ethical framework, turning off bloatware is even more directly theft of services, since VZW is compensated for the advertising value of keeping those apps active and they also provide little money-traps for the unwary who might fall into paying for them. Not to mention the CPU cycles that you steal back for yourself in the process--cycles that, by your logic, VZW implicitly has an ownership right to based on their "no modifications" restrictions. My framework leaves my conscience free on those counts because I believe that VZWs unfair "agreement" contains inequities that allow them a "free ride" which encroaches on my ability to get full value from the device unless I can lighten the gratuitous load.Quote:
Originally Posted by LtKen
Should've told dodge lol, they, quite categorically, told me that if I put a stack on my truck they would void the warranty, I have a couple years to waitQuote:
Originally Posted by MdicnMan
Sent from my DROID RAZR using DroidForums
Oldguy I agree. If contracts were meant to be for the customer's benefit they would be two lines long. "You pay your bill. We'll give you whatever services are available on the phone you own."
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using DroidForums
Exactly! Functionality and services on the phone that you bought. And that don't require provisioning any additional services on the carrier's side. That is where there is a bright line for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primevyl
define modifying your device beyond manufacturer specifications...dont forget the manufacturers make the phone hardware, not the OS (at least not the core of the OS) so if unlocking bootloaders, rooting and romming was to be pinned to a "manufacturer" then the manufacturer would be google who obviously fully supports and encourages all of that