Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #1127 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-01 19:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-03-13 17:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-01 20:22 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-01 22:19 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-02 12:52 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2014-03-02 11:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 16:34 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 16:26 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-13 00:40 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:20 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-16 17:41 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:40 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-12 22:43 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-13 09:39 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:01 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:37 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-13 23:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-13 23:30 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 17:19 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 09:01 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2014-03-15 20:49 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-16 17:23 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-16 22:23 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:39 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 09:57 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 13:42 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:53 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-14 11:03 -0500
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-14 16:13 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-14 13:18 -0500
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-14 13:22 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:59 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-16 15:07 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:46 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-16 09:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 12:03 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-17 10:45 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-17 13:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-17 14:17 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:41 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-16 18:03 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 12:16 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-14 14:16 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-14 13:24 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 16:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 17:00 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 09:03 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 18:55 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 03:28 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 21:15 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 13:41 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-14 03:26 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 08:23 +0100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-13 11:27 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 14:09 -0700
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-13 11:55 +0000
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-03-13 15:39 -0600
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-03-02 19:24 +1100
Re: Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 17:57 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 19:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Reversing the law that prohibits unlocking your cellphone |
| Message-ID | <letdcq$vk1$1@solani.org> |
From the "hello, oligarchy" department: Title: Inside the battle to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone Author: Derek Khanna Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:54:54 -0500 Link: http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663871/s/37a611bc/sc/46/l/0L0Stheguardian0N0Ccommentisfree0C20A140Cfeb0C280Cstupidest0Elaw0Eillegal0Eto0Eunlock0Eyour0Ephone/story01.htm Podcast Download URL: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/28/1393598356497/ca8815e9-d0a8-4edb-8b9d-a5ec3165ff98-140x84.jpeg Derek Khanna: But it won't be for long, thanks to another lesson in how consumer tech can overcome telecom cronies Derek Khanna[1] [image 2] Links: [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/derek-khanna (link) [2]: http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663871/s/37a611bc/sc/46/mf.gif (image)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 20:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bnetsuFk8taU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1127 |
On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: > From the "hello, oligarchy" department: > Title: Inside the battle to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. -- Today is Setting Orange, the 60th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3180 "Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 22:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlh4n6o.4c1.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1128 |
On 2014-03-01, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: Title: Inside the battle to >> kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone > > ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. > > In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. ... if the handset was locked to start with; many are sold unlocked, particularly when sold by independent retailers. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 12:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bngnrtF12c5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1130 |
On 2014-03-01, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-01, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >> On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >>> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: Title: Inside the battle to >>> kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone >> >> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >> >> In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. > > ... if the handset was locked to start with; Well, d'uh. > many are sold unlocked, > particularly when sold by independent retailers. Good point. -- Today is Sweetmorn, the 61st day of Chaos in the YOLD 3180 "Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 11:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <53130e29$0$2895$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #1128 |
op 01-03-14 21:22 schreef Huge: > On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: >> Title: Inside the battle to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone > > ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. > > In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. > That's not just the UK but most if not all of Europe. From the beginning of the contract it will be your phone and as long as you pay your dues you can do with it as you please. If you stop paying you might have to return the phone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-04 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6d8hua-f8m2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #1136 |
On 2014-03-02, Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote: > op 01-03-14 21:22 schreef Huge: >> On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >>> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: >>> Title: Inside the battle to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal >>> to unlock your phone >> >> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >> >> In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. >> > That's not just the UK but most if not all of Europe. > From the beginning of the contract it will be your phone and as long as > you pay your dues you can do with it as you please. > If you stop paying you might have to return the phone. In Switzerland many folks use Pay As You Go (PAYG) schemes which don't have a contract. There's a range of cheap 'n' cheerful to more expensive PAYG-included phones available which are typically locked to the provider for 2 years. You can also use the PAYG SIM cards in a top of the range unlocked phone if you wish to, and that is the option chosen by temporary residents who either want to avoid a contract lock-in or haven't been here long enough to build up a credit rating. -- Paul Sture Not the one on Facebook
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-04 16:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qt7hua-f8m2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #1128 |
On 2014-03-01, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: >> Title: Inside the battle to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal >> to unlock your phone > > ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. > > In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. Does the UK still expire credits on PAYG phones if you don't use them? That was certainly true when I bought one to avoid roaming charges back in the late 90s. Here in Switzerland PAYG credits don't expire, as far as I can tell, which makes having a backup phone cheap and hassle free. -- Paul Sture Not the one on Facebook
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 00:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnli1vjg.819.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1522 |
On 2014-03-04, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-03-01, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >> On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >>> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: Title: Inside the battle to >>> kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone >> >> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >> >> In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. > > Does the UK still expire credits on PAYG phones if you don't use them? > That was certainly true when I bought one to avoid roaming charges > back in the late 90s. > > Here in Switzerland PAYG credits don't expire, as far as I can tell, > which makes having a backup phone cheap and hassle free. Most UK services do expire PAYG accounts after a certain period of disuse, typically 6 months. I've heard tell of unexpiring SIMs, but never seen one. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 08:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvvfva-fot.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #1545 |
On 2014-03-13, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-04, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: >> On 2014-03-01, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >>>> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: Title: Inside the battle to >>>> kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone >>> >>> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >>> >>> In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. >> >> Does the UK still expire credits on PAYG phones if you don't use them? >> That was certainly true when I bought one to avoid roaming charges >> back in the late 90s. >> >> Here in Switzerland PAYG credits don't expire, as far as I can tell, >> which makes having a backup phone cheap and hassle free. > > Most UK services do expire PAYG accounts after a certain period of > disuse, typically 6 months. The one I bought wanted either use or payment every 90 days and that was unacceptable to me because I didn't pop back that often. Things may have improved since, but nobody in the UK seemed able to cope with someone living abroad; they expected you to be coming back every weekend or something. I'm not just talking about phones there. > I've heard tell of unexpiring SIMs, but never seen one. I can put a photo of one up if that helps :-) -- Paul Sture While Twitter was down I got a new job, got married and learned how to play the bagpipes -- @flamingowurst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-16 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnliboj1.gb4.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1657 |
On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-03-13, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: >> On 2014-03-04, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: >>> On 2014-03-01, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2014-03-01, RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote: >>>>> From the "hello, oligarchy" department: Title: Inside the battle >>>>> to kill a stupid law: yes, it's still illegal to unlock your phone >>>> >>>> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >>>> >>>> In the UK, the MNO's are legally obliged to provide an unlock code. >>> >>> Does the UK still expire credits on PAYG phones if you don't use >>> them? That was certainly true when I bought one to avoid roaming >>> charges back in the late 90s. >>> >>> Here in Switzerland PAYG credits don't expire, as far as I can tell, >>> which makes having a backup phone cheap and hassle free. >> >> Most UK services do expire PAYG accounts after a certain period of >> disuse, typically 6 months. > > The one I bought wanted either use or payment every 90 days and that > was unacceptable to me because I didn't pop back that often. Things > may have improved since, but nobody in the UK seemed able to cope with > someone living abroad; they expected you to be coming back every > weekend or something. I'm not just talking about phones there. > >> I've heard tell of unexpiring SIMs, but never seen one. > > I can put a photo of one up if that helps :-) The real thing would be more use ;)) The defining characteristic of a 'spare or emergency' phone is that it tends to be forgotten about until it's needed, which is not the moment to discover that all you can do with it is call the emergency services - better than nothing, but not too useful. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-17 10:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <boo1o5Fchd2U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1657 |
On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > Things may have > improved since, but nobody in the UK seemed able to cope with someone > living abroad; they expected you to be coming back every weekend or > something. I'm not just talking about phones there. IME, this is true of every one of the countries I've ever lived/worked in. -- Today is Sweetmorn, the 3rd day of Discord in the YOLD 3180 A non-empty Hausdorff topological space is a continuous image of the unit interval if and only if it is a compact, connected, locally connected second-countable space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-12 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lfrght$djt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1128 |
On 2014-03-01 20:22:54 +0000, Huge said: > ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. While this place has turned into a bit of a banana republic in recent years, we're still doing OK. My hope, though, is that they pass all kinds of crazy laws and make cell phones much more expensive and possibly illegal to own and operate. Fully a third of the drivers on the road these days are chatting, texting, or playing video games instead of concentrating on driving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 09:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <130320140939144749%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #1546 |
In article <lfrght$djt$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-01 20:22:54 +0000, Huge said: > > > ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. > > While this place has turned into a bit of a banana republic in recent > years, we're still doing OK. My hope, though, is that they pass all > kinds of crazy laws and make cell phones much more expensive and > possibly illegal to own and operate. Fully a third of the drivers on > the road these days are chatting, texting, or playing video games > instead of concentrating on driving. Simpler to make them illegal to operate while driving, as is the case here. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lft6bm$ni0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1552 |
On 2014-03-13 09:39:14 +0000, Tim Streater said: > In article <lfrght$djt$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex > <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2014-03-01 20:22:54 +0000, Huge said: >> >>> ... at least in that bastion of freedom, the USA. >> >> While this place has turned into a bit of a banana republic in recent >> years, we're still doing OK. My hope, though, is that they pass all >> kinds of crazy laws and make cell phones much more expensive and >> possibly illegal to own and operate. Fully a third of the drivers on >> the road these days are chatting, texting, or playing video games >> instead of concentrating on driving. > > Simpler to make them illegal to operate while driving, as is the case > here. Oh, here in Oregon it already is illegal to talk or text while driving, unless you use a hands-free device. Enforcement is essentially nonexistent though. The only effective measure would be to mandate that cell phones shut off the screen and speaker / mic if they sense that the speed is above a certain level. I'm sure this would only lead to a thriving black market in old cell phones though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jak9va-9tf.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #1556 |
On 13/03/14 21:01, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: > Oh, here in Oregon it already is illegal to talk or text while driving, > unless you use a hands-free device. Enforcement is essentially > nonexistent though. The only effective measure would be to mandate that > cell phones shut off the screen and speaker / mic if they sense that the > speed is above a certain level. I'm sure this would only lead to a > thriving black market in old cell phones though. As modern phones have GPS it's certainly viable. And a driver wanting to talk might as well buy a bluetooth earpiece as bother looking on ebay for an old phone. The awkward bit is how is the phone to know if it is being used by the driver or a passenger - or even on a bus or train. Sadly that part of the problem makes the idea a non starter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lft8f4$8r8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1559 |
On 2014-03-13 21:25:07 +0000, Tim Watts said: > On 13/03/14 21:01, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: > >> Oh, here in Oregon it already is illegal to talk or text while driving, >> unless you use a hands-free device. Enforcement is essentially >> nonexistent though. The only effective measure would be to mandate that >> cell phones shut off the screen and speaker / mic if they sense that the >> speed is above a certain level. I'm sure this would only lead to a >> thriving black market in old cell phones though. > > As modern phones have GPS it's certainly viable. And a driver wanting > to talk might as well buy a bluetooth earpiece as bother looking on > ebay for an old phone. > > The awkward bit is how is the phone to know if it is being used by the > driver or a passenger - or even on a bus or train. Sadly that part of > the problem makes the idea a non starter. So they wait until they are at their destination to use their phone, no big deal. Perhaps the buses and trains can have a short-range bluetooth transmitter that emits a sort of public transport waiver allowing people to use their devices while riding, but I can just imagine that this would cause traffic jams around buses as people try to drive close enough to receive the unlock signal. Maybe a good solution, not involving extra technology, would be to require police to ascertain if a cell phone was in use at the time of any accident, automatically assign fault to the user, and treat it like a case of drunken driving with the attendant classes and insurance hikes. In southern Oregon (Curry County) the county takes your vehicle and auctions it off if you drive drunk. That's a powerful incentive to avoid risky behavior. Can't drive drunk without a car, and after a few repeats you won't be able to afford to drive anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <atq9va-l3h.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> |
| In reply to | #1560 |
On 13/03/14 21:37, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: > Maybe a good solution, not involving extra technology, would be to > require police to ascertain if a cell phone was in use at the time of > any accident, automatically assign fault to the user, and treat it like > a case of drunken driving with the attendant classes and insurance > hikes. In southern Oregon (Curry County) the county takes your vehicle > and auctions it off if you drive drunk. That's a powerful incentive to > avoid risky behavior. Can't drive drunk without a car, and after a few > repeats you won't be able to afford to drive anyway. > Exactly. I think the actual answer is to get some more police on the road and pay for them with punitive fines for serious offences. Driving without insurance - should be a couple of thousand fine straight away. Ditto yabbering on a mobile, or being over the limit (drugs or drink). 100 quid for a busted headlight - half the cars around here drive around with half their lights out - no one cares. The law is hardly enforced and if it is, it's a silly little fine, reduced if you pay up quick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <130320142330216781%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #1566 |
In article <atq9va-l3h.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > 100 quid for a busted headlight - half the cars around here drive around > with half their lights out - no one cares. How much grace time do you get? On my C4 hatch, it is physically impossible for me to change a headlamp bulb. I bought a kit of blubs just after getting the car, but other than keeping the French cops happy, its a waste of time. The two times I've had a bulb go, it's been a visit to the dealer. And that typically has to be next day soonest. -- "People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-13 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lfthu8$j0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1567 |
On 2014-03-13 23:30:21 +0000, Tim Streater said: > In article <atq9va-l3h.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts > <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > >> 100 quid for a busted headlight - half the cars around here drive >> around with half their lights out - no one cares. > > How much grace time do you get? On my C4 hatch, it is physically > impossible for me to change a headlamp bulb. I bought a kit of blubs > just after getting the car, but other than keeping the French cops > happy, its a waste of time. The two times I've had a bulb go, it's been > a visit to the dealer. And that typically has to be next day soonest. I guess only the French would design a car where changing a light would be a physical impossibility. Sorry, couldn't resist. Thankfully I doubt anybody will be offended, as I don't think the French government lets its citizens post on the English Usenet (couldn't resist that either).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-14 09:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <140320140901222515%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #1568 |
In article <lfthu8$j0b$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-13 23:30:21 +0000, Tim Streater said: > > > In article <atq9va-l3h.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts > > <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote: > > > >> 100 quid for a busted headlight - half the cars around here drive > >> around with half their lights out - no one cares. > > > > How much grace time do you get? On my C4 hatch, it is physically > > impossible for me to change a headlamp bulb. I bought a kit of blubs > > just after getting the car, but other than keeping the French cops > > happy, its a waste of time. The two times I've had a bulb go, it's been > > a visit to the dealer. And that typically has to be next day soonest. > > I guess only the French would design a car where changing a light would > be a physical impossibility. I didn't say it is a physical impossibility full stop. I said it is a physical impossibility for *me*. Obviously it can be done - my main dealer has done it twice for me. It just involves removing some components that I'm unwilling to touch, either at the roadside or at home. > Sorry, couldn't resist. Couldn't resist what? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web