"Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 14 Jul 2007 09:07:09 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>> Actually, considering how much of the device's
>> non-telephonic feature-set is locked down, without activation/contract,
> I
>> almost wonder why the FTC isn't up in arms over it (hacks duly noted).
>
> Because it's a PROPRIETARY phone designed for use with a single provider?
> (AT&T.) It's not sold as an iPod, or Wi-Fi web tablet.
>

Really? The ads I watched sure as heck highlighted the iPod ("best iPod
ever") and Wi-Fi features (the speeds in the ads are not possible with
Edge).


> It's sold as a phone, with the magic words "two-year contract REQUIRED"
> in all the ads.

A reasonable person might expect that if the device is not under contract
that no non-911 phone functions would work. But to not be able to use it for
music or WiFi Web browsing--especially when paying $500-$600 for the
device--doesn't seem fair in my book.


> What possible reason, prey tell, could the FTC have to complain?

See above (hack noted, but don't think it should be required).



> Should
> they complain that a DirecTV satellite receiver can't receive free over-
> the-air broadcast TV?

If I bought a combo receiver that did both OTA and sat I sure the heck
wouldn't expect the OTA functions to cease in the absence of a sat
subscription.


--
Mike