Unlocking Of Smartphones Illegal As Of Tomorrow

jober1 said:
I think it's only fair that part of this law should require carriers to offer an unlocked version at a non-subsidized price. Law makers don't seem too interested in protecting the consumer nowadays, big businesses just have too many lobbyists I guess.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was referring to in my earlier comment. The terms of my contract do not allow me to buy a subsidized phone, but I still get a carrier lock even when spending 500-800$ for a device. Regardless the federal government should not be fucking with software or hardware legislation. The DMCA is right up there with the Patriot Act, etc.
 
jober1 said:
I think it's only fair that part of this law should require carriers to offer an unlocked version at a non-subsidized price. Law makers don't seem too interested in protecting the consumer nowadays, big businesses just have too many lobbyists I guess.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the question is does owning a particular smartphone count as a basic right ... I don't think it does ... there are unlocked phones available (although they might not be the model you specifically wanted) ... you always have the choice to buy one of those or wait for a future unlocked phone ;)

other than international roaming restrictions (which is probably what the companies most care about with this rule change) the only other impact would be that we will return to carrier exclusive phones (for certain models) ... something we had previously

the carrier specific models won't affect all models (since it would be too expensive for the carrier) but will allow the US carriers to differentiate from each other now that they are all going to 4G ... general phones like the iPhone and Galaxy will likely continue to be available to all carriers but smaller or more targeted models might switch to carrier exclusives again
 
Clearly, i am screwed. I travel a lot and I bring my phone with me. Soon I must break the law to swap a SIM card for the trip.

On second thought, good luck on their "bait and switch" phone selling tactics. Eventually, some smart carriers will come up with selling unlocked phone at the same price.

Those who believe this sounded perfectly fine, consider yourself buying a car, and then realize that the dealer put locks upon air filter and engine oil cap without giving you the key and you must return to the dealer for oil change.

I'm not sure what is the joke anymore.:mad:
 
Robstar said:
Who buys locked smartphones?

I mean, really?
Click to expand...

99% of the people who have them in the US.

Assuming that the unlocked Nexuses even account for 1%, if not... I rounded up.

Every smartphone sold by every carrier, contract or not, is locked by default.

Just because you think you know better about buying locked smartphones doesn't give you a free pass on your ignorance regarding the reality of how smartphones are still largely sold in this country.
 
honestly it makes sense, just make it plain and clear that in the end of the contract you are free to do anything you want with the unit.
 
dyzophoria said:
honestly it makes sense, just make it plain and clear that in the end of the contract you are free to do anything you want with the unit.
Click to expand...

Do they need to put that in the contract since the law kinda already says that? Even if the contract said you couldn't do anything to the phone after the terms of the contract are over, that'd be impossible to enforce since contract terms only apply during the time the contract is in effect. It'd be redundant.
 
Steve said:
Just a little memory refresher for those of you that might have forgotten, unlocking your smartphone becomes illegal tomorrow. Thanks to everyone that sent in reminders.
Click to expand...

I don't recognize the state's authority in these matters. Even that piece of paper called the "Constitution" states that the legislature makes laws and not the librarian of congress.

This is a civil matter. Criminalizing a breach of contract only demonstrates who the state truly works for.
 
techrat said:
99% of the people who have them in the US.

Assuming that the unlocked Nexuses even account for 1%, if not... I rounded up.

Every smartphone sold by every carrier, contract or not, is locked by default.

Just because you think you know better about buying locked smartphones doesn't give you a free pass on your ignorance regarding the reality of how smartphones are still largely sold in this country.
Click to expand...

Sounds like 98% of the population is uninformed. I don't buy any carrier branded phone because they are neutered, customized and have crap/spyware on them beyond belief. I can't figure out why anyone buys them.....

The Galaxy S3 locked is only dual core. The carrier-free version is quad-core. Why do people put up with crap like that?
 
Robstar said:
Sounds like 98% of the population is uninformed. I don't buy any carrier branded phone because they are neutered, customized and have crap/spyware on them beyond belief. I can't figure out why anyone buys them.....

The Galaxy S3 locked is only dual core. The carrier-free version is quad-core. Why do people put up with crap like that?
Click to expand...

All cell phones are spyware and surveillance devices, regardless of where you purchased them from. The second you activate it on a cell network, the state and the cell phone company have the ability to remotely activate it and listen in on you.
 
damicatz said:
All cell phones are spyware and surveillance devices, regardless of where you purchased them from. The second you activate it on a cell network, the state and the cell phone company have the ability to remotely activate it and listen in on you.
Click to expand...

That has NOTHING to do with the cellphone. It has everything to do with the network your calls travel across.

Same with ip packets. Anyone controlling a gateway between you & a remote site can look at your packets unless they are encrypted (and possibly even then as well)
 
damicatz said:
All cell phones are spyware and surveillance devices, regardless of where you purchased them from. The second you activate it on a cell network, the state and the cell phone company have the ability to remotely activate it and listen in on you.
Click to expand...

tin-foil-hat.jpg


:p
 
Its a slippery slope and it is a big deal to me. Pretty sick, but it goes to show you that ignorant consumers will let anything pass. Our nation is ran by idiots, democrat, republican or otherwise.

Second its not fair in any way, if you dont finish the contract you have to pay the ETF which pays for the rest of the phone. They sure dont lose any money.
 
Here's my question is it really a smart phone or is it an advanced personal computer with mic and speaker? If we redefine what the personal computer is to include the so called "smart phone" then technically it isn't a phone but a highly advanced computer.

What do you guy's thing?
 
bmellis1984 said:
Here's my question is it really a smart phone or is it an advanced personal computer with mic and speaker? If we redefine what the personal computer is to include the so called "smart phone" then technically it isn't a phone but a highly advanced computer.

What do you guy's thing?
Click to expand...

I "thing" you're trying too hard to sound like you're saying something intelligent.

It's classified as a smartphone because its primary function is cellular services.
 
jmilcher said:
A bad esn handset can be reflashed, and I see why that is an issue. But you have to have a good ESN from another inactive phone to reflash to.

But yea people buy them all the time and turn around and sell them a week later. $500 phone cost them $50 lol
Click to expand...

You fail to grasp why this market exists. You have to do NOTHING. There are plenty of prepaid carriers out there that will flash the damn thing for you. MetroPCS being the biggest offenders. Take any GSM phone grab a $2 sim unlock for your model off ebay and you're good to go to any carrier that supports your radio in that phone.

The market of scamming/stealing subsidized phones for these uses is huge. I really dont see why so many are getting their panties in a twist over this. You buy a subsidized phone you are doing so at a steep discount that the company pays for because they expect to make it back through the service. You dont pay or end your contract in a positive way why do you think you can just skip off with the phone they paid 3/4 for and jump to another carrier?

Personally i would rather see the whole idea of subsidized phones vanish and let us do what we want but americans are stupid as hell about cell phones and if they saw they had to pay more than $200 for a phone would flip out.
 
ShamisOMally said:
So.....just buy the fucking phone without a plan....unlock it all you want

I fail to see the problem in this, if its a subsidized phone plan, play by their rules

I can't say, take a lease out on a truck and then modify the shit out of it, that's also against the contracts terms of service.
Click to expand...

Stop saying it's a subsidized phone.

It's not.

The carrier is loaning you the money for the phone.

First, if you cancal early you pay an ETF which basically pays off the device.

Second, if you complete to term, they still make a killing, since their rates are outrageous.

As an example:

Currently I'm a StraightTalk customer, I pay $130 per quarter, including taxes ($43.33 per mo.). for unlimited talk text and data. I paid $449 for a iPhone 4S a while back. Over 2 years (I've been on them for 7 months now) I will pay $1489. My phone actually uses AT&Ts network.

For comparison,AT&T charges $99 for the phone, but they also charge $69.99 for unlimited talk and text, plus another $30 for 3GB data (the lowest data they offer for a smartphone), so $99.99 per month as a service fee. Total cost over two years: $2498.76. Oh, add on taxes and bullcrap "wireless fees" as well to the tune of another easy $5+ per month too.

We are talking the same towers since ST uses AT&Ts towers. The service is literally the same as AT&Ts own service, yet over 2 years buying it from AT&T directly will cost you at least $1000 more out of your pocket.
 
The phone is subsidized whether you agree or not. The smutty prices at AT&T are a whole different matter. Btw even did straight talk start using AT&T? I thought they where T-Mobile and Verizon depending on the city.
 
I see no reason the government has to stick their nose in this sort of thing.

If company X wants to lock down their phones, let them! If company Y doesn't care about locked vs. unlocked, let them.

Every program the government touches turns to crap. Why would anyone think this law, or any other law coming out of Washington will do any long term good for this country?
 
collegeboy69us said:
Every program the government touches turns to crap (benefits the few-rich, at the expense of the poor-middle class, that's normal procedure). Why would anyone think this law, or any other law coming out of Washington will do any long term good for this country? (It does exactly its intended purpose though...additional profit for the ones seeking its implementation)
Click to expand...

It increases profits for the people that lobbied for it, simple really, they paid for it, not enough people cared/complained, it was happily accomplished. Perfect example of a properly functioning polyarchy....I mean sold to the highest dollar government. Anyone thinking the US GOV is a democracy or was even supposed to be upon inception in the first place is mistaken IMO (IMO).

Ground up renovation* is a necessity OR complete global governance is inevitable IMO (IMO). One or the other (but we won't have both) and the worlds the stage.
Game on, play ball! :eek::(:confused::eek::mad::rolleyes:;):D:):cool::p

Note: This wasn't debating collegeboy69us, just self-ranting really.
 
And here in bananaland it's forbidden to sell anyone a *locked* phone. If they go ahead and do it anyway, they have to unlock it for you free of charge.

And no, carriers are not going bankrupt because of that. They're selling millions and millions as usual, and everyone is happy. Most people pay upfront and keep the freedom of going to another carrier if they want, keeping their phone numbers and all.
 
...but still many carriers lock you on *with a contract*. The phone itself is not locked at all. If you want to put the chip on another phone and use the new shiny phone on another carrier, no issues. Only if you break the contract you'll pay a fee.
 
kbrickley said:
this is a no brainer ... if you don't want restrictions on unlocking your phone then pony up the bucks for an unlocked phone and go month to month with the carrier ... if you want your carrier to pick up 2/3 of the price of your phone then there might be a few strings attached to that arrangement :cool:
Click to expand...

That will not work with my carrier. (US Cellular). They will only activate a phone if it is one they sell or have sold. If you want cell service in our area you only have one choice, USCellular.

The thing that needs to change is the CDMA strangle hold these companies have on the market in the US.
 
Is unlocking still allowed for unsubsidized phones which were not sold as unlocked, but are not bound to a contract? (I hope that makes sense, even though it sounds like a circle.)
 
Now anyone who unlocks their personally paid for phone will be labeled a hacker by the media.

Its like saying if you buy a ford, you have to use only BP gas stations...
Bull...
 
It isn't hard to foresee upcoming class lawsuit forcing carriers and phone makers on locking phones at the first place. By default, phone has no locks, and carriers never told customers about the lock until the moment consumers pops in another SIM card. Shall they insist to lock their phones, than not only they will have to face lots of price fixing related lawsuits, but also false advertisement as their products have missing features (If it support SIM card, then it should support SIM cards from any carriers. If not, then they have t o clearly state that in their ads.) If consumers have to go to jail just to claim back features that was advertised, then carrier must bare the legal responsibility at its maximum penalty on their ill act. Consumer didn't steal anything off carrier, but carrier stole features that is rightfully belongs to the consumer that possesses the phone!

The whole thing started with the locks on copy righted materials and how hackers use unlocking phone as a defense in court, but unlocking a phone has absolutely nothing to do with copyrighted materials! The SIM card lock is not there to protect copyrighted materials but because carriers CAN put a lock there along with programs/wares/apps that consumers don't need. Who granted them the right to do that? If they can put a lock on SIM card and it will be illegal to remove it, then they can put a lock on any programs/wares/apps that they like on the phone and it will be illegal to remove them. In fact, they can put a lock on the OS and since it will be illegal to upgrade the OS, consumer will have to buy a new phone for the new OS in the future. This is outrages!

To use a carrier's service, consumers need to pay, and unlocking the phone does not change that. In fact, people unlock their phone so that they can pay carriers that provides the service. To be specific, people can choose which carriers that provides the service with their phone. Some say they lock the phone so they can sell the phone at a discount, but that is not what carriers told customers on their ads. They simply say you will get a phone with a contract, not a phone that only works with the carrier as well as a contract. Shall customers choose to terminate the contract prematurely, they will need to pay a lump sum which offsets the cost of the phone along other costs. This is a clear agreement between carriers and consumers. Unfortunately, this agreement mentions nothing about the lock. Go into any carriers website on their about their phones and see if there is a clause saying that the phone can only be used with that carrier. There are NONE. It is not mentioned, not even indications. Yet, it is illegal to modify the phone to work around a hidden feature that is injected into the phone that prevents the phone, that is owned by consumers, from its actual potential.
 
serious said:
It isn't hard to foresee upcoming class lawsuit forcing carriers and phone makers on locking phones at the first place. By default, phone has no locks, and carriers never told customers about the lock until the moment consumers pops in another SIM card. Shall they insist to lock their phones, than not only they will have to face lots of price fixing related lawsuits, but also false advertisement as their products have missing features (If it support SIM card, then it should support SIM cards from any carriers. If not, then they have t o clearly state that in their ads.) If consumers have to go to jail just to claim back features that was advertised, then carrier must bare the legal responsibility at its maximum penalty on their ill act. Consumer didn't steal anything off carrier, but carrier stole features that is rightfully belongs to the consumer that possesses the phone!

The whole thing started with the locks on copy righted materials and how hackers use unlocking phone as a defense in court, but unlocking a phone has absolutely nothing to do with copyrighted materials! The SIM card lock is not there to protect copyrighted materials but because carriers CAN put a lock there along with programs/wares/apps that consumers don't need. Who granted them the right to do that? If they can put a lock on SIM card and it will be illegal to remove it, then they can put a lock on any programs/wares/apps that they like on the phone and it will be illegal to remove them. In fact, they can put a lock on the OS and since it will be illegal to upgrade the OS, consumer will have to buy a new phone for the new OS in the future. This is outrages!

To use a carrier's service, consumers need to pay, and unlocking the phone does not change that. In fact, people unlock their phone so that they can pay carriers that provides the service. To be specific, people can choose which carriers that provides the service with their phone. Some say they lock the phone so they can sell the phone at a discount, but that is not what carriers told customers on their ads. They simply say you will get a phone with a contract, not a phone that only works with the carrier as well as a contract. Shall customers choose to terminate the contract prematurely, they will need to pay a lump sum which offsets the cost of the phone along other costs. This is a clear agreement between carriers and consumers. Unfortunately, this agreement mentions nothing about the lock. Go into any carriers website on their about their phones and see if there is a clause saying that the phone can only be used with that carrier. There are NONE. It is not mentioned, not even indications. Yet, it is illegal to modify the phone to work around a hidden feature that is injected into the phone that prevents the phone, that is owned by consumers, from its actual potential.
Click to expand...

It is too early to tell if Congress will step in and change the law or not, but given the dysfunctional nature of both parties it is probably unlikely. The thing that seems to have precipitated this change is something even more controversial, that the EULA constitutes a software license and not a sale ... that was the rationale given for why the Librarian of Congress made this change. As I noted earlier I think the more likely usage of this restriction is to prevent travelers from replacing SIM cards while overseas and to allow for carrier specific phone models again. Once all four major USA carriers are all on LTE there won't be much to prevent movement from one carrier to another (like there is now with the CDMA and GSM restrictions) and the carrier specific phone models with locks would prevent easy movement. Considering that the vast number of phone users never swap out a SIM card I doubt this is going to become a major issue (although it likely should).

The best solution to this is that we should get rid of subsidized phones completely. We should also allow the carriers to restrict certain phones to their network specifically (if they feel that helps their competitive landscape). With that business model you could buy from a selection of general purpose unlocked phones you could use with any carrier or you could choose from one of the carrier specific models (the carrier could provide a discount if they so wish). Both phone models could be sold without contract restrictions (although the carrier specific phone could only be used on that carrier's network). The carriers could then offer higher priced fees for non-contract users and discount fees for users who wish to sign longer term contracts. This is how the system works for other rentals (if I want to rent my apartment month to month I pay more than if I am willing to sign a lease). Maybe this change will force the shift to the much more effective business model.
 
kbrickley said:
It is too early to tell if Congress will step in and change the law or not, but given the dysfunctional nature of both parties it is probably unlikely. The thing that seems to have precipitated this change is something even more controversial, that the EULA constitutes a software license and not a sale ... that was the rationale given for why the Librarian of Congress made this change. As I noted earlier I think the more likely usage of this restriction is to prevent travelers from replacing SIM cards while overseas and to allow for carrier specific phone models again. Once all four major USA carriers are all on LTE there won't be much to prevent movement from one carrier to another (like there is now with the CDMA and GSM restrictions) and the carrier specific phone models with locks would prevent easy movement. Considering that the vast number of phone users never swap out a SIM card I doubt this is going to become a major issue (although it likely should).

The best solution to this is that we should get rid of subsidized phones completely. We should also allow the carriers to restrict certain phones to their network specifically (if they feel that helps their competitive landscape). With that business model you could buy from a selection of general purpose unlocked phones you could use with any carrier or you could choose from one of the carrier specific models (the carrier could provide a discount if they so wish). Both phone models could be sold without contract restrictions (although the carrier specific phone could only be used on that carrier's network). The carriers could then offer higher priced fees for non-contract users and discount fees for users who wish to sign longer term contracts. This is how the system works for other rentals (if I want to rent my apartment month to month I pay more than if I am willing to sign a lease). Maybe this change will force the shift to the much more effective business model.
Click to expand...

I more or less agree to what you are saying, but at the same time I believe you too see the shady side of this "unlocking your phone is illegal" topic.

Carrier can choose to provide services on selected phones, or specific settings of phones (I don't know why, but they can.) If they choose to sell customized phones that only works with their service, that is also fine, but they need to inform customers about it, very clearly. This is not what happens now. If I buy a phone today, paid in full, and choose to unlock it, then I am violating the law, regardless of which carrier I am paying for the service. Please excuse me language, but WTF? This make no sense at all!

Carriers never give any discount on what phone you use, but offer a phone with its blood sucking 3 year contracts using the same plan. How? You are stuck with its selected data and voice plan with a smart phone for the duration of the contract. This is clear. What is not clear is that the offered phone is technically not yours.

I have no problem signing a 3 year contract at a discounted price or a fixed price, but that is not an option. The option that we thought we have is signing a 3 year contract and they offer us a phone with a discounted price, but the truth is, people have signed up with a 3 year contract and they offered us a LOCKED phone that you will be ended up in jails if you try to unlock it! Is this "bait and switch" or "fraud"? I don't know. What I know is, carriers can get away from it legally, and owners of the phone is said to be violating the law to unlock the phone that they own.

Say you brought a house and the rooms are locked when you move in and the previous owner. Does it make sense to put you in jail because you unlocked your rooms that were locked by the previous owner? Say you brought a car and the air filter is locked by the dealer. Does it make sense to put you in jail because you unlocked the air filter of your car that were locked by dealers? Say you brought a phone and the phone cease to work as soon as you pop in a new SIM card. Does it make sense to put you in jail because you unlocked the sim card of your phone were locked by carriers? In my books, these don't make sense.
 
serious said:
I more or less agree to what you are saying, but at the same time I believe you too see the shady side of this "unlocking your phone is illegal" topic.

Carrier can choose to provide services on selected phones, or specific settings of phones (I don't know why, but they can.) If they choose to sell customized phones that only works with their service, that is also fine, but they need to inform customers about it, very clearly. This is not what happens now. If I buy a phone today, paid in full, and choose to unlock it, then I am violating the law, regardless of which carrier I am paying for the service. Please excuse me language, but WTF? This make no sense at all!

Carriers never give any discount on what phone you use, but offer a phone with its blood sucking 3 year contracts using the same plan. How? You are stuck with its selected data and voice plan with a smart phone for the duration of the contract. This is clear. What is not clear is that the offered phone is technically not yours.

I have no problem signing a 3 year contract at a discounted price or a fixed price, but that is not an option. The option that we thought we have is signing a 3 year contract and they offer us a phone with a discounted price, but the truth is, people have signed up with a 3 year contract and they offered us a LOCKED phone that you will be ended up in jails if you try to unlock it! Is this "bait and switch" or "fraud"? I don't know. What I know is, carriers can get away from it legally, and owners of the phone is said to be violating the law to unlock the phone that they own.

Say you brought a house and the rooms are locked when you move in and the previous owner. Does it make sense to put you in jail because you unlocked your rooms that were locked by the previous owner? Say you brought a car and the air filter is locked by the dealer. Does it make sense to put you in jail because you unlocked the air filter of your car that were locked by dealers? Say you brought a phone and the phone cease to work as soon as you pop in a new SIM card. Does it make sense to put you in jail because you unlocked the sim card of your phone were locked by carriers? In my books, these don't make sense.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with the new policy, just that I understood the rationale that was used to justify it ;) ... also, jail in this case is a misnomer ... unless you were selling software that allowed others to unlock their phones or some other type of violation like that, the carrier would fine you and drop you most likely ... if you chose not to pay the fine your credit rating would go in the toilet but you would be unlikely to go to jail ... this is more of a money grab and border defense by the carriers and sending people to jail wouldn't work to their advantage ... I could be wrong but that is how I see it playing out

However, if you tried to be a social hacker and make it easier for others to violate their new rules, then in that situation they might find ways to threaten that type of person with expensive prosecution, including jail time ... I doubt they would want to pursue individuals though when the fine them and drop them is so much easier (and savaging your credit rating makes it harder for you to go to their competitors anyway so it is really a win-win for them)

I agree that their existing rating structures don't do what I was proposing, I was suggesting that is what they should do ... of course, that and $5 will buy me a cup of coffee :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top