Unauthorized Unlocking of New Mobile Phones Set to Become Illegal in U.S.

[Chupa Chupa]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

As noted by Tech News Daily, a new federal policy in the United States is set to go into effect this Saturday that will make it illegal for certain mobile phone owners to unlock their devices for use on other carriers unless specifically authorized by their carriers.

Maybe the editors should put quotation marks around "owners," because that's basically what the LOC and Congress have done here. What a joke. A sad, unfunny one, but still demonstrations what lackey elected buffoons we have (and that includes choice members of all represented parties, so 100% non-partisan).

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by jay_app

This is what a massive, extremely powerful federal government looks like

Hahahah. You're kidding right? Actually, This is what massive, extremely powerful corporations look like.

[coolspot18]

Originally Posted by PowerPCMacMan

The USA under the current Communist regime has no right to take our freedoms away.. Who cares if one wants to unlock their own phone for use on another carrier. I say its time for the people to stand up and revolt against this new law.. We need to mobilize massive protests against this decision by our government.

If the United States were a socialist country, locking would be discouraged, or in fact outlawed (i.e. serveral European countries have rules with SIM locking) since it benefits the people.

Preventing unlocking benefits the large telcos and therefore is more of a conservative/Republican policy.

So your assertion the United States is becoming a communist country is quite contrary to this article.

[shoulin333]

Should have voted Romney

[Diode]

Originally Posted by Dwalls90

Just what the competitive telco landscape needs in the USA

/Sacrasm

I'm sure the US teleco lobbyist had a say in the Library of Congress changing their mind on such a thing.

Still don't understand why a library is in control of unlocking phones though....

That's government for you.

[andiwm2003]

Originally Posted by BasicGreatGuy

If one buys a phone and signs up for service, one is bound by the terms of the agreement or contract. The same applies to the service provider.

Unless otherwise stipulated in the terms of service amongst any of the service providers, none are required or obligated to provide service on their network, or any other network, to a person with an unlocked phone.

It appears, that many here want the various providers to be required by law to get them that ability, in difference to any service or contractual agreement to provide service in the first place.

No, the point is that the government steps in an makes it a crime while it should only be a breach of contract and civil matter in a civil court. like not paying your newspaper subscription.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Jason Garza

I wish mobile phones were looked at like computers, you go buy your computer and then call up which ever ISP that you want that offers service in your area. I started to write I don't understand why it isn't this way, but then it hit me GREED.

it *IS* that way. Just buy an unlocked phone and go wherever you want.

-t

[Diode]

Originally Posted by coolspot18

If it were a socialist country, locking would be discouraged, or in fact outlawed (i.e. serveral European countries have rules with SIM locking) since it benefits the people.

Preventing unlocking benefits the large telcos and therefore is more of a conservative/Republican policy.

So your assertion the United States is becoming a communist country is quite contrary to this article.

When private corporations gets government to restrict something it's called crony capitalism. Don't pin it on any party as both partake in the matter.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by wxman2003

True in the sense of "Rights" but not in the sense of freedom.

As I said earlier, people are still free to enter into a service contract (whatever it may be).

What people do not have the freedom or the "right" to do, is stealing intellectual or property rights from the provider of service for the phone.

Contract Law.

[coolspot18]

Originally Posted by Daremo

I'm 41, and I to remember a better time as well. As a kid, things were much different. Mom stayed home to raise the kids, while dad's salary was enough to support a family of 4, and we never went without. Times are VERY different now. Too much struggle, and too much government control.

Sorry, but your government has been bought by the corporations and lobbyists of America.

[pika2000]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

Buy unlocked, then. That's why they sell them.

Really? Does Samsung sell unlocked phones in the US officially? No. Samsung US even explicitly stated they do not support unlocked phones. Does HTC sell unlocked phones in the US officially? No. LG? No.

Those "unlocked" phones in Amazon are mostly imported by resellers.

Apple, Sony, and Google are the exception.

[coolfactor]

Sounds like this decision is based on this clause:

CTIA alleged that the industry has been plagued by ``large
scale phone trafficking operations'' that buy large quantities of pre-
paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets where
carriers do not subsidize handsets.

Not to punish paying customers.

[pika2000]

Originally Posted by coolfactor

Sounds like this decision is based on this clause:

Not to punish paying customers.

Yet the ones punished are actual customers in the US as unlockers overseas couldn't care less about US law.

[Dwalls90]

Originally Posted by Diode

I'm sure the US teleco lobbyist had a say in the Library of Congress changing their mind on such a thing.

Still don't understand why a library is in control of unlocking phones though....

That's government for you.

Correction: That's the United States for you.

[blesscheese]

Originally Posted by shoulin333

Should have voted Romney

Huh?

You need Wikipedia as your friend...look up DMCA there.

BTW, why is anybody surprised? You already didn't own your PS3, now you don't own anything that has any copyright circumvention measures...

"Sony v. George Hotz
Main article: Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz

In January 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment sued George Hotz over violating the Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the Federal Fraud and Abuse Act due to facilitating consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation 3 consoles.[22] Hotz argued that because he had purchased the product, he had the right to do with it as he pleased. After three months, Sony and Hotz decided to settle out of court. This also included an injunction against George Hotz, barring him from hacking any more Sony products.[23][24]"

Also, not to get off on a rant here...but there is a reason why HSBC, after breaking numerous laws that lead to the deaths of numerous people and enabled terrorist groups and drug lords to launder money, is getting off with a slap on the wrist and individuals like Aaron Swartz get persecuted and driven to suicide...

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by mrsir2009

And what's the penalty? Because the law only means anything if it's enforced and has consequences.

(a) In General. — Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain —

(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and

(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

[B2k1977]

Originally Posted by applesith

More government in our lives, isn't this what people like nowadays?

Yes it's exactly what they want. Liberty is done, now we are all apparently stupid and the gubmint knows what's best for us. Silly citizen! Oh Nanny Government! Feed Me, clothe me, tell me what size sodas I should be consuming and tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy and for goodness sake, please tell me what I should do with a device I paid for!

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by Moshe1010

You can unlock your device for $3-4 on eBay, and you don't need AT&T or other company to do it. It's 100% legit (probably inside job), and the best thing is that it works.

It is not 100% legit. Indeed, it is 100% criminal.

[KdParker]

what is the real difference. Where any carriers unlocking new phones?

[pika2000]

Originally Posted by shoulin333

Should have voted Romney

What people should've voted for is a person that would repeal the DMCA.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by B2k1977

Yes it's exactly what they want. Liberty is done, now we are all apparently stupid and the gubmint knows what's best for us. Silly citizen! Oh Nanny Government! Feed Me, clothe me, tell me what size sodas I should be consuming and tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy and for goodness sake, please tell me what I should do with a device I paid for!

Just because you purchase a device, that does not mean you "own" the intellectual property therein. And as such, can use said device in any form or fashion.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by itsmeok

I strongly believe it is very unfair on carrier's part to have the same monthly plans for people who are in contracts and for people who end up buying unlocked. If they are adding the price of subsidized phones in the monthly plan, people with unlocked phones should have a reduced price plan that does not include the phone price.

Absolutely. Agree 100%

Originally Posted by pika2000

Really? Does Samsung sell unlocked phones in the US officially? No. Samsung US even explicitly stated they do not support unlocked phones. Does HTC sell unlocked phones in the US officially? No. LG? No.

Those "unlocked" phones in Amazon are mostly imported by resellers.

Apple, Sony, and Google are the exception.

Sounds to me like Samsung, HTC, and LG are missing an opportunity, then. Maybe they'll change their minds soon.

[yg17]

Originally Posted by shoulin333

Should have voted Romney

More like should have voted for Mondale since the Librarian of Congress who made up this regulation was appointed by Reagan in 1987.

[senseless]

I'm a little unclear on this. Does this new law mean you can NEVER have your phone unlocked, even out of contract?

[TPadden]

About 25-30 years ago these same arguments were put forth by those desiring free premium cable TV channels, then 20 years ago satellite programmers were abundant ....... All have subsequently been found to be making illegal modifications to their hardware or software and/or violating their contracts.

Move on, nothing to see here ........