White House Petition Lobbies to Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal

[i.mac]

Originally Posted by shanmugam

Govt cares about the Corporation. they do not care about people!. what is new?

I disagree.

Politics out of this forum?

I could, for example, presume you to be a tea party zealot, but I could be wrong...

[kalsta]

Originally Posted by Lancer

On top of that we get to keep our phone number even at the new provider, I've had mine for about 15 years with a number of phone and 2 providers.

Indeed—it's been at least 5 providers for me over that time (some of them just resellers). Does it not work that way in the US?

[Bubba Satori]

Steve wouldn't sign it.
Think of your Karma and Steve's ashes when you do sign it.

[likemyorbs]

Getting close. Over 90,000 now!

[inlinevolvo]

I signed it!

[TallManNY]

Originally Posted by bilboa

The thing is that the contract and phone locking are two separate things. I think it's completely reasonable for companies to offer subsidized phones in exchange for a contract which binds you to 2 years of service or a large early termination fee. However, I don't think they should be allowed to lock the phones to a particular carrier and legally prevent users from unlocking their phones.

Fair enough, they are two different things. But they also go to the same point, the force the owner of the phone to use their service. AT&T is not likely to sue you if you break the $100 per month contract. Are they going to hire a lawyer and bring you to court because you owe them $2,000? But the locking of the phone means you can't easily use the phone elsewhere, so that pushes you to remain their customer. If the phone is lost or stolen, it also is more likely to remain a revenue source. And it is less likely that you will take the subsidized phone overseas as well. They certainly aren't pursuing you to another country with a contract breach claim.

The contract is basically a loan from the carrier to you which you payoff with the contract. The locking of the phone is a form security or impediment to fraud for the carrier. It also becomes a revenue source if they don't allow you to unlock even if your contract is up. I unlocked my AT&T iPhone 4 at the end of my contract, and now it is used by my Mom on T-Mobile for a $50 voice and data plan. AT&T would have made more money if they hadn't allowed the unlock.

Just to clarify, I'm not supporting this lock feature. I think it is bad for consumers. But as consumers we are struggling to make this go away. I think it would be better if Congress prohibited the sale of locked cell phones. All phones would have to be sold unlocked. Sure some prices might go up, but it would give the consumer more ultimate power. Or Congress could just get out of this area entirely and allow the market to do its thing.

[tongxinshe]

Originally Posted by dusk007

I don't get why need it to be illegal. They could just make the contract exit so expensive that it isn't worth it. You gradually pay off the phone and if you exit in the first few month you pay extra or hand the hardware back.

It is done already they don't need to criminalize anything. In any case I doubt the ban would deter anyone anyway. In some european contracts it is said to be illegal and nobody cares. If it is possible, people end up doing it.

You are still sounding that unlocking is for the convenience of ending the contract. No, it’s NOT! It’s for using other services on specific occasions, without stopping the long term contract.

[TallManNY]

Originally Posted by Daalseth

At least up here when I checked into it phones were locked whether they were subsidized or not. Before I gave up getting one I talked to the carriers up here. They would sell me a phone outright and then go pay as you go without a subsidy, but the phone would still be locked to their service. The example I gave before was if I bought an unlocked phone from Apple and brought it in. They would let me go month to month but insisted on locking my own personal phone to their network. YMMV in other countries.

Hmmm, I am not familiar with that. T-Mobile did not lock my unlocked AT&T iPhone 4 when I gave it to my Mom to use. I'm in the US.

[leon44]

Originally Posted by AppleMark

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin.

This was a quote that interested me when the Patriot act was passed. However it works with all aspects of pseudo freedom.

Wow, I'm really glad I'm not American otherwise I fear I would've been taught this philosophy at school and started to actually believe that its a moral or good way to live as a society

[damir00]

I don't really have a problem with this restriction...if you want an unlocked phone, buy an unlocked phone, there are plenty available.

[tongxinshe]

Originally Posted by TallManNY

No. A locked phone is like buying a car from a dealer for 1/3 of the cost you expected, with a requirement that you buy their tire and gas. You got the upfront savings by buying the subsidized phone. The long term contract and locked up feature of the phone you bought is part of the deal.

The problem is that is basically a pretty bad deal for consumers. So Congress really shouldn't be making things easier for cell phone companies and they shouldn't be making a law making unlocking illegal. However, you have to acknowledge that at least initially when you get that cheap subsidized phone, that you owe something to cell phone company for that.

Unlocking doesn’t mean to not pay the service fee, but to allow me use other services when the first service is virtually unavailable.

[BenderRodriguez]

so currently if you buy this can the government come after you?

this URL is in the Original Post
http://www.cell-unlock.com

[leon44]

Originally Posted by Ubele

Well, there's the ideal, and then there's the imperfect reality. There's also the fact that people have differing notions as to what constitutes "freedom" – i.e., when my freedom to do one thing interferes with another person's freedom to do something else, whose freedom takes priority? Is the UK not full of complexities and contradictions, too?

As for the issue at hand, I think I should have the freedom to unlock a phone I've paid for, as long as I pay for my two-year contract with the carrier.

There's not like a biblical style quotable constitution so theres not really the same level of fundamental contradiction no.
I think to be able to trust your government to do what's best and safest for you is actually really important.

[winston1236]

Originally Posted by leon44

I'll never understand America and its 'freedom'

You're free to never get away from your private student loans, your phone carrier, and to do as you're told.

[mytakeontech]

Originally Posted by leon44

I'll never understand America and its 'freedom'

Tell me about it! I never understood why that ruling was supported in first place? I can't believe such things happens in US where it is common sense to not to do so. I am sure telecom lobby has paid hefty amount to get this passed and they thought no one will know.

This is beyond belief and scary trend.

[tongxinshe]

Originally Posted by Jamo12

Lol I totally agree that their business models suck. That's why I said petition the businesses to go and fix it. It's not the governments job to run other people's businesses. Let the market sort it out

That’s why the government should have not said “it’s illegal to unlock the phone” at the first place. If that is meant by the 2-year contract, the carrier could clearly list it in the contract terms, instead of trying to trap the customers like how it happened now.

[cclloyd]

Originally Posted by leon44

I'll never understand America and its 'freedom'

That's why I want something like what happened in V for Vendetta to happen to this country.

[iEvolution]

Originally Posted by Lesser Evets

Aw. So cute... does anyone believe these "petitions" are going anywhere aside from in the trash?

Yeah heaven forbid someone takes a stand even if it likely won't be successful. Its people like you that just sit there and accept it why the government is able to slowly strip rights away.

[SgtPepper12]

Do people in America actually believe that carriers selling a subsidized phone are giving their customers something for free? Like they are saving money by buying a subsidized phone?
Seriously, I don't understand this.

[lk400]

Originally Posted by baryon

This is exactly why I don't have a smartphone and won't have one anytime soon. I spend half of my year in one country and the other half in another. Am I meant to buy two phones, and pay for two contracts simultaneously? Something is seriously wrong with how this works.

If you have to force people to use your carrier by making it illegal to use other carriers, you are clearly a bad carrier to begin with.

Buy an unlocked one in the other country?

----------

Originally Posted by sza

If is petition gets approved, cell phone price will surge even with 2-year contract.

In other countries you can get a 64gb iphone 5 for free on a 2 year contract, with reasonable and affordable monthly rates. You pay a lot if you exit early, but you can unlock the phone at any time with a simple phone call. You are contractually bound to make the monthly payments, even if you lose the phone, sell it, use it on a different carrier etc. The telco gets their revenue stream (or a lump sum if you break contract), and your liberties aren't squashed. I don't see how simply unlocking the phone can (justifiably) affect cost.

Im not a US resident, so it doesnt affect me, but it is an interesting case study of how powerful the big US companies are.

[ArtOfWarfare]

Originally Posted by Lesser Evets

Aw. So cute... does anyone believe these "petitions" are going anywhere aside from in the trash?

Some of them get funny responses, like the proposal to build a Death Star.

[craznar]

Originally Posted by leon44

I'll never understand America and its 'freedom'

I'm somewhat confused - what if they make a smart phone that is also a weapon. Would that solve the problem?

After all - vehicles, phones, food are all regulated to hell in the land of the free, but weapons are sacred and untouchable ?

[Fatalbert]

Originally Posted by MultiMediaWill

Seriously it's just a phone. Doesn't the US government have better things to worry about?

Like NOT wasting money trying to outlaw cell phone unlocking? They should at least outlaw it when they aren't taking loans to pay for all this. On top of that, unlocking the phone should not be illegal anyway.

[blackhand1001]

Originally Posted by sza

If is petition gets approved, cell phone price will surge even with 2-year contract.

No it won't, there is still the contract and the early termination fee.

[Fatalbert]

Originally Posted by leon44

Wow, I'm really glad I'm not American otherwise I fear I would've been taught this philosophy at school and started to actually believe that its a moral or good way to live as a society

Haha, so true. American elementary school teaches you to worship the Founding Fathers and protect the right to bear all weapons of any kind. I know because I've been there.

----------

Originally Posted by saud0488

Seriously it's just two guys wanting the government to recognize their marriage. Doesn't the government have better things to worry about? Like poverty, world hunger, genocides, etc.

Yes they do, but they don't worry about it. Technically, supporting gay marriage would mean that you WANT the government to worry about it instead of ignoring it like they do now in some states.

Of course, this has become one of the biggest issues of any election now up there with more important things like wars and gun control. Who cares; just fix the @#$%ing ridiculous debt!

----------

Originally Posted by osaga

So many libertarians on MR... that explains a lot actually

Who cares honestly, no one is going to pay attention to the law regardless.

It would make acquiring unlocking tools more difficult because people are afraid to host illegal stuff. Have you ever tried downloading freeware not from the original source (typically an old version)? You have to get a torrent from some fishy site.

----------

Originally Posted by objc

If you've paid it off, it's yours. How is it that a telecom company can tell you what network you can use YOUR device with?

I know, it's like making jailbreaking or modifying your Mac illegal.

"Though cell phone unlocking is now illegal on an individual basis for phones purchased after January 26, 2013, users are still able to have phones unlocked through carriers."

This is what really struck me. I'm not some kind of libertarian or Tea Party nut who says this about most laws, but let's face it; this particular law is just the carriers pushing the government around.

Luckily, it won't affect me. I don't unlock my phone anyway.