Fully SIM Unlocked iPhones

[Black Belt]

There is a law called the Digital Millienium Copyright Act that was signed into law and it states that:


"`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service,
device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access
to a work protected under this title;

`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title; or

`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that
person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
protected under this title.

Technically since this is a software program designed to hack the Iphone it is in violation of this rule. So as i said this is definatly able to get shut down if the companies suing have enough money and legal know how to do so.

And you know that At$t does.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html

Full text of the law here

I am glad these group of people did what they did but they do not deserve money or compensation. If they offer this software for free then i would have no qualms with what they did but the way i see it what they are doing is breaking the hacker code and i hope they get burned

Not. This has nothing to do with locking phones. The ability to unlock phones is LEGAL and has been proven in court buddy. As far as the DMCA, it is criminal, a complete whoring for the MPAA who bought this and wrote it, and a contravention of our rights under the Copyright Act. It should be revoked and those who passed it should be investigated.

 

[JPark]

You'll get data charges for visual voicemail, and from what i've read the iphone "talks" to ATT via internet at least once a day. Honestly, the phone is so heavily tied to EDGE that until a hack arrives that allows you to toggle EDGE service off entirely I wouldn't go near the phone without unlimited data. And overages on a small data plan can run you several times what the unlimited plan costs.

Yipes. I hadn't realized you couldn't shut off access to EDGE on it. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[CameronT]

As been stated, the law prevents them from doing that. Legally, they can't stop you. Putting out a patch would be stopping you, and thus, illegal. If Apple or AT&T pulls that sort of crap, I hope someone sues them over it and gets them to stop.

Incorrect.

Basically - The wording of the DMCA could be interpreted as saying that it is illegal to bypass carrier locks. The Library of Congress came out with an exemption saying that this was specifically not a violation of the DCMA. Nothing says that the carrier has to allow you to unlock your phone - just that they can't sue you for doing so under the DMCA.

Nothing in the exemption prevents the carrier or manufacturer from upgrading the firmware to close this hole. Now - the legal question would be whether they could put out a firmware update to re-lock a phone that had already been unlocked - I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment on that.

However - there is nothing to stop them from closing this particular method down with a firmware update.

 

[bdj21ya]

I don´t see anything right about that !

(making reference to the Engadget article's statement that it was fair for the software's writers to seek compensation from those who wanted to make use of the unlocking app).

I can certainly understand why someone would post this, there are a lot of people with views I don't understand. What I don't really get is why the few who've posted this view haven't done anything to elaborate on why they feel this way. Are you a communist? Do you have some religous view against paying for software? Do you think it's just wrong for people to get paid for creating a service that others want?

When you're going to post something that flies in the face of the way the world generally works (you pay in some fashion to obtain things you want, or conversely, you are paid for producing something others want), it just adds a lot more to the conversation if you explain why.

 

[galganog]

(making reference to the Engadget article's statement that it was fair for the software's writers to seek compensation from those who wanted to make use of the unlocking app).

I can certainly understand why someone would post this, there are a lot of people with views I don't understand. What I don't really get is why the few who've posted this view haven't done anything to elaborate on why they feel this way. Are you a communist? Do you have some religous view against paying for software? Do you think it's just wrong for people to get paid for creating a service that others want?

When you're going to post something that flies in the face of the way the world generally works (you pay in some fashion to obtain things you want, or conversely, you are paid for producing something others want), it just adds a lot more to the conversation if you explain why.

This is a hack and by all definitions hacks should always be free.

If Apple made phone and said hey if well you just bought this 599 dollars of equippment and to use it with this network is free but if you want to use it with other networks pay us 50 dollars and we can unlock if for you most people would be up in arms over it.

This is like surfer serialz. Should we pay them for the serial numbers they post unlocking shareware for others to use.

They shouldn't make a product that skirts the legality of a contract for personel profit.

P.S.

Communism has nothing to do with it. And this has nothing to do with throwing anything back in the face of anyone. If you were a hacker you would understand why they do what they do and for what reasons. Profit is always usually never in most of their minds.

 

[Twinkie]

Not. This has nothing to do with locking phones. The ability to unlock phones is LEGAL and has been proven in court buddy.

I'd love for you to cite the case law on that.

There's a ton of misinformation that's being passed around about the legality of unlocking cell phones in the United States.

Unlocking a cell phone is not inherently illegal. However, reverse-engineering encryption or copy protection on a cell phone is most assuredly a violation of the DMCA. Thus, if the software has to break the copy protection or encryption of or on the embedded OS (be it OS X, Symbian, PalmOS, Windows Mobile, etc.) to unlock he phone, it is a violation. They are two distinct acts under the law.

This is the same reason that commercial DVD copying software isn't available in stores. (Copying a DVD for personal use is legal, breaking CSS to do it is not.)

 

[Stella]

Apple didn't let AT&T subsidize the iPhone, so we are assuming it is full price.

However, Apple could have knocked a few dollars of the price of the phone.. but given the analysis of components v price of the phone - that makes it unlikely.

You're assuming it's full price.
that's it exactly!

 

[Stella]

We should be free to criticize Apple and its policy - as well as give praise.

If you don't like the Apple/at&t contract, don't buy the phone. .

 

[filmgirl]

That sounds good. Can we get rid of the federal, state, and local taxes and fees tariffs and service surcharges, too?

Yeah, the existence of the FCC kind of prevents that.

And to add to what others have said - the US is not dominant or even close to dominant when it comes to mobile technology. Europe/Japan (and Japan uses a different system from GSM - they use DCDMA) have outpaced us for years and years and years. Why? From an infrastructure standpoint, it is harder to run phone lines in small European countries that have lots and lots of people per square mile. Unlike the US where you have tons of space to spread the copper, satellites and towers are the only way to do telephony on a large scale in Europe/Japan. Plus, the fact that landine phone companies don't have dominance has allowed cellular technology/standards to evolve and improve faster than in the US, where cellular advancement was deeply hammered by FCC rules/regulations because of lobbying pressure by the Baby Bells and other wired telephony companies. Of course, now that the Baby Bells have pretty much become two companies, AT&T and Verizon - and both are also dominant cellular providers, you don't see resistance - but the time spent resisting the cellular move put us years behind on an infrastructure level. The very fact that Sprint and Verizon are still using CDMA is asinine, both technologically and logistically (it's the largest standard worldwide) standpoint, but it is just too costly for them to convert their networks. AT&T/Cingular did that, but they were going from TDMA to GSM, which is based on TDMA, so it was much, much easier to convert the network -- not to mention all the money Sprint has wasted on 3G.

So, that was a little off topic - but in short, the US is far from being a leader or innovator in cellular technology.

 

[Starflyer]

A plan for what? Suing someone for doing something that is 100% legal and not a violation of the DMCA or any other law?

Did I say they were going to sue them? Im sure a little software update with a tempting new feature will take care of this.

 

[princealfie]

THE DMCA be abolished please.

 

[OhEsTen]

We should be free to criticize Apple and its policy - as well as give praise.

I agree that "freedom of criticism" is important - but to criticize for the sake of criticizing is just plain stupid. Some people think that to be truly objective requires that they find fault with everything and ultimately they end up very unhappy people.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

Much Ado about Nothing Much

As much as I like this idea, (I live in Canada so this is the only way I will ever get the iPhone), there sure are a lot of rabid uninformed statements being passed around about this topic today.

Those that are saying that it's perfectly legal to unlock a phone are absolutely right. The US is one of the few countries in the world that have *tried* to outlaw this practice, but current wisdom is that if a phone company took anyone to court over this they would certainly lose.

Those that are getting so incredibly excited of the prospects of this however are living in a dream world IMO. This is really no big deal and after the initial raping of the customers who line up for unlocking, I would suspect it will all settle down to a minimal part of the iPhone market. There are just far too many uncertainties here.

For starters, despite what the unlockers say, they could never guarantee that future updates won't interfere at least in part with this solution. Secondly, as many have pointed out, this could be a more expensive solution that just going with EDGE and AT&T. The service providers can tell what kind of phone you are accessing the network with, and if T-Mobile or anyone else starts to see iPhone users on the network, they can charge you accordingly. They will either charge you through the nose for data, or if they think they won't be sued, they might eventually create iPhone support plans that compete in price with AT&T. Then a price war ensues and AT&T costs goes down anyway. The normal users will end up paying the same as the hackers.

Apple is also purported to be releasing a cheaper iPhone within weeks as well as European iPhones for those in Europe anyway. So again the number of people that will truly need this service will be smaller and smaller as time goes by. Right now, the kind of person that is so desperately cheap as to want to do this and so infatuated with gizmos as to need to have an iPhone (that they really can't afford), is really the only core market here at the beginning.

Hillbillies will be buying cheap, possibly half broken iPhones on eBay, trying to use prepaid cell cards in them and running into all kinds of technical difficulties and huge data bills due to the confusion and their own incompetence. People this desperate always run into problems this way, and usually are too focussed on filling up the cart at WalMart or munching that fourth burger in the drive-through to realise that they are going to get a huge bill at the end of the month for all that browsing n the iPhone.

So what I see is rapid, rabid, drooling acceptance of this company's offering but followed fairly quickly with a lot of unhappy people who will wonder why they bothered to do this at all. A few exceptionally smart types will carefully reap some nice benefits, but in a year or two there will be so many iPhones supplied by so many different suppliers and carried by so many different carriers even in the US, that no one will care that you can unlock the iPhone.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Unlocking a cell phone is not inherently illegal. However, reverse-engineering encryption or copy protection on a cell phone is most assuredly a violation of the DMCA.

Oh really?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WIPO_...honograms_Treaties_Implementation_Act_of_1998

“(f) Reverse Engineering.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

“(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

“(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

“(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘interoperability’ means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

Nutshell:
Reverse-engineering software encryption or copy protection is permitted under the DMCA, under certain circumstances.


But that provision doesn't even come into play in this case anyway. The LoC has permission under section 103 paragraph 1201 subparagraph (C) to exepmt certain activities from being a violation under the DMCA. Currently, modifying cell phones for the purpose of network interoperability is specifically permitted.

 

[TheChillPill]

...until a hack arrives that allows you to toggle EDGE service off entirely I wouldn't go near the phone without unlimited data.

Presumably, with this hack you could simply remove the edge settings to prevent racking up the charges - invalid settings = no connection.

Not perfect, but assuming you don't need to run through a million menus to get there, it would be a decent solution before anything better comes along.

 

[Stewie]

I'm already a Cingular customer, but don't want a data plan. Any thoughts on if this would allow me to use the iPhone with my current plan and still use the Visual Voicemail?

Nope since the Visual Voicemail needs a EDGE (Data) connection to function. So it might work, but you would probably end up getting billed for data use.

 

[Stewie]

I can't wait until the day we're paying 39.95 per month for unlimited access to the tower Free text, unlimited calls, and unlimited internet all for 39.95. Your phone, however would be unsubsidized. No contracts.

Dude, not sure what you have been smoking, but please feel free to pass it around.

 

[macintel4me]

I've been following the iPhoneDev team and from their pages it suggests that everything they are doing is legal.

I don't imagine it would be too long before they complete their hacking.

It seems like a small team that did this and are going to try to make a buck. Let's be clear here. Apple Legal, AT&T Legal, Apple Customer Service, AT&T Customer Service waging war with against this six person team (or whatever it is) is a death nail.

Even the iPhone hacking is fully legal, Apple could tie up the company with lots of frivelous lawsuits that would bankrupt them. This doesn't include voiding the warranty and other non-lawsuit actions.

I can't see this being doing very well.....unfortunately.

 

[daze]

Canadian iPhone's here we come!

Finally I can use my iPhone in places other than near the US border!

 

[RealMcCoy]

communist ?

(making reference to the Engadget article's statement that it was fair for the software's writers to seek compensation from those who wanted to make use of the unlocking app).

I can certainly understand why someone would post this, there are a lot of people with views I don't understand. What I don't really get is why the few who've posted this view haven't done anything to elaborate on why they feel this way. Are you a communist? Do you have some religous view against paying for software? Do you think it's just wrong for people to get paid for creating a service that others want?

When you're going to post something that flies in the face of the way the world generally works (you pay in some fashion to obtain things you want, or conversely, you are paid for producing something others want), it just adds a lot more to the conversation if you explain why.

Nope, no communist here ! More the opposite of it tho ;o)

Now ... if I would be a hacker ... I would say that because of the basic concept of being a "real" hacker. But I am not ...

But that was not my point ! Since I am one of those suckers that "some" people call capitalist ... I am just against Apple iPhone Unlocks ! IMO did Apple (and Steve Jobs) a hell of a job with the iPhone and I simply don´t like the idea of "getting-around" his concept (in cooperation with AT&T) of making money out of it.

 

[irun5k]

Regardless of whether this is legal or not, there are a couple of things that I don't think anyone would dispute:

1) If you take a iPhone under warranty into an Apple Store for repair, it is reasonably safe to assume that they won't touch it if it is on a non-AT&T network. Even if you could restore the phone, it would be easy to determine that you aren't an AT&T customer.

2) You can be reasonably sure that if you are having problems with your actual phone service, and you go into a T-Mobile store with an iPhone, you're going to have an uphill battle.

Of course, this won't stop some people just like some people are modding their phones with 3rd party hacks. Honestly I don't care either way. But my whole philosophy on electronics, computers, etc. at this point is to use them and just have them work. I have Apple Care on my Macbook just for piece of mind. If something breaks or becomes unreliable, to me it is a major hassle in my life that I don't have the time or desire to deal with.

This isn't to say I don't relate to the hacker/modder community. I used to be in to all that stuff. At that point in my life tinkering was part of the game. Staying up until 3am several nights in a row building and rebuilding my own machines and trying to get Linux to work was part of the fun. And, truth be known, it taught me a lot about computers. But at this point in my life, an iMac just makes sense. And I *never* thought I'd want an all-in-one computer that I couldn't fix myself!

 

[bdj21ya]

This is a hack and by all definitions hacks should always be free.

If Apple made phone and said hey if well you just bought this 599 dollars of equippment and to use it with this network is free but if you want to use it with other networks pay us 50 dollars and we can unlock if for you most people would be up in arms over it.

This is like surfer serialz. Should we pay them for the serial numbers they post unlocking shareware for others to use.

They shouldn't make a product that skirts the legality of a contract for personel profit.

P.S.

Communism has nothing to do with it. And this has nothing to do with throwing anything back in the face of anyone. If you were a hacker you would understand why they do what they do and for what reasons. Profit is always usually never in most of their minds.

I am a hacker. I learn to do what I do for my own personal benefit. When I feel like sharing something, I share it. But if I created a really useful product and thought I could make some money off of it, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I think that just labeling it a hack and saying that hacks should be free is silly. If this is eventually ruled (or has already been ruled) legal, then this is legitimate software that performs a legitimate function, nothing like stealing serial codes.

 

[mainstreetmark]

Honestly, I think this whole hacking the iphone to add features or unlock it is really very childish. Like spending $600 to have the equivalent features of a $300 phone just because it's an Apple product.

Well, for me, the features it does have work SO much better than any other cellphone I've ever had. It syncs properly. It handles calendar data properly. Hell, it even shows all my contacts in it's phone book, which my last phone quit doing. It lets me store new numbers for people which my treo 600 didn't do. It recognized cellphone numbers in websites, which no phones do. It has a maps application that is so useful, I have yet to dial directory assistance (literally, you're looking at the neighborhood you're in, and you type what you want, and it takes you there, with a phone number). The voicemail thing by itself is going to make going back to traditional voicemail like going from Tiger to WinXP (you have to try this). The ease of use is beyond any phone I've ever read about. You can even watch Evolution of Dance, for some reason.

Now, as I'm certain you must realize by now, the is iPhone OS v1.0, and extended/improved features are actively and currently being worked on by the world' best software company, and there's no indication they'll ever be paid upgrades (though some of the 'games' may be!)

It's not childish, in fact, it's good business, to release a totally useable phone with really innovative features now, rather than wait another 9 months for even more useful an innovative features. Look how long the iPod took to perfect: at least four generations, and a lot of that was hardware maturity. The iPhone's hardware maturity seems pretty solid now (has wifi, cellphone, multitouch), and so it's reasonable to assume that it's perfectly capable CPU can be extended with countless apps, forever, without the need for a hardware upgrade.

 

[ReanimationLP]

speaking of iphone these are neat

EDIT - I wrote that on an iPhone while in an ATT store. Pretty neat, but hard to type on.

 

[TPALTony]

Where's the precedent to believe they will do this? People have been unlocking carrier locked GSM phones for years.

Personally I would just like my iPhone unlocked so I can pop a local SIM card in it when in Europe, to avoid ridiculous EDGE fees from AT&T. I'm still going to remain a AT&T customer in the USA however, as AT&T provide a better service and certainly better support for the iPhone than T-Mobile.

I ran up $1100 of roaming charges in the UK, simply checking the odd email and occaisonally surfing the web, and a few calls here and there. I have a UK cell phone on the Orange network (it has no monthly fee as it was done on a Virgin tariff back when they had 0 monthly fee tarrifs and Orange would let you use anyone elses tarrif on their network if you wanted to.) It would be great to be able to pop my Orange sim in my phone when I'm there and avoid those charges!

Other than that, I had t-mobile on my company blackberry for 5 years and the coverage was atrocious. Wouldn't have any interest in breaking my phone off AT&T as their coverage in my area is as good as my old Verizon coverage was (NJ/NY, general tri-state area.)

be well

t