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

[Dorfdad]

Illegal? Who's going to arrest me?

Look out for Citizen Arrests

 

[thuchu1]

Make sense to me

If AT&T pays $700 for my phone and sells it to me for $200, then I shouldn't be allowed to unlock it and use another service. It's part of the contract. The exact same choice is still there, if you want/need an unlocked phone, just buy one outright. It doesn't make sense for AT&T to give you a subsidized price if you're gonna bail next week.

 

[Dorfdad]

If AT&T pays $700 for my phone and sells it to me for $200, then I shouldn't be allowed to unlock it and use another service. It's part of the contract. The exact same choice is still there, if you want/need an unlocked phone, just buy one outright. It doesn't make sense for AT&T to give you a subsidized price if you're gonna bail next week.

SO AT&T still has you on the hook for 2 years of ****** pricing in a market where phones update every 6 months anymore. Why can't we do what we wont when we OWN the phone now?

 

[Phx08]

So, good dicussion on these forums but I doubt this will be heard anywhere else. What actions can be taken to show opposition for this "law"?

 

[pellets007]

If AT&T pays $700 for my phone and sells it to me for $200, then I shouldn't be allowed to unlock it and use another service. It's part of the contract. The exact same choice is still there, if you want/need an unlocked phone, just buy one outright. It doesn't make sense for AT&T to give you a subsidized price if you're gonna bail next week.

It makes perfect sense to me. When you purchase a subsidized device, you are committing, in the form of a two year contract, to stay with the carrier for two years. Unlocked phone or not, you are bound by those agreements.

But now, even when your contract is terminated (either by you or the carrier), you are basically still tied to that network only. That really doesn't seem like fair practice. So no, that same choice isn't there.

 

[tigres]

So if anyone in the US has to travel abroad; we now need to leave the smartphone at home. (Unless you can afford the data/phone/text charges)

Makes sense to me.

 

[Mr. McMac]

Another stupid law that will be close to impossible to enforce.

 

[F1 Fan]

If AT&T pays $700 for my phone and sells it to me for $200, then I shouldn't be allowed to unlock it and use another service. It's part of the contract. The exact same choice is still there, if you want/need an unlocked phone, just buy one outright. It doesn't make sense for AT&T to give you a subsidized price if you're gonna bail next week.

Unlocking the phone so that you have the option of using another service doesn't have any bearing on your $500 subsidy from AT&T. Whether or not you are using their service, you have agreed to pay them for it - unlocking the phone doesn't release you from that contract.

If I were a service provider and someone wanted to have the option of paying for my service but not using it, I'd be thrilled!

I'm sure that there are those who exploit the unlocking thing to rat on their contract and effectively steal the phone (at least in part) but most just want extra flexibility. Having said that, if you need the flexibility and your carrier won't let you have it when you buy one of their phones, you can buy the phone outright and then sign up to a subsidy free service.


EDIT:

It makes perfect sense to me. When you purchase a subsidized device, you are committing, in the form of a two year contract, to stay with the carrier for two years. Unlocked phone or not, you are bound by those agreements.

But now, even when your contract is terminated (either by you or the carrier), you are basically still tied to that network only. That really doesn't seem like fair practice. So no, that same choice isn't there.

This

 

[nia820]

this is crazy. then cell phone makers need to make unlocked headsets more easily available in the US.

 

[Drunken Master]

SO AT&T still has you on the hook for 2 years of ****** pricing in a market where phones update every 6 months anymore. Why can't we do what we wont when we OWN the phone now?

You don't own it at a subsidized price, you signed a contract and can only own it if you pay the early termination fee to break the contract.

 

[Hyper-X]

I can see it now...

- "What you in for?"
- "auto-theft, drugs..."

- "what about you?"
- "DUI, murder-3, resisting arrest..."

- "what about you new guy?"
- "unlocked a new mobile phone..."

 

[Rot'nApple]

Why doesn't the government take away our first right. Almost every other freedom has been taken away as of today's date.

"What at this point difference does it make?!" (my favorite new catch phrase to be seen in many future posts )

Don't blame me I didn't vote for THIS mess.
/
/
/

 

[bigjnyc]

Sounds like this only applies to phones purchased after Saturday... but this certainly prompted me to go to Unlock Fusion's website and get my iPhone and my girlfriends iPhone unlocked. Question is will these unlocks stick or will AT&T leverage this law and be able to reverse these "illegal" unlocks.

 

[paul3000]

Did anyone else actually read the article?

AT&T will still unlock your phone at the end of your contract, Verizon phones come unlocked and Sprint will unlock them after three months.

Anyone who doesn't find this acceptable can still purchase an unlocked iPhone. I don't quite understand why everyone is up in arms about this.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Your phone is locked to a carrier because you signed a contract to pay them every month for two years. I know some people would be nice and stay on contract and just need an unlocked phone for their travels overseas. In my experience, most times the carrier is more than accommodating if you say "I've been an *** customer for X years and I need my phone to work on local carriers when I travel to the Brazil every four weeks."

Anytime I've seen one of these unlock services, it is always sketchy and often has questionable scruples. I can't think of a good scenario, in the iPhone environment we currently live in, where unlocking would be used for anything but subverting a system.

ETA: Oh, and AT&T will unlock the phone of any deployed member of military service and any phone that's bought at full price. Bottom line, only reason for the unofficial unlocking services is for people who want to cheat the system and buy a phone for less than it retails.

Answered every question I had. I see nothing wrong with this, you have tons of options (cost saving too) of non contract carriers. However will they unlock it if you cancel your contract?

 

[Dionte]

I wonder how much the carriers had to pay to get that passed.

 

[Lord Appleseed]

Se instead of crackhouses the police will storm technik-freak's offices and check for unlocked phones now?

 

[alexInLondon73]

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

It will imply that sites or companies which provide the service can be shutdown.

 

[emulator]

Another stupid law that will be close to impossible to enforce.

Impossible, since no one can tell how your phone was unlocked.

 

[NorEaster]

"What at this point difference does it make?!" (my favorite new catch phrase to be seen in many future posts )

Don't blame me I didn't vote for THIS mess.
/
/
/

What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to make this political? Please... this has nothing to do with politics or the president that you voted for back in November. Do you really think POTUS (regardless of the actual person) cares about unlocking?! Sheesh not everything is political.

I would argue that this is all about corporate greed. Quite simply, carriers like AT&T want you to be forced to use their network so they can charge you higher prices. If I'm already under contract with AT&T and I travel overseas, I should have every right to use a local carrier to save on costs. AT&T still gets my regular elevated monthly fee to recover their subsidy.

 

[everything-i]

Did anyone else actually read the article?

AT&T will still unlock your phone at the end of your contract, Verizon phones come unlocked and Sprint will unlock them after three months.

Anyone who doesn't find this acceptable can still purchase an unlocked iPhone. I don't quite understand why everyone is up in arms about this.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Your phone is locked to a carrier because you signed a contract to pay them every month for two years. I know some people would be nice and stay on contract and just need an unlocked phone for their travels overseas. In my experience, most times the carrier is more than accommodating if you say "I've been an *** customer for X years and I need my phone to work on local carriers when I travel to the Brazil every four weeks."

Anytime I've seen one of these unlock services, it is always sketchy and often has questionable scruples. I can't think of a good scenario, in the iPhone environment we currently live in, where unlocking would be used for anything but subverting a system.

ETA: Oh, and AT&T will unlock the phone of any deployed member of military service and any phone that's bought at full price. Bottom line, only reason for the unofficial unlocking services is for people who want to cheat the system and buy a phone for less than it retails.

So why make it a 'criminal' offense, it can already be dealt with by existing contract enforcement law. This seams totally disproportionate as no real harm is caused to anyone by unlocking a phone. There must be more to this as the carriers must have some hidden agenda to have lobbied for this.

 

[emulator]

What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to make this political? Please... this has nothing to do with politics or the president that you voted for back in November. Do you really think POTUS (regardless of the actual person) cares about unlocking?! Sheesh not everything is political.

RIght, it can be political only, if someone is a naive idealist who thinks there could be a government who don't obey the rule of corporations. But in reality, does not matter right or left, they both controlled by corp greed.

 

[mytdave]

And that's what you get with expanding govt.

Even though it's unlikely I'll ever need to unlock my iPhone, here's what I have to say to the "Librarian": .|..

 

[Reason077]

Your phone is locked to a carrier because you signed a contract to pay them every month for two years.

There are many legitimate reasons to want an unlocked phone that don't involve violating your contract.

Likewise, there are plenty of reasons besides having a locked phone for consumers to not break their contracts (penalty fees, credit rating).

The idea that locked phones are required to enforce contracts is nonsense. There are many countries where locking phones is *illegal* yet carriers get on just fine.

In reality, phone locking is an anti-competitive, anti-consumer practice used by dominant carriers to harm their smaller rivals by preventing handsets being moved between networks, and against consumers to inflate roaming revenue by preventing SIM switching when travelling.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

macrumors is getting boring.

this is the kind of news they should be reporting:

http://9to5mac.com/2013/01/24/apple-to-relocate-tokyo-hq-to-magnificent-roppongi-hills-complex/

 

[dreadnort]

I think in the UK it is illegal for telco's to lock a mobile and not give you the ability to unlock it.

Mobiles in the UK can be locked to a carrier but they must give the owner the option to unlock it and move carriers at the end of their contract period.
France has it where all phone have to be unlocked i beleive.