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

[supercoolmanchu]

That's because historically illiterate people who are right-inclined call anything they don't like "communist" without having any understanding of the real meaning of the word.

I believe you're confusing communism as a form of government. It's a theoretical concept, it's never existed in nature. It's a useful term to help "socialism" sound like the less scary side of the coin, but Socialism isn't anything special, just feudalism with god traded for the all powerful state. Doesn't matter if a god or the state choose the representatives, you're still are owned by those entities, and those that claim to represent them. Fascism is also a funny word for feudalism too, means the same thing. I think your confusion is focusing too much on the flowery justifications of absolute power as a distinction, rather than the government's actual role in the respective people's lives.

4 years ago? are you kidding? The biggest single erosion of individual rights and privacy in the last century in the US was the Patriot Act, introduced over 10 years ago during the presidency of George W. Bush.

I'm going with military draft (aka 1940 Selective Services Program) for the win. Thanks for playing "Biggest Single Erosion of Individual Rights and Privacy in the Last Century in the US!!!"

I consider being forced to fight and maybe die, slightly ahead of W & Crew looking at my net porn and listening to my 900 calls. Ole pussycat Bush? Please, he was a C student, not even close to top of the class for eroding Constitutional rights, not even the last hundred years. I'll add Federal Income Tax, Commerce Clause, Social Security and Prohibition to bump your Patriot Act way further down the list of biggest erosions to our rights here in the USA.

If wer'e just going by the 21st, you're not even close either. How about the government forcing people to shop with the Obamacare thing? If health insurance was sold at malls, we'd all be required to go there, and buy stuff at the insurance stores. Some people may like the idea state imposed medical services, but it's still a huge erosion of personal rights when you're forced to buy ***** or the king can have you fined then imprisoned.

There's also that thing about the government being able to kill American citizens they don't like without trial, which totally bypasses every single right they have under our Constitution. Peeking at vs. killing at... pretty obvious distinction there. Maybe there's a lot of similarity with the draft thing, but that's a bigger, fresher pile from Obama than any Patriot Act.

*I also thought you'd enjoy if I threw Obama in there somewhere. Since you put Bush in your post, figured you liked putting faces to policies, or liked playing with Presidential action figures or something. Maybe you need another figure for your 'bad guy' team? Hope all this helps!

 

[TPadden]

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

Used to be very active forums dedicated to unlocking satellite and cable box receivers. Very similar law passed, a couple warrant raids on unlocking businesses and forum sites with customer information resulting in plea bargains and civil suits resulted in VERY effective enforcement.

......as I've said it's deja vu all over again!

 

[ForcedReality]

I believe you're confusing communism as a form of government. It's a theoretical concept, it's never existed in nature. It's a useful term to help "socialism" sound like the less scary side of the coin, but Socialism isn't anything special, just feudalism with god traded for the all powerful state. Doesn't matter if a god or the state choose the representatives, you're still are owned by those entities, and those that claim to represent them. Fascism is also a funny word for feudalism too, means the same thing. I think your confusion is focusing too much on the flowery justifications of absolute power as a distinction, rather than the government's actual role in the respective people's lives.




I'm going with military draft (aka 1940 Selective Services Program) for the win. Thanks for playing "Biggest Single Erosion of Individual Rights and Privacy in the Last Century in the US!!!"

I consider being forced to fight and maybe die, slightly ahead of W & Crew looking at my net porn and listening to my 900 calls. Ole pussycat Bush? Please, he was a C student, not even close to top of the class for eroding Constitutional rights, not even the last hundred years. I'll add Federal Income Tax, Commerce Clause, Social Security and Prohibition to bump your Patriot Act way further down the list of biggest erosions to our rights here in the USA.

If wer'e just going by the 21st, you're not even close either. How about the government forcing people to shop with the Obamacare thing? If health insurance was sold at malls, we'd all be required to go there, and buy stuff at the insurance stores. Some people may like the idea state imposed medical services, but it's still a huge erosion of personal rights when you're forced to buy ***** or the king can have you fined then imprisoned.

There's also that thing about the government being able to kill American citizens they don't like without trial, which totally bypasses every single right they have under our Constitution. Peeking at vs. killing at... pretty obvious distinction there. Maybe there's a lot of similarity with the draft thing, but that's a bigger, fresher pile from Obama than any Patriot Act.

*I also thought you'd enjoy if I threw Obama in there somewhere. Since you put Bush in your post, figured you liked putting faces to policies, or liked playing with Presidential action figures or something. Maybe you need another figure for your 'bad guy' team? Hope all this helps!

This is by far the post of the century right here.

 

[unplugme71]

Congrats! Your iPhone is now unlocked. Please remain seated while authorities come to arrest you.

Please enable location services or enter your current location address.

 

[apple-win]

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.

If you don't purchase a subsidized device from phone company, do you get a cheaper phone plan?

If consumers have no money, they should use credit card to buy their unlocked phones full price. Don't sign up for a two year phone contract.

 

[thehustleman]

This is the dumbest law

 

[barkomatic]

Thanks Obama

What did Obama have to do with this? The Librarian of Congress--James Billington--was appointed in 1987 under President Reagan and unanimously confirmed.

Stop spreading your misinformation.

 

[Sharkus]

What I'd be interested to know is what a US carriers international roaming charges are for both voice and data, compared to getting a PAYG SIM from an international carrier / network.

Example:
I wish to travel from the US to the UK and use my iPhone for both voice and data.

I'm going to take a guess that a PAYG sim purchased from, for example; O2 is going to end up cheaper for voice data than the roaming charges from your US carrier.

If your current US contract ends up charging you the same / less than getting a PAYG SIM then fine, that is ok. However, as I suspect, the roaming charges, especially for data, are going to cost more, a lot more, then that is where I have a problem with not being able to unlock your device.

 

[TPadden]

Congrats! Your iPhone is now unlocked. Please remain seated while authorities come to arrest you.

Please enable location services or enter your current location address.

Not even close: Congrats! Here's your subpoena. You are on a list of defendants in Federal Court for violation of ######. Please respond or send $$$$$ and accept a plea agreement to be taken off the list. Pay or play in court.

 

[pellets007]

If you don't purchase a subsidized device from phone company, do you get a cheaper phone plan?

If consumers have no money, they should use credit card to buy their unlocked phones full price. Don't sign up for a two year phone contract.

No, with all the major US carriers, the phone plan is the same regardless of buying a subsidized device or not; the same price. It also does not seem like a good idea to put a $500 debt down on a credit card, with typical rates of like 15-20%. Then again, I've never been in debt, so I'm not too sure.

 

[unplugme71]

If having an unlocked phone was a constitutional right, your point would have been valid.

You're just wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

Almost every other freedom has been taken away? Name them.

----------



Most people don't have smartphones with internet connections.

My point was that government steps in to try and control everything. They create laws just because someone makes a complaint.

When I was a kid and fell on someone's sidewalk, I didn't sue that person who owned the property. Even if the sidewalk wasn't level because some tree root lifted it up. I just got back up and kept going, laughing it off.

I spill coffee, its my fault, unless the person handing it to me purposely spilled it. I don't need a caution label to tell me its hot. I know that I ordered a beverage that's supposed to be hot.

What I do with the products I buy, should not be controlled by someone else so long as it does not endanger, cause harm, or negatively affect another life.

 

[barkomatic]

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.

It's hard to say. AT&T may choose not to pursue customers who unlock their phones at all. They may simply re-lock them, they may cancel your service, blacklist your phone, charge you an ETF and work with Apple to void your Applecare agreement if you have one.

They could even go nuclear once the practice is officially illegal and turn over lists of all devices unlocked after 1/26/2013 to the Justice Department for prosecution (though I think that's unlikely).

The point is that its very easy for AT&T to determine you have an iPhone that was unlocked without their consent. Any phone bought under subsidy that is unlocked--easy query from their database.

 

[tbrinkma]

We are not a Communist country. We are a Constitutional Republic, in spite of the downward spiral of the federal government; one that has been ongoing for many decades.

There is no "right" under the Constitution, or the respective state constitutions, for one to have an unlocked phone.

What you are addressing, is a personal preference. Preferences and "rights" are not the same thing.

Edited to add: Democracy is mob rule. The United States has never been a Democracy.

Just a note, but you need to read the Constitution more closely. If you read it for comprehension, you'll see that the Constitution doesn't even pretend to *grant rights*. Instead, it's an explicit list of powers the US Government is allowed to exercise. Even the Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights granted by the government, it's a list of rights the government explicitly isn't allowed to mess with. And the 9th explicitly says that the government shall not use the enumeration of certain rights as an excuse to pretend that other rights don't exist.

If the US Constitution doesn't say the US Government is *allowed* to do something, it isn't. In fact it explicitly says that anything *not* listed is left to the States or the People.

 

[phillipduran]

This is what a massive, extremely powerful federal government looks like - the power is taken from the people and given to the powerful.

Seriously. Our government is going nuts. Isn't our constitution designed to control them not us?

This whole issue at most should be a contract violation and a suspension or banishment of services from the cell provider. Not a crime.

 

[AppleHater]

If you don't purchase a subsidized device from phone company, do you get a cheaper phone plan?

Precisely the point. This decision is one sided for the carriers and against consumers. If they want to go this route they should also stop this shady subsidized phone marketing. No, iPhone doesn't cost $2400, and they should charge only what it cost to them plus some reasonable margin.

It's funny that people think apple is some genuine company with 40% profit margin while we're the idiots who are overpaying.

 

[Sule9nA]

What I'd be interested to know is what a US carriers international roaming charges are for both voice and data, compared to getting a PAYG SIM from an international carrier / network.

Example:
I wish to travel from the US to the UK and use my iPhone for both voice and data.

I'm going to take a guess that a PAYG sim purchased from, for example; O2 is going to end up cheaper for voice data than the roaming charges from your US carrier.

If your current US contract ends up charging you the same / less than getting a PAYG SIM then fine, that is ok. However, as I suspect, the roaming charges, especially for data, are going to cost more, a lot more, then that is where I have a problem with not being able to unlock your device.

Actually it's a LOT cheaper to do that here in the UK (having been a british person doing the opposite several times in the USA and Canada).
Over here you could get a sim card for free and then with £10 ($15ish) you'd have a few hundred minutes, 500Mb to a 1Gb of data and unlimited texts.

Going the other way I've not been able to do that while getting a PAY&GO sim card in the states for less than 50 bucks. I imagine the roaming costs will be an absolute bitch thanks to this new law.

 

[tbrinkma]

I assume you are using that quote out of context like many do. You are unaware of how he used and implied "yield" at the time.

If you want to claim someone is misusing a quote, it's usually helpful to *explain* how/why rather than just leave it 'implied'.

Just an FYI.

 

[phillipduran]

What did Obama have to do with this? The Librarian of Congress--James Billington--was appointed in 1987 under President Reagan and unanimously confirmed.

Stop spreading your misinformation.

Obama has been demonstrating a lack of concern for the rights of individuals and has often been irritated by the limits placed on him through the constitution. Right now he is trying to infringe on gun rights and the second amendment. He is helping to fuel this culture of big government and control. The person you are commenting about has a valid point.

 

[tbrinkma]

You left off the rest. It's my phone, I'm committed to a contract and will pay AT&T a monthly service charge whether I occasionally use it overseas or not. This is an anti-consumer ruling.

As mentioned in the article, that contract (which you admit you committed to) explicitly disallows unlocking (at least for the initial term during which you're paying back the subsidy).

----------

I got a subsidy in exchange for a contract. Why should the phone be locked? Even if I sell the phone or give it to somebody else, I'm still under contract and still have to give the carrier the money, or pay ETF. They don't lose anything. Provider locking only restrict consumer choice and is anti-competitive.

If you pay the ETF, you can get the phone unlocked.
If you've already *made* a choice (by contracting with a subsidized phone on a certain carrier), this has absolutely *no* effect on consumer choice.
Given that the competition for a given customer doesn't stop until said customer makes a choice, and even then it only stops for the length of the contract that customer signs, it is also not anti-competitive.

To claim otherwise simply demonstrates a *serious* misapprehension and misunderstanding of both the market *and* the law.

 

[JavaTheHut]

Next Bill in the senate will be "Its illegal for you to turn your phone off"

 

[Moof1904]

This is what massive, extremely powerful corporations look like - the power is taken from the people and given to the powerful.

Fixed that for you.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Corporations will always try to tilt the odds in their favor. That's not surprising at all. The power, and corruption, of the government is the issue here.

Blaming corporations because the government chooses to be their whore is misguided.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Just a note, but you need to read the Constitution more closely. If you read it for comprehension, you'll see that the Constitution doesn't even pretend to *grant rights*. Instead, it's an explicit list of powers the US Government is allowed to exercise. Even the Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights granted by the government, it's a list of rights the government explicitly isn't allowed to mess with. And the 9th explicitly says that the government shall not use the enumeration of certain rights as an excuse to pretend that other rights don't exist.

If the US Constitution doesn't say the US Government is *allowed* to do something, it isn't. In fact it explicitly says that anything *not* listed is left to the States or the People.

Thank you, you've restored 0.003% of my faith in humanity!

It's sad when people forget this or can't/won't grasp the distinction.

 

[Battlefield Fan]

If you think this started happening just 4 years ago, you need to pull your head out of the sand. Draconian laws like DMCA are passed with support from both corrupt parties. Powerful interests own both.

Just because the DMCA legislation has been applied in this way does not mean it is lawful. All it takes is one legal challenge against it!

----------



4 years ago? are you kidding? The biggest single erosion of individual rights and privacy in the last century in the US was the Patriot Act, introduced over 10 years ago during the presidency of George W. Bush.

Don't confuse invasion of privacy with loss of rights.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Corporations will always try to tilt the odds in their favor. That's not surprising at all. The power, and corruption, of the government is the issue here.

Blaming corporations because the government chooses to be their whore is misguided.

Don't blame the John, blame the whore?

Forgive me if I don't share your sentiment.

 

[netdog]

Gosh. President Obama is really off to a great start with that gloves off 2nd term liberal crusade that he promised.