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

[neversink]

I am 74 years old and can remember when our beautiful country was free.

The corporations have taken over and now we live in a Fascist country. You younger ones do not know what you are missing in quality of life. Freedom was very very good. Video cameras everywhere, Homeland security agency, torture of prisoners, largest prison population by several times in the world, etc.

I believe you are mistaken about several things. You are equating fascism with a ridiculous law against jail-breaking a phone. Yes, our rights are being taken from us, but not to the extent that you state.

1. Fascist country - Not quite. Yes, we have stupid rules, but we are by no means fascistic. I think you need to travel a bit. Check out some of the countries in the world - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea -- Now these countries put the Italian fascists of World War II era to shame. In some ways they are much more brutal than Mussolini, although Hitler would have been proud of the leaders of Iran and North Korea.

2. We do not have the largest prison population by several times in the world. It is true we have a very high percentage, but statistics are misleading. We don't know the population of prisoners in many countries. So we can't compare them to the US. In Iran, the number of prisoners taken during the demonstrations are numerous and many of the people in those prisons were tortured and disappeared. In North Korea, just being a citizen is being a prisoner.

3. Why do we have a Homeland Security department?? Do you remember 9-11? Or should we just invite all our enemies into the US and have them bring Shariah law here? Sure, let's turn the US into Mali.... Where there are no rights to even think, let alone "think different."

Yes, i think this country is on the wrong track, particularly when laws of this type occur. The question is: Why does one person have the authority to make such a bold and final law?

Call your congressional representative now if you think this law should be thrown out!!!! Talk about government out of control!!!!

 

[tbrinkma]

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.

Even worse, it was voted on and almost unanimously passed (one abstention, one vote against, IIRC) more than a day before the final text of the bill was actually *available* to be read by any member of congress.

----------

But if we believe the junk the pro gun members of this forum were posting a few weeks ago - you shouldn't be able to make any changes to your rights as they are perfect.

And if we believe the junk the anti-gun members of the forum were posting a few weeks ago, the government should be able to violate our rights without limit.

But both of us are off topic here.

----------

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?

Ok, here's the thing (and I can't believe you don't actually understand this already). When you 'buy' a subsidized phone *on contract*, you don't actually *own* the phone until the contract is over (or you pay the ETF) at which point the subsidy has been repaid. Just like how you don't actually own your car or house until the loan has been paid off.

 

[Bheleu]

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.

In other words, you did not (build that/vote for this) somebody else did!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llQUrko0Gqw

Who built the networks, who subsidized the phones, who made all that connectivity magic happen? Who signed the agreements to access the networks, who is it that breaks things, bogs down networks, demands upgrades and expects everything to work perfectly all the time? Whose job is it to enforce the agreements made between the corporation and you, to make sure everyone plays by a standard set of rules that do not allow one another to cheat or steal? It costs a lot to hire people to climb towers (insurance, pay, education, safety) to build, maintain repairs, as well as to upgrade them. What about when someone steals someone's phone, unlocks it, and to hide their tracks they use it on a different providers network? If it is stolen from an AT&T customer under the new regulations they can lock it out of their network and replace your phone cheaper because it is one less additional license they have to pay to LTE, Apple, etc. as it simply transfers to the new phone. Same deal if you break it and they replace it. It could be argued that TMobile has been avoiding licensing fees they should be required to pay when an unlocked phone enters their ecosystem, not only that but that they should pay AT&T a fee when a stolen device goes onto their network in addition to paying a legal fees to city, state, and federal police for every stolen smartphone that goes onto the network.

 

[kas23]

A similar attitude was shared by the person sentenced to 7 years prison for robbing Steve Jobs' home.

Wait, are you saying burglarizing a home is equivalent (in terms of severity of the crime and police resources devoted to them) to unlocking a cell phone?

 

[praterkeith]

Wow

We should start a petition to have this law reversed. At least instead of talking about it on here we can get our voices heard. Anyone know how to go about that?

 

[bigjnyc]

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.

All very good points. Like you said it will be very easy for them to see which phones have been unlocked without their consent. I highly doubt they will take the more extreme measures you listed, because that would be bad publicity for them and they will risk losing customers...But I can certainly see them working with Apple to have the phones re-locked.

 

[Bheleu]

Wait, are you saying burglarizing a home is equivalent (in terms of severity of the crime and police resources devoted to them) to unlocking a cell phone?

When you steal from AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc., you are not just stealing from a "company" but also from their other customers.

When someone steals from Walmart , Kmart, Target, etc. it causes their prices to go up higher, ie. stealing from their other customers.

If you rob from one person or from thousands, which is the worse crime?
The correct answer is stealing is wrong period.

 

[Apple_Robert]

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.

I never stated that the Constitution granted rights.

If you follow my replies, I was specifically addressing those who seem to believe, that some magical right granted them under the Constitution had been violated. Such is not the case.

I appreciate the attempt of correction, even though it was not needed.

I am fully aware of the Constitution, how it works, and the proper adjudication thereof, as it pertains to the proper separation of powers between the federal government and the respective states.

 

[tigres]

When you steal from AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc., you are not just stealing from a "company" but also from their other customers.

When someone steals from Walmart , Kmart, Target, etc. it causes their prices to go up higher, ie. stealing from their other customers.

If you rob from one person or from thousands, which is the worse crime?
The correct answer is stealing is wrong period.

Excuse me, who's stealing with "unlocking"?

 

[Brian1502]

Simple

Its quite simple. Its not on the company (apple or microsoft) its on the carrier. Break it down from there, you have Sprint, ATT, and Verizon. Verizon doesn't lock their iPhone 5's, ATT does. They still come at the same subsidized price, so therefore what is the difference? So its carrier dependent policies regulated by the federal government?

 

[Bheleu]

Excuse me, who's stealing with "unlocking"?

The guy on the subway that does a snatch and grab. The bum on the street that signs up for a phone with a fake ID with credentials from some ladies trash can, the business smoah who carries their subsidized phone overseas and wants to pop in a sim from another carrier for service. The guy who buys the stolen subsidized phone from Carl off of Craigslist, need I go on?

If you want an unlocked phone, buy it unlocked from a legitimate source. If you want to pop out sims, buy it unlocked. If you are tired of your carrier pay out your contract, with them unlocking it and switch. If you are in the market to sign up for service, put in the contract that they agree to unlock it for you at the beginning of service.

 

[yg17]

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.

No, he doesn't have a point. Obama has nothing to do with this. Blame Ronnie Raygun, the patron saint of small government for this.

 

[Moof1904]

Disgusting. Fortunately, it cannot and will not be enforced.

It doesn't matter if it's actively enforced. By creating yet another manner in which everyday people are criminals, the government has even more leverage to destroy you at their whim.

Sure, they won't randomly come after you just because you unlocked your phone, but step out of line in any other way that gets their attention and once they put you under the federal prosecutorial magnifying glass, the "crimes" they find will rack up.

As attorney Harvey Silverglate puts it in his book on the abuses of federal laws, the average American now unwittingly commits three federal felonies per day.


http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Welcome to America. We're all criminals now.

And, please, don't blame it on the Republicans or the Democrats or any one particular politician or one single bad piece of legislation. The politicians of the federal government are primarily masters of sociology. Their two-party, decades long game of "good cop/bad cop" ensures that democrats overlook the wrongs committed by their party and republicans overlook the wrongs committed by theirs.

Until we look past party politics and see the unilateral wrongs dealt by our bloated, corrupt, lying government, no matter which side of the aisle initiates it, nothing will ever change. We'll stay fractionated as we continue blaming the other political party, a single bad law, or a lone librarian (you really think the LOC librarian did this in a vacuum without ensuring that it pleased the politicians in power?).

Meanwhile, those who publicly present themselves as political adversaries laugh and congratulate themselves behind closed doors as they toast the gullibility of the populace.

 

[drnick13]

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.

I don't know, and I won't claim to know; however, I have a sense that the crime here is those who use it to profit, NOT just the general consumer. People are buying phones on contract, unlocking, selling the phone and ditching their contract. I've seen first hand people grabbing homeless people off the street, getting them to sign a contract, giving them a little money for the phone, and then sticking them with the monthly bill (what happens next I don't know). From what I can see, none of that is explicitly illegal and contract law doesn't stop people from getting abused here. Making unauthorized unlocking illegal could help curb this. I'm not nearly naive enough to think it will stop it, but I think it could at least provide some recourse.

I really feel like the house and car analogies here are overdone. This is more like buying cable and then adjusting your cable box (do they still have those?) so you can get the premium channels for free. In both cases, if you call your cable(phone) provider and express interest in premium channels (using your phone overseas) they will at least discuss it with you. You may not like the cost of premium channels, but there are legitimate ways to get them.

 

[kas23]

When you steal from AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc., you are not just stealing from a "company" but also from their other customers.

When someone steals from Walmart , Kmart, Target, etc. it causes their prices to go up higher, ie. stealing from their other customers.

If you rob from one person or from thousands, which is the worse crime?
The correct answer is stealing is wrong period.

I don't see it as stealing. Suppose one travels overseas and wants to use their cellphone while there. Their option would be to use AT&T grossly overpriced rates or buy a cheap local SIM to place on their iPhone. One option is very expensive and one is relatively cheap. Another option is even cheaper, just don't use the iPhone. If the person's phone is locked, they have the very expensive option (AT&T) or to just not use their phone. AT&T's logic is that everyone would then chose their rates, but this is a falacy. In this scenario, most people just wouldn't use their phone. Easy enough. So, not unlocking an phone is not necessarily going to lead to higher profits. People just wouldn't choose AT&T's high rates.

An analogous situation arises in the record industry. They really don't lose much money from pirating music because it not liked these people would have bought the albums if pirating didn't exist. People pirate music that they wouldn't have otherwise bought. So pirating = no money lost. And this is a proven phenomenon.

And if a carrier is concerned about losing money through unlocking, why don't they just choose to sell only unsubsidized phones. They would then lose no money through unlocking. They would likely see a fall in new contracts, but they need to learn to take the good with the bad.

 

[RolyPolyBird]

The guy on the subway that does a snatch and grab. The bum on the street that signs up for a phone with a fake ID with credentials from some ladies trash can, the business smoah who carries their subsidized phone overseas and wants to pop in a sim from another carrier for service. The guy who buys the stolen subsidized phone from Carl off of Craigslist, need I go on?

If you want an unlocked phone, buy it unlocked from a legitimate source. If you want to pop out sims, buy it unlocked. If you are tired of your carrier pay out your contract, with them unlocking it and switch. If you are in the market to sign up for service, put in the contract that they agree to unlock it for you at the beginning of service.

The First two examples are clearly criminal acts. The second is a possible breach of commercial contract. The last example depends on whether the purchaser/seller knows the phone is stolen, if they do then this is again an inexcusable criminal act.

If phone companies are finding lots of this activity going on then they should simply face the reality that their business model is not working and stop subsidising phones. If their services are good, and assuming there are not anti competitive practices going on (and I am not aware of a single market where this is NOT going on) then they won't need subsidies to be successful. Likewise I am unaware of a telecom provider that would be willing to negotiate contract terms like you suggest.

Your points are irrelevant to the article and I suspect you have spent a little too much time on Objectivist forums.

 

[everything-i]

I don't know, and I won't claim to know; however, I have a sense that the crime here is those who use it to profit, NOT just the general consumer. People are buying phones on contract, unlocking, selling the phone and ditching their contract. I've seen first hand people grabbing homeless people off the street, getting them to sign a contract, giving them a little money for the phone, and then sticking them with the monthly bill (what happens next I don't know). From what I can see, none of that is explicitly illegal and contract law doesn't stop people from getting abused here. Making unauthorized unlocking illegal could help curb this. I'm not nearly naive enough to think it will stop it, but I think it could at least provide some recourse.

I really feel like the house and car analogies here are overdone. This is more like buying cable and then adjusting your cable box (do they still have those?) so you can get the premium channels for free. In both cases, if you call your cable(phone) provider and express interest in premium channels (using your phone overseas) they will at least discuss it with you. You may not like the cost of premium channels, but there are legitimate ways to get them.

If homeless people are being coerced as you say then that is already a serious crime in itself and putting this barrier to unlocking in the way will not stop this kind of organised crime.

Modifying a set top box to watch channels you haven't paid for (which is theft or something pretty close) is nothing like unlocking a phone, you have to pay your monthly contract regardless of unlocking the phone it doesn't allow you to get anything for free or anything you haven't paid for. It simply allows you to use a different carriers SIM which would not give you any real benefit as you still have to pay for the original contract. What it does stop is using a local SIM in another country which is probably the real reason for this.

 

[Bheleu]

I don't see it as stealing. Suppose one travels overseas and wants to use their cellphone while there.

when you buy a car with someone else financing it, you have to have insurance covering the vehicle. Once it is paid off, you can drop full coverage insurance. If you stop paying, it gets towed. If you lose your house to foreclosure and it sells cheaper than what you had left to pay it off, you pay that difference and you have no house to live in. The phone is not yours to use as you please because someone else has an interest in it. If you do not want that tie, buy it outright or pay it off. The other option is to buy a burner phone and forward all calls. If you want you could still connect to wifi hotspots, but if you lose your phone - you still are under contract for it.

 

[kas23]

If phone companies are finding lots of this activity going on then they should simply face the reality that their business model is not working and stop subsidising phones.

This is exactly what they should do. If they don't want to lose money, then stop subsidizing phones. And don't offer contracts. But, but, but then they're going to start crying about how they're really losing money now. They need to learn to take the good with the bad. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

We're going to see a huge shift in the cell phone business model in the next 5 years. We're seeing T-Mobile already shifting, but I expect AT&T and Verizon to take the Blockbuster Video route and they're likely to suffer greatly. I think the Straight Talk model is going to become more prominent in the future. And likely more of a dependence on VOIP.

 

[tigres]

The guy on the subway that does a snatch and grab. The bum on the street that signs up for a phone with a fake ID with credentials from some ladies trash can, the business smoah who carries their subsidized phone overseas and wants to pop in a sim from another carrier for service. The guy who buys the stolen subsidized phone from Carl off of Craigslist, need I go on?

If you want an unlocked phone, buy it unlocked from a legitimate source. If you want to pop out sims, buy it unlocked. If you are tired of your carrier pay out your contract, with them unlocking it and switch. If you are in the market to sign up for service, put in the contract that they agree to unlock it for you at the beginning of service.

Your first two don't count, as this main discussion does not implicitly imply Crimes, theft, or larceny.

The business man example is perfect, as if I travel to see my sis in the UK- do you think I want to pay AT&T for 2 weeks (additional roaming charges/data/sms) at 100%+ the price, when I can simply pop in a vodaphone sim/3 or at next to nothing. I am still paying and honoring my contract while on holiday. I.E. I am not screwing them.

Don't even go there on the CL argument.

Lastly, can I hire you to successfully put the terms you recommend in my next carrier contract successfully and legally binding?- you can pick the US carrier, I'd be open.

 

[kas23]

when you buy a car with someone else financing it, you have to have insurance covering the vehicle. Once it is paid off, you can drop full coverage insurance. If you stop paying, it gets towed. If you lose your house to foreclosure and it sells cheaper than what you had left to pay it off, you pay that difference and you have no house to live in. The phone is not yours to use as you please because someone else has an interest in it. If you do not want that tie, buy it outright or pay it off. The other option is to buy a burner phone and forward all calls. If you want you could still connect to wifi hotspots, but if you lose your phone - you still are under contract for it.

Car insurance? Bad analogy. I don't know of a state where you can drive with no insurance. Plus, when you finance a car (even a house for that matter), you own the car/house. If you want to paint it bright pink, you can. If you want to take it apart and sell it as parts, you can. If you want to invite 20 people to live in your house with you, you can.

Foreclosure? Bad analogy. You have the option of a short sale or just walking away from the house. Either of these 2 options is not "illegal". Plus, when foreclose, it's because your are not paying your mortgage payments. I'm not advocating that AT&T should continue giving you service if you stop paying your monthly bill.

Buying your phone for full price? That's a legit option. Paying it off? I never knew AT&T gave this option.

----------

If you are in the market to sign up for service, put in the contract that they agree to unlock it for you at the beginning of service.

This would be the fair thing to do, but it would NEVER happen. The day your contract expires, the phone should automatically become unlocked. The problem is that these large carriers are not fair. These laws are made to favor the corporations, rather than protect the consumer. No one is representing the interests of the consumers.

 

[Bheleu]

Car insurance? Bad analogy. I don't know of a state where you can drive with no insurance. Plus, when you finance a car (even a house for that matter), you own the car/house. If you want to paint it bright pink, you can. If you want to take it apart and sell it as parts, you can. If you want to invite 20 people to live in your house with you, you can.

Foreclosure? Bad analogy. You have the option of a short sale or just walking away from the house. Either of these 2 options is not "illegal". Plus, when foreclose, it's because your are not paying your mortgage payments. I'm not advocating that AT&T should continue giving you service if you stop paying your monthly bill.

Buying your phone for full price? That's a legit option. Paying it off? I never knew AT&T gave this option.

----------



This would be the fair thing to do, but it would NEVER happen. The day your contract expires, the phone should automatically become unlocked. The problem is that these large carriers are not fair. These laws are made to favor the corporations, rather than protect the consumer. No one is representing the interests of the consumers.

You have to maintain full coverage insurance, comprehensive. Once it's paid off, you can drop it to liability only. Using public roads requires liability insurance (otherwise you are stealing from the pool of funds that pays out for uninsured motorists, personnel that respond to accidents, etc).

For 20 people to live with you, you better have a 10 bedroom house. Any more than 2 per bedroom is illegal, as it endangers residents.

If you short sale, you have to still pay the difference. If you walk away, it is the same as foreclosure, abandonment.

AT&T does give that option. 2-yr contract, if you signed up at $50/mo = $1200. If you want to walk away after the first year, you owe $600 as your balance of the contract. This is the same as rental property. If you vacate early, you still owe the balance. If you are military, your wages can be garnished. If not, small claims but hard to get lemonade out of lemons so most drop it and put a claim on your credit report.

 

[8281]

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.

Is it hyperbolic? Yes, but it's far from completely wrong. There's something like six lobbyists per congressperson and being elected to any public office requires huge sums of money. And corporations with operations in a certain district will hold considerable influence since the senator or representative doesn't want those jobs to go away.

I find it a little myopic to just blame the government when multinationals are nearly as big or bigger than many governments. Companies are also making an unethical choice to basically bribe politicians. It's legality or business merit is irrelevant; it's still unethical.

 

[ssspinball]

I have no problem with this law existing while you're paying back your carrier. But it's beyond ridiculous that it exists beyond that time. I think carriers should be obligated to unlike your phone the instant the contract ends.

Why do you consider it ok for the carrier to lock the phone even while under a contract? Unlocking your phone doesn't free you from paying each month while you' remain under contract.

Why should I be able to pay my provider on time each month and freely use other SIM cards if I choose to travel the world?

 

[pika2000]

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.

What makes you think that if you paid ETF or complete the contract would get your phone unlocked? There's no law forcing carriers to unlock a phone. That sort of policy is here now because there's the competing "unofficial" unlocking. Now that the later has been made illegal, nothing stopping the carriers to refuse unlocking completely. You cannot assume that carriers won't change their policy, especially when they can tailor the law to suit their business needs.

----------

Its quite simple. Its not on the company (apple or microsoft) its on the carrier. Break it down from there, you have Sprint, ATT, and Verizon. Verizon doesn't lock their iPhone 5's, ATT does. They still come at the same subsidized price, so therefore what is the difference? So its carrier dependent policies regulated by the federal government?

Verizon is forced to not lock the iPhone 5 because of government regulation, agreement that Verizon has to abide to when they got the LTE 700MHz spectrum.