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

[techwhiz]

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.

LTE has nothing to do with locking the devices.
Verizon on LTE does lock their devices.
The Razr HD and other LTE devices are locked so you cannot move them to a new domestic carrier. They are internationally unlocked.

But with it being legal to unlock you phone in Mexico and Canada *AND* just about everywhere else in the world, this is unenforceable.

The web levels the playing field.
People will just use a service located outside the US to do this.
Anyway, most carriers unlock your phone if your contract terms have been fulfilled. Once you are off contract, it is your device and the subsidy has been paid.

I now buy more phone retail anyway so I don't lose unlimited.

 

[pika2000]

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.

Seriously? Regardless of who/where the phone is used, the original person that got the phone under contract is still under contract to fulfill the obligation to the carrier. What's being stolen here?

Really, it's mind blowing to me how far people here are willing to defend their lovely corporations and carriers. It's amazing that they can even conjure up some out of this world assumptions like this.

----------

The web levels the playing field.
People will just use a service located outside the US to do this.
Anyway, most carriers unlock your phone if your contract terms have been fulfilled. Once you are off contract, it is your device and the subsidy has been paid.

I now buy more phone retail anyway so I don't lose unlimited.

Well, that's the thing. The idea being thrown for this enactment is because people are unlocking prepaid phones overseas. But when you think about it, they are OVERSEAS. Having a US law would have no effect on them to begin with, only to restrict those that are IN the US.

Most carriers unlock your phone only because there's pressure from the "unofficial" unlocking. They used to not unlock phones. T-Mobile was the only carrier with an actual unlocking policy. Now that the "competing unofficial unlocking" has been outlawed, carriers can revert back and refuse unlocking, since there's no law that tell them to unlock phones. Case point was AT&T, who used to refuse to unlock iPhones regardless of the circumstances. Nothing stopping them to go back to that policy.

 

[Daremo]

Sorry, but your government has been bought by the corporations and lobbyists of America.

My eyes are wide open to this fact, believe me.

 

[ForcedReality]

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.

NH does not require insurance unless you've been in an accident without insurance and require a letter of financial responsibility. We're the only state that doesn't require vehicle insurance as far as I know.

 

[Small White Car]

Why do you consider it ok for the carrier to lock the phone even while under a contract?

Because I had the chance to buy an iPhone unlocked and I decided to let AT&T pay for it for me instead. That's the trade-off. When I have a choice and I take the path that gives someone else leverage, that's what I get.

It's like how if I buy a car using a loan from the bank...the bank can force me to carry more insurance on that car that I might if I had bought it with cash. That's their right. If I don't like it I have to find a car I can afford without a loan.

 

[lazard]

Because I had the chance to buy an iPhone unlocked and I decided to let AT&T pay for it for me instead. That's the trade-off. When I have a choice and I take the path that gives someone else leverage, that's what I get.

It's like how if I buy a car using a loan from the bank...the bank can force me to carry more insurance on that car that I might if I had bought it with cash. That's their right. If I don't like it I have to find a car I can afford without a loan.

agreed. you don't like the terms? Then don't sign on the line.

 

[Technarchy]

Because I had the chance to buy an iPhone unlocked and I decided to let AT&T pay for it for me instead. That's the trade-off. When I have a choice and I take the path that gives someone else leverage, that's what I get.

It's like how if I buy a car using a loan from the bank...the bank can force me to carry more insurance on that car that I might if I had bought it with cash. That's their right. If I don't like it I have to find a car I can afford without a loan.

That's way too adult like for modern America where people think stuff falls out the sky, everyone becomes a VP straight out of college, and Santa Government makes everything ok.

 

[Brian1502]

Ummm

[/COLOR]
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.[/QUOTE]

Well ATT just reached a deal with Verizon to buy 1.9 BILLION dollars of the 700MHz spectrum, I'm just trying to figure out if they share the 700MHz spectrum now, why would one carrier be unlocked when the other isn't? Wouldn't the FCC have to make the same agreement....

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/25/atandt-buys-1-9-billion-worth-of-700mhz-spectrum-from-verizon/

 

[NorEaster]

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.

But we're not talking about walking away from the contract. No one is saying that AT&T doesn't have the right to charge a subscriber a monthly, contracted price for services (which includes subsidizing the phone). And no one is espousing that the subscriber should break the contract. But carriers in the US (well, AT&T in particular) has not made it possible for a subscriber to both get a phone with a corresponding contract AND also have it immediately unlocked. So one has to ask: Why won't AT&T allow this? Is it because they want to combat the "stolen phone scenario" that you described earlier? Do you really think that many phones are stolen and then unlocked to be used on other networks, which therefore causes AT&T to lose money because they are still paying "licensing" fees?? I'd argue AT&T doesn't care...they are still getting money from the original contract holder. I'd also argue the ONLY reason why AT&T would want this to be illegal is their greed for more profit/revenue. They don't want you to use your phone on another overseas carrier's network because they can't charge you exorbitant fees for it then.

Does my bank who services my car loan specify that I *must* only use the car in the US, or that I must use highways that have electronic payment systems (e.g. EzPass on the East coast) that are tied to them? For example, in Massachusetts, the electronic payment toll system (called Fast Lane) was sponsored by Citizens Bank. If I bought a car and its loan was serviced by Citizens Bank, they didn't stipulate that I can only use roads that have Fast Lane toll booths. Why not? Because it would be stupid and most likely illegal. But under your logic, this would be allowed, right?

Your arguments / analogies just don't hold up.

 

[urbanlung]

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

No. This is what a massive extremely powerful lobbying industry looks like. The government couldn't give a rats arse about this sort of thing, it's the telco's enforcing their muscle. Unfortunatly US politics is so owned by lobby groups and corperations, this just a taste of the future. It is a very sad sight to see how far and quickly the US's democracy is being bought off. Good luck.

 

[Bheleu]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/tech/mobile/smartphone-unlocking-illegal/index.html
"In its latest ruling, the Library of Congress decided the software on a phone is only licensed to the end user, meaning they don't own it, so therefore the software is not covered by fair-use rules."

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...ht-protection-systems-for-access-control#h-17
"The final ruling says there are more options now for obtaining an unlocked phone than in previous years. Many phones are available unlocked for full price, and carriers do have policies in place for unlocking phones. Currently the rules vary from carrier to carrier."

You are correct all my prior analogies are irrelevant as to reasons because the only one that matters is this. You may own the hardware, but you do not own the software. You only have a license to use it, not to mess with its functionality. In other words it is just as illegal for you to lock a cellphone a carrier has unlocked, as it is for you to do the reverse.


President Clinton signed it into law, I did not vote for him either.
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
Seems it should be still allowed because smartphones collect all kinds of personal info.
"Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumven-
tion when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activities of a natural person."

 

[vartanarsen]

But we're not talking about walking away from the contract. No one is saying that AT&T doesn't have the right to charge a subscriber a monthly, contracted price for services (which includes subsidizing the phone). And no one is espousing that the subscriber should break the contract. But carriers in the US (well, AT&T in particular) has not made it possible for a subscriber to both get a phone with a corresponding contract AND also have it immediately unlocked. So one has to ask: Why won't AT&T allow this? Is it because they want to combat the "stolen phone scenario" that you described earlier? Do you really think that many phones are stolen and then unlocked to be used on other networks, which therefore causes AT&T to lose money because they are still paying "licensing" fees?? I'd argue AT&T doesn't care...they are still getting money from the original contract holder. I'd also argue the ONLY reason why AT&T would want this to be illegal is their greed for more profit/revenue. They don't want you to use your phone on another overseas carrier's network because they can't charge you exorbitant fees for it then.

Does my bank who services my car loan specify that I *must* only use the car in the US, or that I must use highways that have electronic payment systems (e.g. EzPass on the East coast) that are tied to them? For example, in Massachusetts, the electronic payment toll system (called Fast Lane) was sponsored by Citizens Bank. If I bought a car and its loan was serviced by Citizens Bank, they didn't stipulate that I can only use roads that have Fast Lane toll booths. Why not? Because it would be stupid and most likely illegal. But under your logic, this would be allowed, right?

Your arguments / analogies just don't hold up.

You are comparing Carriers to Fastlane? wow....

Like I said before, if you wanted an unlocked iPhone, you could have simply walked into an Apple store and purchased it for $650. Yet you decided to pay only $200. Now, don't complain when that entity that allowed you to buy it for only $200, locks it up. It was your choice. You are an adult.

 

[urbanlung]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/tech/mobile/smartphone-unlocking-illegal/index.html
"In its latest ruling, the Library of Congress decided the software on a phone is only licensed to the end user, meaning they don't own it, so therefore the software is not covered by fair-use rules."

"The final ruling says there are more options now for obtaining an unlocked phone than in previous years. Many phones are available unlocked for full price, and carriers do have policies in place for unlocking phones. Currently the rules vary from carrier to carrier."

You are correct all my prior analogies are irrelevant as to reasons because the only one that matters is this. You may own the hardware, but you do not own the software. You only have a license to use it, not to mess with its functionality. In other words it is just as illegal for you to lock a cellphone a carrier has unlocked, as it is for you to do the reverse.


President Clinton signed it into law, I did not vote for him either.
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
Seems it should be still allowed because smartphones collect all kinds of personal info.
"Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumven-
tion when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activities of a natural person."

This kind of makes sense except for the fact that it is, in this case, predicated on the ridiculus notion of locking a phone. If you get a phone with a two year contract at the end of those two years that contract should release you from obligation and since you are paying for the service throughout the duration of the contract the fact that you choose not to use it but use another should also be the end of the matter. The law should be framed as such, any further restriction is unreasonable. The only hope is that at least one telco will loudly broadcast that they don't lock you in, then everyone will start moving towards them and then the other telcos will have to follow suite.

 

[Macist]

Assault rifle - legal. Unlocked phone - illegal.

Only in Amerikuh.

 

[ArmCortexA8]

Glad we don't have this ******** in Australia. You can buy and phone outright and unlock and if you purchase on contract they will unlock with a fee and contract termination, but it is not illegal to unlock any mobile in Australia.

 

[RolyPolyBird]

agreed. you don't like the terms? Then don't sign on the line.

These phones are being marketed to millions of people at a consumer level. Consumers need to be protected from complicated terms. Not everybody is born a lawyer, you will have teens entering into these contracts, elderly persons, people with mental defects e.t.c

People should ensure they pay off their monthly commitments as per the plan and that should be their only requirement. If they fail to meet the payments then that is a matter for the civil courts and debt recovery.

They should be able to jailbreak it if they wish, spray paint it another colour or use it as an anal vibrator for all I care. This should be of no concern to the Carrier.

That this could end up as a criminal matter, or be pursued (read:bullied) in the civil courts just shows how bought America is. Consumer protection matters and its time for the related agencies to step in.

 

[holtm]

What is a good site to get an unlock from?

 

[Moof1904]

agreed. you don't like the terms? Then don't sign on the line.

The issue isn't whether or not the carrier who subsidizes the phone has a right to insist that the user keep the phone on their service for the length of the contract. The issue is whether failing to honor the contract should result in:

1) A civil matter in which the carrier cancels the contract and exacts a penalty for violating it (or something along those lines) or,

2) Federal agents, armed with automatic weapons, storm your house and drag you to prison for 5 to 10 years.

A rational mind would seem to embrace option 1 as the more appropriate resolution.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Well, here you go. Another totally dumb, useless law made by those with their heads up their a**es.

Guess those lobbying telecom dollars were well spent /s

I'd suggest writing Congress, but I think we all know that won't do a flipping bit of good. Their approval rating is like 3% and they just don't fracking get the message.

----------

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of corporations and to the share holders for which they stand, one bank, under money, indivisible, with liberty and justice for none.

Technology is empowering us to be un-powerful.

I think you mean The Corporate States of America there, but otherwise yeah.

 

[ohbrilliance]

If locking phones became illegal, discounted phones would disappear.
Then you'd pay $700 upfront for your phone (unlocked), JUST AS YOU CAN TODAY ALREADY.
-t

Not so in other markets. Telstra will unlock my phone for free while under contract, yet the iPhone was $0 up front, and monthly contract fees lower than those in the US. I still need to honour the contract
whether unlocked or not.

 

[NorEaster]

You are comparing Carriers to Fastlane? wow....

Like I said before, if you wanted an unlocked iPhone, you could have simply walked into an Apple store and purchased it for $650. Yet you decided to pay only $200. Now, don't complain when that entity that allowed you to buy it for only $200, locks it up. It was your choice. You are an adult.

No...read my post please. I'm comparing carriers to BANKs. And I didn't pay $200 for my phone. I paid $200 and signed a contract to cover the rest of the phone cost and I'm legally bound to pay money against the terms of that contract. Since I'm legally bound to paying the terms of that contract, then why can't I use that phone on a different carrier? As others have pointed out, AT&T gets its money from me either way.

Using my analogy with banks, cars and highways...Since my bank provided to me a loan so I could buy my car, does it allow my bank to dictate which roads I can drive on? Can they tell me I must use toll roads (that they are affiliated with) instead of using other roads when I drive from MA to NY?

Per your comment "It was your choice. You are an adult." - you say this as if we as consumers are idiots and aren't making good buying decisions. But choice isn't the issue here; the issue is protection of the consumer. With the change in the law that goes into effect on Saturday, what would prevent AT&T from changing their policies to deny unlocking even after a subscriber has fulfilled his/her contract? NOTHING...nothing would prevent AT&T from doing this. The phone is mine; I'm honoring the contract that I signed by paying my monthly fees. I should be able to use that phone as I wish.

 

[MarvinMartian]

Since when is the "Librarian of Congress" a lawyer.

Put the question and the discussion into the legal system and let the courts decide.

Tell the Librarian of Congress to stick to their core competencies, sorting books and filing microfiche..

 

[bradl]

Since when is the "Librarian of Congress" a lawyer.

Put the question and the discussion into the legal system and let the courts decide.

Tell the Librarian of Congress to stick to their core competencies, sorting books and filing microfiche..

With a statement as naive as that, you don't understand what authority the LOC actually has.

[/COLOR]
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.

Well ATT just reached a deal with Verizon to buy 1.9 BILLION dollars of the 700MHz spectrum, I'm just trying to figure out if they share the 700MHz spectrum now, why would one carrier be unlocked when the other isn't? Wouldn't the FCC have to make the same agreement....

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/25/atandt-buys-1-9-billion-worth-of-700mhz-spectrum-from-verizon/[/QUOTE]

This... you may have something on. If it is because of government regulation, the question now becomes if the regulation is company-specific or spectrum specific. If the latter, ATT may have to unlock the iPhone 5. Also, if VZW no longer owns any part of that spectrum, they might be within their right to *lock* those iPhones that were unlocked.

If they both own part of that spectrum, both should fall under that regulation.

BL.

 

[vtails]

This is BIG,,the DMCA I remember when they came into being,"DAVE&CHARLIE" and Napster I can tell you that they(DMCA),will,can and do go after people&Company's it's not about putting people in FED. JAIL it's about FINE's Lawyer's,,Court Cost.In Federal Court,Felony's on your record!!! Sound's like it scare's me and it did and still doe's!!
But what I wonder about is Gevey thing's like that,

 

[vartanarsen]

The phone is mine; I'm honoring the contract that I signed by paying my monthly fees. I should be able to use that phone as I wish.

This is the problem right there...you have false sense of entitlement that this is "your phone".....no its not your phone.

My phone, that I paid $650 for in the Apple Store, is my phone(or at least much more "my phone" than your phone is your phone)

You signed a contract to get it for $200. Your monthly payments are for Service, not the device. ATT helped you by paying $450 difference for the device...thus they get to do what they want.

If you didnt want that, you should have walked in the Apple store and paid $650 for it..like myself and others.