Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unauthorized Unlocking of New Mobile Phones Set to Become Illegal in U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If RIM is smart they're going to release their new Blackberry 10 unlocked right from the start. This stupid law in connection with Apple's stupid arrogant approach of trying to tell their customers what to do and not to do all the time makes me even less want to buy an iPhone than before. And I am in the market for a new phone...
How ironic that some Americans might one-day flood to other countries to find real freedom again, even if it might not have the same economic benefits.
There is nothing "anti-competitive" about this.
Consumers are still free to vote with their wallets.
Consumers are still free to enter into contracts (as they see fit) with the various carriers within the U.S.
Just because one buys a phone outright, that does not give one the misguided "perceived" right to use said phone on Carrier A any way he or she wants to, barring specific stipulations provided for in the contract.
I know I am a drop in an ocean, but that is exactly why I don't have an iphone 5. I was dying in September to get one but didn't want to be any of the big 3 carriers bitch. Apple delayed it for close to 2.5 months and at that point to be honest I lost interest and decided to stick with my iPhone 4S. Bought a new $3 case instead
It is one thing to give carriers 2-3 week exclusivity window, that I can swallow, but 10 weeks. No thanks.
I think you meant, "Amerika."
Ah, the joys of DMCA....We are all guilty, until proven innocent.
Yep. Other examples--CPS can enter your home and seize your children without a warrant or conviction for a crime on the grounds of suspicion if a judge agrees and now the New York State gun law allows police to enter your home, confiscate any firearms (including legal ones), and arrest you, without a warrant or conviction for a crime, if a mental health worker suspects you might harm others. Worse, it is a crime not to report a "suspicion" and mandated reporters can be charged with criminal negligence if a person with whom they have contact commits a crime and a judge determines that they should have suspected the purported criminal.
Acually it does. Voice is just data using the same lines in the same way data is used on the network. What the data contains and how it is used is entirely private. You cannot use data in a way the network cannot carry it.
This is why messenger apps are allowed on phones that can text message. This is also why you can skype vs Facetime. This is also why you can tether vs pay two data plans.
Purchasing media in ANY form gives you the right to use said media in ANY way (play it, watch it, store it, back it up, copy it, burn it, destroy it, and even sell it).
It is only illegal to do the above with COPIES of the original media.
As long as you do not clone the hardware, it is entirely within your rights to modify it, unlock it, and even sell it.
see here's the iffy part of it: It looks like the law is for new phones only. The services all say they're sticking around.
If one buys a phone and signs up for service, one is bound by the terms of the agreement or contract. The same applies to the service provider.
Unless otherwise stipulated in the terms of service amongst any of the service providers, none are required or obligated to provide service on their network, or any other network, to a person with an unlocked phone.
It appears, that many here want the various providers to be required by law to get them that ability, in difference to any service or contractual agreement to provide service in the first place.
Unless otherwise stipulated in the terms of service amongst any of the service providers, none are required or obligated to provide service on their network, or any other network, to a person with an unlocked phone.
It appears, that many here want the various providers to be required by law to get them that ability, in difference to any service or contractual agreement to provide service in the first place.
In Brazil too. Also there's a carrier which doesn't customize the firmware of their subsidized phones because they think their customers prefer this approach - totally unlocked even when in a contract.
The main difference here is that most people - or a lot of - buy unlocked phones because the extra charge is not so higher than a subsidized one. In most cases it's cheaper buying an unlocked phone in retailers.
Show me the section of your service or contract agreement, that gives you (the consumer) the contractual right as it's customer, to use their service in any manner you want to.
People are really stupid.
They sign contracts they don't understand, and then they'll complain about anti-competitive behavior.
All those crying bloody murder that locking phones is anti-competitive, you need to consider this:
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.
Seriously, people, what's the fuss ?
-t
They sign contracts they don't understand, and then they'll complain about anti-competitive behavior.
All those crying bloody murder that locking phones is anti-competitive, you need to consider this:
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.
Seriously, people, what's the fuss ?
-t
I wish mobile phones were looked at like computers, you go buy your computer and then call up which ever ISP that you want that offers service in your area. I started to write I don't understand why it isn't this way, but then it hit me GREED.
Barring a few, most of the comments here are born out of frustration due to the affect this new law will have on their wallets. Yes there is a legal logical reason, yes there is comparison with other country policies, etc., etc., but the primary reason is at the end of the day, this is going to reduce your options and hurt your wallet.
You can buy unlocked, or you can pay ETF and get unlocked, etc. But for most people who travel and are currently tied in contracts, it is painful and really frustrating to not have that option without shelling out an arm/leg, when in fact every other country they travel they see it available for free.
I strongly believe it is very unfair on carrier's part to have the same monthly plans for people who are in contracts and for people who end up buying unlocked. If they are adding the price of subsidized phones in the monthly plan, people with unlocked phones should have a reduced price plan that does not include the phone price.
Exactly. Not only is this contract law, but it's also property law. It is apparent very few on here know anything about the law and its implications. A piece of property, just because you possess it, does not mean you can do what you please with it. Basic property law courses in the first year of law school teach this concept ad nauseum. You may own a house, but you cannot do anything you wish with it. You must still pay taxes, you cannot build anything you want on the piece of property, you cannot pollute the area simply because it's your own property. This can be carried over from real property to chattels.