Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

White House Petition Lobbies to Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal

bradl said:
Umm, no. The customer is getting the shaft on network and locking policies by the carriers that participate it in it. Again, If you bought an iPhone 4 for VZW or Sprint, and you wanted to switch carriers to ATT, and you were still under contract with VZW or Sprint, you'd have to pay their ETF, start new service with ATT, buy a new iPhone, and are stuck with another iPhone that can't be used. That's another $450 at the least coming out of your pocket, plus a phone that you can't use.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with this law but rather the tech behind the phones and how spectrum was divided up. The latter, not locking, is why you can't take an AT&T iPhone to t-mobile and get the same level of service.

As for my roaming fees, I don't pay them. I bought my phone unlocked since my company was paying the cost. Issue solved.

As for that old man, originally jailbreaking was deemed hacking and thus illegal. He said, as long as you weren't doing it to do something illegal 'hack' away. At your own risk (the companies like Apple don't have to provide support under warranties for a hacked phone even if it is a legal action)

So before you call someone bollocks get your facts straight and complete
 
charlituna said:
That has nothing to do with this law but rather the tech behind the phones and how spectrum was divided up. The latter, not locking, is why you can't take an AT&T iPhone to t-mobile and get the same level of service.

So before you call someone bollocks get your facts straight and complete
Click to expand...

Umm, wrong. You are assuming that this is only relevant to the US: it is not. If I have a phone on ATT that uses the same spectrum as, say, Telstra or Optus in Australia, I still couldn't use my phone if I went to Sydney. I would still be locked to ATT regardless, and have to pay high int'l roaming fees just to use my phone.

If I were to move there, I would still have to either fulfill the contract, or pay the ETF to free up my phone with the chance of it getting unlocked should I move there. Or, I would have to keep the phone, pay the ETF, and buy a new phone from Telstra or Optus to use an iPhone down there.

That is from locking, not the spectrum. BTW: ATT uses the same spectrums as Telstra, Optus, and quite a few others in Europe. So perhaps you need to revisit your facts.

BL.
 
bradl said:
And according to the law, any phone purchased before 1/26/13 can be unlocked without having to get the carrier's approval or completely fulfilling the contract. So your post is bollocks.

BL.
Click to expand...

pssssst. it was a joke. lighten up.
 
bradl said:
Umm, wrong. You are assuming that this is only relevant to the US: it is not. If I have a phone on ATT that uses the same spectrum as, say, Telstra or Optus in Australia, I still couldn't use my phone if I went to Sydney. I would still be locked to ATT regardless, and have to pay high int'l roaming fees just to use my phone.
Click to expand...

Which is NOT what you said and I quoted. You referred to CDMA system phones being unusable on GSM networks. Well iPhone 4 series.

THAT is what I responded to and while you are likely going to continue to try to call me stupid, my comments were correct. If you wish to respond further, do me the courtesy of using whatever scant reading skills you have to review what was said and respond to it and not some random whatever you want to pull out of a nearby orifice and claim that it's what I said

And after that, do a bit of research. Because for the past several months if you paid AT&T the ETF to buy out your contract they would happily unlock your iPhone. Takes a bit of money, a phone call to customer support and a wait of perhaps 72 hours plus the time to restore your iPhone to remove the lock from the software. Totally legal.
 
charlituna said:
Which is NOT what you said and I quoted. You referred to CDMA system phones being unusable on GSM networks. Well iPhone 4 series.

THAT is what I responded to and while you are likely going to continue to try to call me stupid, my comments were correct. If you wish to respond further, do me the courtesy of using whatever scant reading skills you have to review what was said and respond to it and not some random whatever you want to pull out of a nearby orifice and claim that it's what I said
Click to expand...

I never claimed to say that you said anything. I only called your comments wrong, and provided an example. But thanks for the personal attack. Reported.

And after that, do a bit of research. Because for the past several months if you paid AT&T the ETF to buy out your contract they would happily unlock your iPhone. Takes a bit of money, a phone call to customer support and a wait of perhaps 72 hours plus the time to restore your iPhone to remove the lock from the software. Totally legal.
Click to expand...

And again, you miss my total point. ATT is not the only ones affected by this, and the iPhone is not the only phone affected by this either. Your comments are so narrowly focused on the iPhone that you do not see the entire picture.

This problem, as I mentioned before in this thread, stems all the way back to the late 90s, and affects all phones, not even just the latest ones. You assume that everyone is on the latest/greatest phone. They are not. You assume that all phones are using the same network technology over the same spectrums. They are not. VZW, Sprint, MetroPCS, TMobile, and every other carrier in this country is affected by this, yet you seem to only want to concentrate on AT&T.

You do realize that as a VZW customer, , regardless of them unlocking the GSM side of an iPhone for international use, right? [url=http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/04/iphone-4s-will-be-faster-only-on-att-unlimited-on-sprint-but-maybe-not-interchangeable/#more-97017]You couldn't take that phone to ATT or TMobile. You'd have to purchase a new iPhone for that.

A simple search for "iphone 4s cdma unlock" at this very site revealed answers contrary to what you have said.

That is why I alluded to a standardized network, which would have eliminated the whole entire problem with unlocking. All would have been unlocked and we could have taken our phones where we please. And we had that: GSM. VZW and Sprint screed that up. But by all means, go ahead in believing that you are right. Facts indicate the opposite, but I'll support your right to be wrong.

BL.
 
pacalis said:
It is in the gun debate too. Ironically if they trusted other Americans there wouldn't be so many guns out there, but now that they're are so many guns, its harder to trust people, and so people want more to protect themselves.

Probably not. America is becoming awash in energy, which should drive the economy for years to come. And when there's money about, American's forget all their problems and Canada will look like a drag.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's sort of like the Cold War arms race - one side buys more weapons, the other side responds. It was until the status quo is broken was there a disarmament.

As for energy, it comes from Canada - over 25% of the oil the United States consumes each month comes from your northern neighbour. People focus on Saudi Arabia and OPEC countries, but Canada exports 3x more oil to the United States than Saudi Arabia. Canada's oil exports are equal to 3/4 of what OPEC provides!

Perhaps if more effort were spent on a breakthrough green energy... but obviously the oil industry is throwing up all sorts of road blocks.
 
coolspot18 said:
Yes, it's sort of like the Cold War arms race - one side buys more weapons, the other side responds. It was until the status quo is broken was there a disarmament.

As for energy, it comes from Canada - over 25% of the oil the United States consumes each month comes from your northern neighbour. People focus on Saudi Arabia and OPEC countries, but Canada exports 3x more oil to the United States than Saudi Arabia. Canada's oil exports are equal to 3/4 of what OPEC provides!

Perhaps if more effort were spent on a breakthrough green energy... but obviously the oil industry is throwing up all sorts of road blocks.
Click to expand...

Canada's oil is nearly all heavy and there aren't the refineries to handle it. meanwhile the US has jacked up its natural gas infrastructure, is fracking the hell out of itself, and has scaled back energy usage, which all equates to an upcoming energy boom in the US. Actually if you look at natural gas prices you can see it's been happening for more than a year.

Canada is going to be important, but less important in the coming years and not a place where **** is happening.
 
bdkennedy1 said:
You can sell it if you want but you're still required to pay off the contract. So you can sell your phone for $600 but you're still going to pay $2000 to end the contract.
Click to expand...

Would only be reasonable if I buy the device at full price and they had a separate plan for those folks who buy off contract. Right now if I buy unlocked or att7 sub iPhone I still pay the same monthly rate, the only thing is I am not obligated to stay with them for 2 years.

It will all depend on how they do this, because if you buy an iPhone unlocked from Apple you can use it on AT&T without a contract, and then AT&T has nothing to tie you to them.
 
bradl said:
You assume that all phones are using the same network technology over the same spectrums. They are not.
Click to expand...

No. If you actually read what I wrote you would see that I made no such assumption.

And anyone that has read what I wrote will see very clearly that you are not reading before you bash me for making incorrect statements and that nothing I have said has been wrong. But hey if you get some kind of thrill out of it, enjoy. It no longer matters to me.
 
Wicked1 said:
Would only be reasonable if I buy the device at full price and they had a separate plan for those folks who buy off contract. Right now if I buy unlocked or att7 sub iPhone I still pay the same monthly rate, the only thing is I am not obligated to stay with them for 2 years.
Click to expand...

Exactly. THAT is the kind of garbage that needs to be ended. Along with ending initial locking at all. Not this petitions version which is to merely make it legal to unlock without asking the carrier if its okay. In effect keeping his business legal. That's really all this guy cares about. He wants the phones to be locked so he can make money.

Subsidies are supposed to be a loan by the carrier for device cost. They justified contracts and ETFs with this argument. They put forth the claim that the loan would be paid back over the contract etc. so when it is paid off (which should be the exact amount 'loaned' and not a penny more unless they are going to spell out the interest from day one) that should be the end of those fees. Put them on a separate line. And if we bring in our device fully paid, that line is empty
 
bdkennedy1 said:
You can sell it if you want but you're still required to pay off the contract. So you can sell your phone for $600 but you're still going to pay $2000 to end the contract.
Click to expand...

Huh that makes no sense? If you but an IP5 with a sub you start a 2 year contract if you cancel you pay an etf of $325.00 with AT&T plus the $199.00 you paid for the phone so say $525.00 and contract is done.
 
Let freedom ring??

A petition does nothing but get your "issue" addressed by Washington idiots. It's a way for Americans to feel like they actually have control over something. Just like voting, it's an illusion.
 
Two new petitions

Wicked1 said:
Would only be reasonable if I buy the device at full price and they had a separate plan for those folks who buy off contract. Right now if I buy unlocked or att7 sub iPhone I still pay the same monthly rate, the only thing is I am not obligated to stay with them for 2 years.
Click to expand...

Two new petitions went up late last night.

One to make it required to simply sell phones unlocked. Which is what I think we need since making it legal it 'user unlock' only really benefits companies like the petition starter's. http://wh.gov/G7Ut

The other is about pricing of plans. In particular the issue of not discounting rates when there is no subsidy or it has been paid off. http://wh.gov/G7GL
 
I guess this can go a lot of different ways.

If you get a SUB phone, you should be locked to the carrier, most will unlock your phone after your 2-Year commitment which is fair, however there should be a reduced rate for the plan, like an incentive.

If you buy an unlocked phone and pay full price, then no need to worry as it is already unlocked, however carriers could charge a premium for these plans since you are not locked into a contract and they did not give you anything toward a phone.

I think those two options work fairly to benefit everyone, because I would rather have the Sub on my phones, save and stick with AT&T.

If the government allows unlocking right away, I can see plans going up in price, but those who signed a two year should have to wait until their 2-Year is over to unlock their device. I would do this with all three of my phones.

I bought a Note II from AT&T as I travel to UK and they unlocked the phone with no issues, however they said they can not unlock an iPhone due to Apple's policy until it reached 2-Years.

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back