What is this crap. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105...king-of-smartphones-becomes-illegal-saturday/
Not a fan of this
Heres my thoughts. Everybody will ***** and complain about this, but nobody will do anything about it. They will not tell us what we can and cant do with OUR own property. Sure, its now illegal to unlock our phones. The solution is simple, stop buying phones from all the carriers! Everybody stop buying phones and watch them all crumble without us. If everybody is not willing to stick together and make a stand....then dont ***** about the problem.
Sent from my SGH-I747M
While this still does suck you guys do realize this just means carrier unlocking right? Like unlocking so you can use an att phone in tmobile and vice versa. Plus it doesn't sound like it applies if you buy an unlocked phone or get the code from your carrier.
Sent via carrier pigeon...
Already a thread on this.... http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2116859
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium
So much for America " the land of the free"
"Free," as in market and due rights. No one said anything about manufacturers property.
Am I the only person in America who never goes to the AT&T store besides when I initially buy my phone? If it breaks, I fix it. It there's cellular issues or internal problems I go online and send it in. People are too dependent on the actual carriers. This is why they enact such measures like this because they know a majority of Americans see no other choice but to be subjected to such laws. From home if I unlock my phone I guarantee AT&T can't detect it and since I never go in to the store, they can't deny insurance that I never buy or warranties I always break after flashing the my phones an hour after I receive them.
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Mr Patchy Patch said:
Heres my thoughts. Everybody will ***** and complain about this, but nobody will do anything about it. They will not tell us what we can and cant do with OUR own property. Sure, its now illegal to unlock our phones. The solution is simple, stop buying phones from all the carriers! Everybody stop buying phones and watch them all crumble without us. If everybody is not willing to stick together and make a stand....then dont ***** about the problem.
Sent from my SGH-I747M
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As soon as Google releases an LTE-compliant Nexus (or X Phone, or whatever else they may call it in the future), I will never purchase another carrier/OEM-branded phone again. In fact, I am seriously considering holding on to my S3 until such a phone comes out. LTE is becoming more and more ubiquitous, so it's only a matter of time until an unlocked, unbranded stock Android phone comes out that supports it. After all, the Nexus 4 has LTE capability (not an LTE antenna, though), and some crafty tinkerers managed to get it to connect to LTE.
There is a similar thread over on the TMo side (which is what I have), but I posted this in there.
It is NOT going to be illegal for you to unlock your phone. It WILL be if you do it without the permission of your carrier. That means that T-Mobile and AT&T will have to do it for you. For Verizon (and Maybe Sprint but not sure), there is an FCC requirement that any devices utilizing 700MHz for LTE cannot be locked.
Woody said:
There is a similar thread over on the TMo side (which is what I have), but I posted this in there.
It is NOT going to be illegal for you to unlock your phone. It WILL be if you do it without the permission of your carrier. That means that T-Mobile and AT&T will have to do it for you. For Verizon (and Maybe Sprint but not sure), there is an FCC requirement that any devices utilizing 700MHz for LTE cannot be locked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This fact alone doesn't make it any less BS. We, not the carriers, are the rightful owners of the phone. As such, the decision of what we want to do with our phone should be made by us, not the carriers. Why should we get permission from the carrier to unlock the phone? If, for instance, I buy a Chevrolet, should I be legally required to obtain permission from General Motors before using another manufacturer's parts?
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and it is BS. But from what I have read on this, it is for phone that are purchased under contract (subsidies). In that case, most people do not own the phone. It is more of a lease until you pay it off at the end. Once the phone is paid off, then you can unlock at will.
As for your Chevy example, let me play devil's advocate. You buy a Chevy and while you don't specifically have to ask them for permission to use a Ford gear shifter, your warranty probably states that only factory supplied or authorized materials can be used, otherwise you void the warranty upon installation. You intall the Ford gear shifter and somehow that destroys your transmission and shreds the gears. Is this covered by GM? They will probably say no because you installed an after-market device that caused the problem.
Woody said:
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and it is BS. But from what I have read on this, it is for phone that are purchased under contract (subsidies). In that case, most people do not own the phone. It is more of a lease until you pay it off at the end. Once the phone is paid off, then you can unlock at will.
As for your Chevy example, let me play devil's advocate. You buy a Chevy and while you don't specifically have to ask them for permission to use a Ford gear shifter, your warranty probably states that only factory supplied or authorized materials can be used, otherwise you void the warranty upon installation. You intall the Ford gear shifter and somehow that destroys your transmission and shreds the gears. Is this covered by GM? They will probably say no because you installed an after-market device that caused the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just found the article linked below, which states that only phones purchased after January 26, 2013 will be affected by the new law. In other words, we are not affected by this law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/tech/mobile/smartphone-unlocking-illegal/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
I'd be interested in looking into the logistics behind ownership of subsidized phones. I was always under the impression that a phone subsidy was an incentive to entice customers to sign a two year contract; after all, we are charged an early termination fee if we break the contract early, yet the device is ours to keep. Moreover, there's no formal lease agreement.
I completely agree with your analogy, but it's more applicable to rooting, rather than unlocking. From what I understand, rooting a phone automatically voids its warranty, regardless of manufacturer. Unlocking a phone, on the other hand, never voided the warranty. After all, no additional software is installed as part of the unlock process.
Woody said:
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and it is BS. But from what I have read on this, it is for phone that are purchased under contract (subsidies). In that case, most people do not own the phone. It is more of a lease until you pay it off at the end. Once the phone is paid off, then you can unlock at will.
As for your Chevy example, let me play devil's advocate. You buy a Chevy and while you don't specifically have to ask them for permission to use a Ford gear shifter, your warranty probably states that only factory supplied or authorized materials can be used, otherwise you void the warranty upon installation. You intall the Ford gear shifter and somehow that destroys your transmission and shreds the gears. Is this covered by GM? They will probably say no because you installed an after-market device that caused the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've heard even if you buy a phone outright from a provider the law is still upheld even though you bought it out of contract.
---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------
kgbkny said:
I just found the article linked below, which states that only phones purchased after January 26, 2013 will be affected by the new law. In other words, we are not affected by this law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/tech/mobile/smartphone-unlocking-illegal/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
I'd be interested in looking into the logistics behind ownership of subsidized phones. I was always under the impression that a phone subsidy was an incentive to entice customers to sign a two year contract; after all, we are charged an early termination fee if we break the contract early, yet the device is ours to keep. Moreover, there's no formal lease agreement.
I completely agree with your analogy, but it's more applicable to rooting, rather than unlocking. From what I understand, rooting a phone automatically voids its warranty, regardless of manufacturer. Unlocking a phone, on the other hand, never voided the warranty. After all, no additional software is installed as part of the unlock process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am also curious of they will void the warranty now if a phone is unlocked...
there is no way to relock it either so you'd be screwed
Well I feel like if you buy a phone out right and pay full retail or whatever not the 199.999 2yr contract price then you should be able to do what ever you want to it.
Its like nike saying ok you bought our air max's you can only wear nike socks with them don't let us catch you wear reebok or adidas socks.
dligon said:
Well I feel like if you buy a phone out right and pay full retail or whatever not the 199.999 2yr contract price then you should be able to do what ever you want to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And you can. If you buy it outright from ATT then they can unlock it for you. You just can't take it down to Unlock City and have them do it.
Now if ATT refuses to unlock it, then there is just cause for you to file a non-compliance complaint against them.
Woody said:
And you can. If you buy it outright from ATT then they can unlock it for you. You just can't take it down to Unlock City and have them do it.
Now if ATT refuses to unlock it, then there is just cause for you to file a non-compliance complaint against them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do they actually have to by law if you buy it outright?
Probably not by law but it is your property (once paid off) and if you don't have a contract then there should be no ties that bind. Now if you are using THEIR service/bandwidth they can enforce certain criteria based on services rendered.
Anyone can file a complaint, it is just hard to determine where and to whom it would be most effective.
Edit: I think I might get a copy of this law in the morning and read it on the pooper. I have a legal background so I can decipher some legalese. Anyone got a link? Not to another news source, but the actual law.
Woody said:
Probably not by law but it is your property (once paid off) and if you don't have a contract then there should be no ties that bind. Now if you are using THEIR service/bandwidth they can enforce certain criteria based on services rendered.
Anyone can file a complaint, it is just hard to determine where and to whom it would be most effective.
Edit: I think I might get a copy of this law in the morning and read it on the pooper. I have a legal background so I can decipher some legalese. Anyone got a link? Not to another news source, but the actual law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder if they could charge you a fee to unlock after you buying it outright
Woody said:
And you can. If you buy it outright from ATT then they can unlock it for you. You just can't take it down to Unlock City and have them do it.
Now if ATT refuses to unlock it, then there is just cause for you to file a non-compliance complaint against them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well att, tmo, probably would honor unlocking the phones. Verizon you may have trouble with as always
Ill never buy a carrier branded phone again
Related
If you are having an issue getting the Lumia 900 unlocked or trying to set it up on an AT&T MVNO. Please post something here. I started to think about it, when I bought the phone I thought.. ah I will just get it ulocked and bring it to T-Mobile. Then I was told about H2O in the process, even then I hit an AT&T wall. I did not unlock the phone, I am using it on AT&T through a friend so to speak H2O. The network settings app is on the marketplace if you are outside the US, it's not inside the US. I got off the phone with Nokia 2nd tier and he hinted toward AT&T blocking it. Then I started to think about what I was purchasing and how really nothing else we purchase is like this. You buy a car it's yours, you buy a computer it's yours.. why are phones different? I called my class action attorney client and had a discussion with him about it. Nothing may come of it, but if it does I need a list of those in the same boat, you bought the device out right no contract and can't use it outside of AT&T and that includes features like MMS not functional and a simple config utility would fix. Please do not post about how it won't work becuase blah, blah, blah. I just need a list of people so if anything comes of it I can say here is a list of others with the same issue.
Jumping on the bandwagon...
Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk 2
Right there with ya. I however went with Straight Talk which of course I cant use my MMS as well until the unlock comes available. I am curious if I can proxy my wifi to an international proxy so that I can access outside the USA market apps? Anyone have any ideas on this?
You can add me to the list of those that bought the phone at full price. I never called AT&T to ask for an unlock code. Do I need to do that first to prove that I'm at a disadvantage caused by AT&T?
awagner said:
I just need a list of people so if anything comes of it I can say here is a list of others with the same issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please count me in, I can send you my data in a private message, just let me know
21stNow said:
You can add me to the list of those that bought the phone at full price. I never called AT&T to ask for an unlock code. Do I need to do that first to prove that I'm at a disadvantage caused by AT&T?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's see what he says.. I contacted H2O today, as soon as they realized it was WP7, nope can't get MMS. I saw the pics of the network setup out of US and it has all those settings we need. If we need to contact AT&T I will try that tomorrow, but I think this is a bigger issue.
count me in too.
In.
I know people have been saying to give up calling ATT. But I just called for the first time tonight, and thought I'd share some of the interesting bits I got. Well interesting to me because they weren't what I was expecting in comparison to everyone else's. Anyways~,
~I asked about dates and a supervisor told me that on 5/7/2012, this past Monday, that their notes for the Lumia 900 were updated by corporate.
~What it essentially says is that they can't say anything. lol
~When I pushed a bit more she told me that it was updated to say that they have no expected date as of now for the release of unlock codes. That they won't release any now because it's an exclusive and otherwise ineligible (Which everyone has already heard.). And that customer service reps are urged to not even submit requests because they all will instantly be denied on the spot.
~Also they told me I was the first one they've heard of trying to unlock this phone.
EDIT: Also, I know this was just adding to the pile of. "Reps Don't Know Squat"
EDIT: Meant to post this on the other thread. Oh well~ Anyways~ I'm in too I guess.
sushirom said:
I know people have been saying to give up calling ATT. But I just called for the first time tonight, and thought I'd share some of the interesting bits I got. Well interesting to me because they weren't what I was expecting in comparison to everyone else's. Anyways~,
~I asked about dates and a supervisor told me that on 5/7/2012, this past Monday, that their notes for the Lumia 900 were updated by corporate.
~What it essentially says is that they can't say anything. lol
~When I pushed a bit more she told me that it was updated to say that they have no expected date as of now for the release of unlock codes. That they won't release any now because it's an exclusive and otherwise ineligible (Which everyone has already heard.). And that customer service reps are urged to not even submit requests because they all will instantly be denied on the spot.
~Also they told me I was the first one they've heard of trying to unlock this phone.
EDIT: Meant to post this on the other thread. Oh well~ Anyways~ I'm in too I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For this thread, I don't think it matters. The way I look at it, if they are gonna control where I can use a phone I paid full price for (Even if it was on CL) without a contract. Then they should support it to get my MMS working on their MVNO! Could you imagine if other things you buy where like this. You buy that nice new Nissan Fronteir, you can only drive on Nissan roads. Let's say you bought a GTE rotary phone 30 years ago and you could only use GTE as long distance company we would be like FU I am gonna do what I want!
awagner said:
For this thread, I don't think it matters. The way I look at it, if they are gonna control where I can use a phone I paid full price for (Even if it was on CL) without a contract. Then they should support it to get my MMS working on their MVNO! Could you imagine if other things you buy where like this. You buy that nice new Nissan Fronteir, you can only drive on Nissan roads. Let's say you bought a GTE rotary phone 30 years ago and you could only use GTE as long distance company we would be like FU I am gonna do what I want!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HHAAAAA~! I SAID THE SAME THING OVER THE PHONE. (Except I used Toyota). They also brought up that I didn't buy the phone directly from them, like that it was a point for them. And I go, "Yeah...that kind of just furthers my point. How does AT&T hold exclusive rights to block me from using something the way I want when I didn't even purchase it from them?) And they just repeated "AT&T has exclusivity and the phone is currently ineligible after that.
Too funny!! I love it.. well great minds think alike or it's just the damn truth. ha ha
awagner said:
If you are having an issue getting the Lumia 900 unlocked or trying to set it up on an AT&T MVNO. Please post something here. I started to think about it, when I bought the phone I thought.. ah I will just get it ulocked and bring it to T-Mobile. Then I was told about H2O in the process, even then I hit an AT&T wall. I did not unlock the phone, I am using it on AT&T and though the network settings app is on the marketplace if you are outside the US, it's not inside the US. I got off the phone with Nokia 2nd tier and he hinted toward AT&T blocking it. Then I started to think about what I was purchasing and how really nothing else we purchase is like this. You buy a car it's yours, you buy a computer it's yours.. why are phones different? I called my class action attorney client and had a discussion with him about it. Nothing may come of it, but if it does I need a list of those in the same boat, you bought the device out right no contract and can't use it outside of AT&T and that includes features like MMS not functional and a simple config utility would fix. Please do not post about how it won't work becuase blah, blah, blah. I just need a list of people so if anything comes of it I can say here is a list of others with the same issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Count me in
im in
i'm in.
i've called AT&T 6 times since logging my customer care case and they tell me nokia hasn't released the codes. LOL
OP - you're wasting everyone's time. When you buy a branded phone you know full well that it will be locked to a carrier. Buying the device at full retail does not entitle you to take your device elsewhere. AT&T (and all other carriers) spend months and millions in R&D to develop and test the phone before bringing it to the market, so it is completely logical that they wish to get a return on investment in form of service revenue. In case you're wondering, carriers do not make money off hardware, that's not the business they're in.
There is no rule or law that requires carriers to remove SIM lock. They do it as a courtesy when they see fit, but they are not required to do that by any means. How do you think AT&T was able to deny iPhone unlocks for so many years if it was illegal?
Anyone who bought the phone before checking with AT&T about their unlock policy have no one but themselves to blame, simple as that.
AnyMal said:
OP - you're wasting everyone's time. When you buy a branded phone you know full well that it will be locked to a carrier. Buying the device at full retail does not entitle you to take your device elsewhere. AT&T (and all other carriers) spend months and millions in R&D to develop and test the phone before bringing it to the market, so it is completely logical that they wish to get a return on investment in form of service revenue. In case you're wondering, carriers do not make money off hardware, that's not the business they're in.
There is no rule or law that requires carriers to remove SIM lock. They do it as a courtesy when they see fit, but they are not required to do that by any means. How do you think AT&T was able to deny iPhone unlocks for so many years if it was illegal?
Anyone who bought the phone before checking with AT&T about their unlock policy have no one but themselves to blame, simple as that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Please do not post about how it won't work becuase blah, blah, blah" Hmm guess you didn't read that part. This is not just about unlock codes. "
H2O MMS or others Ulock codes" I don't even need an unlock code for H2O. Besides I already made my case to someone who does this stuff for a living, maybe nothing, maybe something... didn't I already say that somewhere?
awagner said:
"Please do not post about how it won't work becuase blah, blah, blah" Hmm guess you didn't read that part. This is not just about unlock codes. "
H2O MMS or others Ulock codes" I don't even need an unlock code for H2O. Besides I already made my case to someone who does this stuff for a living, maybe nothing, maybe something... didn't I already say that somewhere?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A laywer willing to sue for money? Color me surprised
AnyMal said:
A laywer willing to sue for money? Color me surprised
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I know , we will see what he says.. never know might see something we don't. After all, I am a techy, not a lawyer. May be interesting.. maybe not. He did bring up what it says on the box. T-Mobile has a seal that says by opening this product you accept terms yadda yadda. AT&T does not. No terms and conditions on the box at all that I saw.
awagner said:
I know, I know , we will see what he says.. never know might see something we don't. After all, I am a techy, not a lawyer. May be interesting.. maybe not. He did bring up what it says on the box. T-Mobile has a seal that says by opening this product you accept terms yadda yadda. AT&T does not. No terms and conditions on the box at all that I saw.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't have to post terms on the box, they are usually on the back of the sales receipt. As long as the phone is fully functional in the environment it was designed for, there is just no basis for complaint. I wouldn't spend a dime on the lawyer if I were you. Just thinking logically here, not trying to start a war
Guys,
I was researching about unlocking my Lumia 900 since april, just like 100s of you. I was looking over nokia forums and one of the guys recommends filing complains with fcc. He even gave a link - http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
Those who purchased the phone for a full price, please fill up the form and submit. If there will be a lot of us, fcc might be able help with that.
He says that you should receive a call from AT&T very soon if FCC will decide to help you with that.
I looked in to this briefly, and I don't think unlock requests are covered. It might be viable after 53 days when at&t says they'll give codes.
We've been around this block over and over again. AT&T is not obligated to unlock your phone even if you bought it at full price, and FCC will tell you the same.
Is there any other method to unlock lumia 900 beside the unlocking code? At least if some one trying to unlock this phone would be fantastic.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 900 using xda app-developers app
pk-air said:
Is there any other method to unlock lumia 900 beside the unlocking code? At least if some one trying to unlock this phone would be fantastic.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 900 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No there isn't, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or trying to scam out of your money. Just wait a while longer, AT&T will start unlocking them beginning Oct 8th when exclusivity period expires.
AnyMal said:
No there isn't, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or trying to scam out of your money. Just wait a while longer, AT&T will start unlocking them beginning Oct 8th when exclusivity period expires.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not really sure if they will start on october 8. They already lied to me in the store that there would be no problem to unlock it.
And yeah - they are doing illegal thing by refusing to unlock the phone. They don't have any legal reason to keep it locked.
zoom2d said:
I am not really sure if they will start on october 8. They already lied to me in the store that there would be no problem to unlock it.
And yeah - they are doing illegal thing by refusing to unlock the phone. They don't have any legal reason to keep it locked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I had a dollar every time we went over this It is NOT illegal for them to refuse to unlock the phone. There is no law in US that states mobile operators are obligated to unlock phones to work on other operators. It absolutely doesn't matter whether you bought phone on contract or paid full price.
AnyMal said:
We've been around this block over and over again. AT&T is not obligated to unlock your phone even if you bought it at full price, and FCC will tell you the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is 100% false. If you buy it for full price and they tell you it can work on another network they either owe you a 100% refund or an unlock code. Fraud is fraud.
AnyMal said:
If I had a dollar every time we went over this It is NOT illegal for them to refuse to unlock the phone. There is no law in US that states mobile operators are obligated to unlock phones to work on other operators. It absolutely doesn't matter whether you bought phone on contract or paid full price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fraud is illegal. If you pay full price and they tell you it is unlocked or can be unlocked over the phone they must refund or give the unlock code. Not sure why people think the law doesn't apply to the telecom business. The problem is the methods for forcing at&t to do the right thing were spelled out... not sure if anyone actually followed the instructions.
sitizenx said:
This is 100% false. If you buy it for full price and they tell you it can work on another network they either owe you a 100% refund or an unlock code. Fraud is fraud.
Fraud is illegal. If you pay full price and they tell you it is unlocked or can be unlocked over the phone they must refund or give the unlock code. Not sure why people think the law doesn't apply to the telecom business. The problem is the methods for forcing at&t to do the right thing were spelled out... not sure if anyone actually followed the instructions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please provide a link to AT&T terms of service where it explicitly tells you that AT&T is obligated to unlock your phone when you pay full price. Please provide a link to Attorney General, Consumer Protection Agency, BBB, Federal Trade Commission, or any other regulating body that specifies mobile carriers MUST unlock phones.
I'll spare you trouble, you can't find such information because it doesn't exist. Stop making a fool out of yourself and trying to fool others. Do your homework before telling someone they're "100% false", otherwise you're just making yourself look ridiculous.
AnyMal said:
Please provide a link to AT&T terms of service where it explicitly tells you...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The at&t terms or service are irrelevant. You realize there are numerous people that bought the phone for full price and never signed up for "service" with at&t. You realize that, right? Right? If you walk in and pay full price after the salesperson says the phone will work on your network they have to either make it work on your network or give a refund. This isn't rocket science.
sitizenx said:
The at&t terms or service are irrelevant. You realize there are numerous people that bought the phone for full price and never signed up for "service" with at&t. You realize that, right? Right? If you walk in and pay full price after the salesperson says the phone will work on your network they have to either make it work on your network or give a refund. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not sure if you're really inept or just trolling. It absolutely doesn't matter if you sign up for AT&T service just like it doesn't matter if you pay full price. When you buy AT&T phone you buy AT&T phone, meaning that it is only guaranteed to work on AT&T. Not unlocked, not T-Mobile, not Sprint - AT&T. Get it? Stop trying to make a point, you don't have one.
Dear friends, I only have one thing to ask in relation to this whole discussion. For people who signed a two-year contract with AT & T and that will necessarily fulfill the contract, what difference it makes to AT & T if the phone will be unlocked or not? The commitment already exists, the contract must be fulfilled unconditionally, then why keep the devices blocked? Sadism??
sitizenx said:
The at&t terms or service are irrelevant. You realize there are numerous people that bought the phone for full price and never signed up for "service" with at&t. You realize that, right? Right? If you walk in and pay full price after the salesperson says the phone will work on your network they have to either make it work on your network or give a refund. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds to me like your ***** should be with the salesperson. Sales Rule #1: Tell them whatever they want to hear. And I think the phone does "work". Just not completely.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express Pro
sitizenx said:
This is 100% false. If you buy it for full price and they tell you it can work on another network they either owe you a 100% refund or an unlock code. Fraud is fraud.
Fraud is illegal. If you pay full price and they tell you it is unlocked or can be unlocked over the phone they must refund or give the unlock code. Not sure why people think the law doesn't apply to the telecom business. The problem is the methods for forcing at&t to do the right thing were spelled out... not sure if anyone actually followed the instructions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're implying the Telco's run an illegal business and its up to us to enforce it? Pretty sure that's not what you mean, but it sure sounds like it. in the past 5 years this has received tons of scrutiny by the FCC. Any yet, the phones stay locked. That should tell you something.
I think Anymal says it with his comment about locked and unlocked. Actually, AT&T doesn't sell Unlocked phones. They sell Contract and NO Contract phones. But no matter, At&T is still AT&T
alodar1 said:
You're implying the Telco's run an illegal business and its up to us to enforce it? Pretty sure that's not what you mean, but it sure sounds like it. in the past 5 years this has received tons of scrutiny by the FCC. Any yet, the phones stay locked. That should tell you something.
I think Anymal says it with his comment about locked and unlocked. Actually, AT&T doesn't sell Unlocked phones. They sell Contract and NO Contract phones. But no matter, At&T is still AT&T
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a classic case of what happens when assumptions replace common sense. People tend to assume that buying phones off contract entitles them to remove carrier restrictions, at carrier's expense. Of course, this is a completely false assumption. Carriers are not going to stop anyone from leaving, they just won't help them to do so. You were sold AT&T phone and that is exactly what you received; no more, no less. Salesman lied? Never heard of that appening before silly but if that's the case take it up with their management.
I am still puzzeld as to what breeds these assumptions, but misinformation is so persistent that many less-educated consumers (and apparently some members) are treating it as gospel.
mol14 said:
Dear friends, I only have one thing to ask in relation to this whole discussion. For people who signed a two-year contract with AT & T and that will necessarily fulfill the contract, what difference it makes to AT & T if the phone will be unlocked or not? The commitment already exists, the contract must be fulfilled unconditionally, then why keep the devices blocked? Sadism??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well a lot of us didn't put a deposit down when we got the phone. Mine was "free." I paid a $30 "activation fee." They can't just let you walk out the door with a $500 device for $30 and not have some controls in place. Yes they have a contract but if you break the contract what are they going to do? The only thing they can do is report you to a credit bureau and turn your account over to a collections agency. Even then in a lot of cases it's doubtful they will collect much.
If you pay full price? Well then yeah I have no idea about that. First of all very few people would do that in the United States and I can't imagine how it hurts at&t. That's what is so confusing about the deceptive sales practices and the obstinance.
jimski said:
Sounds to me like your ***** should be with the salesperson. Sales Rule #1: Tell them whatever they want to hear. And I think the phone does "work". Just not completely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have any "*****" as you put it. I have no need to unlock my phone at this time. I was just debunking misinformation on the internet as a public service. "Tell them whatever they want to hear" will get you in legal trouble. I've had this routine pulled on me and the companies that did it ended up paying me THOUSANDS. The problem is there is so much misinformation out there people simply do not know how to pursue these matters.
alodar1 said:
You're implying the Telco's run an illegal business...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're implying Telcos never get sanctioned for doing illegal things?!
AnyMal said:
This is a classic case of what happens when assumptions...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually several people physically went into at&t stores and were told that they could buy the Lumia 900 for the full price and get the phone unlocked and use it once they got back to Canada. Someone in another thread actually posted images of their unlocked at&t Lumia working with their Canadian sim once at&t provided the unlock code to them. No assumptions.
Folks it doesn't matter whether you are discussing phones or widgets. If someone tells you a device will work in a particular manner at at your home location and it doesn't they have to either refund you or make it work. I'm not sure why people are confused about this. Bizarre.
But don't locked AT&T Lumias work on other networks? Just without LTE (and sometimes 3G) and MMS in most cases. So if I tell you, "sure, this phone will work on other networks", am I really lying. Or just not telling the truth.
AT&T pays cash for an "exclusive period" on a phone. They have every right to prevent you from doing whatever you choose with it till they say it's ok. I'm cool with that.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express Pro
I purchased a Lumia 900 from AT&T and threw a att.mvno sim in it, downloaded the Nokia Network Setup app from marketplace, configured it and everything works just great... very happy
jimski said:
But don't locked AT&T Lumias work on other networks? Just without LTE (and sometimes 3G) and MMS in most cases.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No man. Not sure where you got that idea. There have been numerous posts about this topic. Educate yourself.
jimski said:
AT&T pays cash for an "exclusive period" on a phone. They have every right to prevent you from doing whatever you choose with it till they say it's ok. I'm cool with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't give them the right to lie. If the salesperson says you may pay full price for this phone and we will unlock it so you can use it in Canada in October that is perfectly fine. A bit illogical but totally legal.
jimski said:
So if I tell you, "sure, this phone will work on other networks", am I really lying. Or just not telling the truth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BOTH. Get a dictionary.
halfevildruid said:
I purchased a Lumia 900 from AT&T and threw a att.mvno sim in it, downloaded the Nokia Network Setup app from marketplace, configured it and everything works just great... very happy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What in God's holy name does that have to do with this thread.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01...ile-phones-becomes-illegal-in-the-us-tomorrow
I think it applies to a carrier unlock., not a bootloader for custom roms.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
"You have 48 hours."
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
Carrier unlocking is what it's talking about. This is also further proof that the the United States is has become "by the corporation for the corporation".
" Unlocking a phone frees it from restrictions that keep the device from working on more than one carrier's network, allowing it run on other networks that use the same wireless standard. This can be useful to international travellers who need their phones to work on different networks. Other people just like the freedom of being able to switch carriers as they please. "
Assimilated using the interface that interacts with the advanced internet.
unlocking becomes the new jailbreaking lol
I didn't see this thread, hopefully a Mod will have mercy on me and delete my thread.
The basis of this law being passed is so weak that it really does make me quite concerned that the rooting community is going to come into focus before long. The judge ruled that unlocking a phone infringes on copyright laws, which it really doesn't, and I suspect that long term the rooting community will be a target. You can already see from companies like Motorola and now HTC that this is an area of concern for them.
Personally I am concerned for it, but would hope that companies that openly support rooting like Samsung and Google will come to our aid.
If the government DOES take action against rooting, I would hope that a judge would look at an OS like Android and rule that rooting cannot by definition be illegal since everything is open source. But we all know how that is likely to go.
I registered and signed the petition. Not sure if it'll do much, but hope it catches attention.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda premium
It only applies to carrier unlocking, it does not affect unlock bootloaders.
latindor17 said:
It only applies to carrier unlocking, it does not affect unlock bootloaders.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With an immediate outlook you are absolutely correct. The problem here is the precedent that is being set.
If courts rule that simply unlocking a phone that is no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract is copyright infringement, there is not a huge jump for the courts to then apply this to the rooting community. Companies are already laying groundwork against custom ROMs, like HTC, Motorola, and to an extent Apple with the jailbreaking community. This could snowball in the future and make life really miserable for anyone wanting to root.
Copypasta from other thread.
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)
I like how you added in the part about "no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract" as that does change the argument you present, however, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is you 'carrier unlocking' a phone that you specifically agreed to use on their network, so you can use it on another network (technically, this is a breech of contract, and technically you've defaulted if you do this by not following the terms of the contract).
benmatlock said:
Copypasta from other thread.
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)
I like how you added in the part about "no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract" as that does change the argument you present, however, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is you 'carrier unlocking' a phone that you specifically agreed to use on their network, so you can use it on another network (technically, this is a breech of contract, and technically you've defaulted if you do this by not following the terms of the contract).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I have read on this legislation is that regardless of whether or not you are still in the contract you may not unlock the subsidized phone sold to you by the phone company. I am the first to admit my understanding of this is far from perfect, but what I have read indicates that you CANNOT unlock the phone regardless of whether or not you are in the contract. This is, in my opinion, an area that the telephone companies should not be able to regulate. I took the "lease" terminology from the post you referenced earlier. In reality this is not a lease as much as it is a "lease to own" situation. The company does not request the phone back after the contract expires and cedes ownership of the property at that point to the individual. Under these circumstances the contract to use the phone specifically on their network is fulfilled.
I agree with you completely that while still under contract this is a completely valid legislation, and users should understand the terms of the contract, but it has also been reported extensively that the legislation extends beyond the end of the contract and allows phone companies to enforce these copyright laws after the expiration of the contract. THIS is the precedent that concerns me for the rooting community.
Xiutehcuhtli said:
What I have read on this legislation is that regardless of whether or not you are still in the contract you may not unlock the subsidized phone sold to you by the phone company. I am the first to admit my understanding of this is far from perfect, but what I have read indicates that you CANNOT unlock the phone regardless of whether or not you are in the contract. This is, in my opinion, an area that the telephone companies should not be able to regulate. I took the "lease" terminology from the post you referenced earlier. In reality this is not a lease as much as it is a "lease to own" situation. The company does not request the phone back after the contract expires and cedes ownership of the property at that point to the individual. Under these circumstances the contract to use the phone specifically on their network is fulfilled.
I agree with you completely that while still under contract this is a completely valid legislation, and users should understand the terms of the contract, but it has also been reported extensively that the legislation extends beyond the end of the contract and allows phone companies to enforce these copyright laws after the expiration of the contract. THIS is the precedent that concerns me for the rooting community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, what I have read on the legislation (just got done reading the jist of the part about phones) from the verbage, it implies that carriers (like AT&T for example) offer 'unlocking provisions' that allow you to unlock the device after the expiration of the contract.
benmatlock said:
Well, what I have read on the legislation (just got done reading the jist of the part about phones) from the verbage, it implies that carriers (like AT&T for example) offer 'unlocking provisions' that allow you to unlock the device after the expiration of the contract.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will read some more at work tomorrow. Too late for me to put that thinking cap on.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
deleted
VoluntaryMan said:
It's not illegal for me since I'm using Ting which doesn't frown upon customers running custom ROMs or rooting routing their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not illegal to use custom ROMs yet for anyone.
Unlocking phones is still legal for phones purchased before the 27th. For most people, this law will only affect you with the next phone that you buy.
Thinking about this..
How would they ever be able to figure out you've done this? Are they going to call other Service Providers and ask "hey man, you got this imei on your network??"
They aren't going after the users. Just the sellers of unlocked phone as its the process of unlocking that's supposedly now illegal.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
I would say at this point for all of us here in this forum at least would understand that Sprint as our carrier as well as Verizon will not ever ever allow a non carrier specific ESN on there network , even if say someone were to flash one of our devices to cricket or metro they would no longer be allowed to switch that device back.
So this law that is highly geared towards aggravated theft and people being hurt even killed over there very expensive smartphone (let's be totally honest iSuck ) and with out any hassle putting it on a different carrier and not be traced, has nothing to do with the rooting community or custom ROMs especially here on xda where it is moderated to not allow copyright infringement or taking credit for any company's work
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
Unlocking New Mobile Phones Becomes Illegal In the US Tomorrow
Posted on Friday January 25, @09:30AM
from the who-owns-your-stuff dept.
Tyketto writes
"Referencing a decision outlined in the Federal Register, Tech News Daily has published an article noting that the window to unlock your new mobile phone in the U.S. is closing. 'In October 2012, the Librarian of Congress, who determines exemptions to a strict anti-hacking law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), decided that unlocking mobile phones would no longer be allowed. But the library provided a 90-day window during which people could still buy a phone and unlock it. That window closes on January 26.' While this doesn't apply to phones purchased before the window closes, this means that after 1/26/13, for any new mobile phone you purchase, you'll have to fulfill your contract, or break the law to unlock it."
It will still be perfectly legal to purchase an unlocked phone, which many carriers offer. This change removes the exemption for buying a new phone under contract (and thus, at a discount) and then unlocking it.
Yes to monopolize and to limit the development on android. These apple and samsung are both sharks who owns the senate )
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
Sadly old news, just because its illegal wont stop it happening though same as console modding, piracy or any other such thing. They are just taking the view of carrier locks should be DCMA protected. I dont agree with it but well theres quite a few things I dont agree with that get into law. Thankfully im not over in the states or I would be a dirty dirty criminal.
Just to reiterate, this only applies to after market SIM Unlocking - e.g. places where you pay money to sim unlock phones. Doesn't apply to carrier sim unlocking, factory unlocked phones, or bootloader unlocking.
jonshipman said:
Just to reiterate, this only applies to after market SIM Unlocking - e.g. places where you pay money to sim unlock phones. Doesn't apply to carrier sim unlocking, factory unlocked phones, or bootloader unlocking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
You can still unlock the bootloader, root and flash to your hearts content. You just can't buy a phone on AT&T unlock by a third party and move to T-Mobile. Also it only applies to the USA.
HTC's sudden anti developer stance is far more worrying and is going to lose them a lot of customers.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using xda app-developers app
Land of the no longer free.
People could have stopped that bill easily but hardly anyone bothered to read it and thought it was merely about illegal downloads.
Supporting a campaign against it and spreading the word was one of the reasons they went all out to close demonoid the torrent site down.
To be honest i don't see why any carrier should sim lock a phone, after all when you sign a contract you are bound for that contract length regardless of the phone being locked/unlocked.
After the contract is finished you will either stay with that carrier or upgrade again all with the phone being locked or unlocked.
I tend to get my phones from shops that sell them already unlocked & i have been with the same carrier for 8 years now.
Network SIM locking is one thing, breaking US law unlocking your damn focking phone is ridiculous, you own the focking thing anyway,Americans laws are really strange
I hope this will not happen in EU
Sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, Android's open source so whats the deal? Unless I'm missing something. As someone mentioned previously, I hope it doesn't come to the eu.
fmaskarin said:
I hope this will not happen in EU
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Americans are pressuring the EU to adopt the legislation as international law. One of the few partys resisting it are these guys
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
Braderzf50 said:
Sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, Android's open source so whats the deal? Unless I'm missing something. As someone mentioned previously, I hope it doesn't come to the eu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does Android been open source have to do with SIM unlocking?
OP: Can you put in the title that this applies to SIM unlocking to help out people that dont read before ranting???
Fellows here comes the trend of buying unlocked phones. These carriers will cry once people start buying their own phones. They will only get the utility and less profit.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
I can understand this as the network are subsidising the cost of the phone expecting to make the money back during the contract - but even if you unlock it to another network your still going to be liable for the monthly contract charges? so this only makes sense for PAYG which aren't greatly reduced from the unlocked price anyway.
I have a T-Mobile s4, which is turned off due to non payment and I want to hook it up with another carrier. I tried the info given to unlock it but after I enter the number, it doesn't go to the screen shown on the video. Is there anything I can do besides pay T-Mobile?
Nope. I'm pretty sure that you have to have an active line to unlock.
purplekity415 said:
I have a T-Mobile s4, which is turned off due to non payment and I want to hook it up with another carrier. I tried the info given to unlock it but after I enter the number, it doesn't go to the screen shown on the video. Is there anything I can do besides pay T-Mobile?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None payment of service or non payment on device?
Either which way your device is black listed. But if for non payment on device, technically device is stolen.
And either each way, this is probably a grey area to discuss on xda
carrier unlock s4
ShinySide said:
None payment of service or non payment on device?
Either which way your device is black listed. But if for non payment on device, technically device is stolen.
And either each way, this is probably a grey area to discuss on xda[/QUOTE
Hi, thank you for getting back to me so soon. It is off due to non payment of the bill and i put down half on the phone, so i guess its for both. I lost my job and could not afford to pay anything to anyone until i got my unemployment, anyway i wonder if i will have a problem restoring the service when i get paid? Thanks again.
denise
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ShinySide said:
None payment of service or non payment on device?
Either which way your device is black listed. But if for non payment on device, technically device is stolen.
And either each way, this is probably a grey area to discuss on xda
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope what you mean is that carrier locking of phones is borderline criminal. There is nothing morally wrong with unlocking your own phone. If you don't pay your electric bill, they don't confiscate your lights.
Sent from my One using Tapatalk
mhannigan said:
I hope what you mean is that carrier locking of phones is borderline criminal. There is nothing morally wrong with unlocking your own phone. If you don't pay your electric bill, they don't confiscate your lights.
Sent from my One using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Guess you dont understand what I meant by non payment on the phone. i.e. Tmos payment plan to pay off the phone. Which you are in a contract to pay off the device. And if you dont fulfill the contract....guess who legally owns it? Cant buy a car not pay the bank and say hey i dont bank with you anymore so now I own the car legally....
ShinySide said:
Guess you dont understand what I meant by non payment on the phone. i.e. Tmos payment plan to pay off the phone. Which you are in a contract to pay off the device. And if you dont fulfill the contract....guess who legally owns it? Cant buy a car not pay the bank and say hey i dont bank with you anymore so now I own the car legally....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, it would be a little bit more like not paying your OnStar subscription fee and then having someone in a forum talk down to you like you stole the car because of it.
There is a huge difference here. The phone and the "contract" being intermingled with control over using the phone is nothing more than a tool to blackmail the customer into staying with the provider. T-Mobile's primary business is providing service for a monthly fee. I paid cash for my T-Mobile branded phone ($700+). But when I traveled abroad about a month later, they refused to unlock it because I had not had it with T-Mobile service yet for 40 days (although I have been with T-Mobile for at least a decade).
Like I said, when you don't pay your electric, they don't disable your lamps and your TV. They don't even come take your CFL bulbs that they subsidized. I get to use those bulbs with a windmill if I want to. When you don't pay your landline bill, they don't remotely disable your Panasonic cordless phone. If they COULD, they WOULD, but we wouldn't tolerate it. Unfortunately, there are people (like you) who have been lulled into thinking that this is OK when it comes to cell phones. Being a Senior Member, I think you should set a better example and use your critical thinking - and not simply imply that someone who didn't pay their cell bill shouldn't even be discussing it in public.
That was my point - indicating that you're not even sure if it should be discussed here is a bit dramatic - the guy isn't trying to screw anyone - just exploring his options. He paid for half of the phone up front, and paid for service for somewhere between 0 and 2 years. If anyone has been screwed, it's him by being held hostage.
A cell phone and a financed automobile are in different ballparks, my friend. I think you know that.
Mike
mhannigan said:
Actually, it would be a little bit more like not paying your OnStar subscription fee and then having someone in a forum talk down to you like you stole the car because of it.
There is a huge difference here. The phone and the "contract" being intermingled with control over using the phone is nothing more than a tool to blackmail the customer into staying with the provider. T-Mobile's primary business is providing service for a monthly fee. I paid cash for my T-Mobile branded phone ($700+). But when I traveled abroad about a month later, they refused to unlock it because I had not had it with T-Mobile service yet for 40 days (although I have been with T-Mobile for at least a decade).
Like I said, when you don't pay your electric, they don't disable your lamps and your TV. They don't even come take your CFL bulbs that they subsidized. I get to use those bulbs with a windmill if I want to. When you don't pay your landline bill, they don't remotely disable your Panasonic cordless phone. If they COULD, they WOULD, but we wouldn't tolerate it. Unfortunately, there are people (like you) who have been lulled into thinking that this is OK when it comes to cell phones. Being a Senior Member, I think you should set a better example and use your critical thinking - and not simply imply that someone who didn't pay their cell bill shouldn't even be discussing it in public.
That was my point - indicating that you're not even sure if it should be discussed here is a bit dramatic - the guy isn't trying to screw anyone - just exploring his options. He paid for half of the phone up front, and paid for service for somewhere between 0 and 2 years. If anyone has been screwed, it's him by being held hostage.
A cell phone and a financed automobile are in different ballparks, my friend. I think you know that.
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahaha Okay so according to your logic, Everyone go to Tmobile Only put a down payment down then run off with the phone and you legally own it. Sounds so legit and logical. Their not going to unlock a phone they legally own because some one didnt pay it off. Or unlock your phone for you when you owe them money. Nor let you use it on their service under a different account. Why? Because everyone will just rack their bill up then just open a new account so they dont have to pay that racked up bill off. Obviously you dont understand how a business and contracts work. Hes not being "held hostage" he/she just isnt going to receive a service (ie unlock code) when he/she owes money.
Is but same logic. Dont pay your phone, no unlock code. Dont pay your note, No title. As far as your 40 day problem? (And its actually 90) No where lets you buy phones out right, unlock them right away and walk away free without service. They'd lose money and wouldnt be a service but just a cell phone dealer. If you want to do that go buy a factory unlocked which costs even more then one locked to a carrier then you dont have to worry about whinning and crying you cant unlock your phone when you dont pay your bill, fulfill a contract, or fulfill the terms of service you signed when you purchased the device.
Anyways you think its cool to unlock and "run off" with a phone that isnt paid in full and money is owed on, and I dont. We can just leave it at that.
OT but actually its 7 or 14 days service needed to get it unlocked once its paid in full, I don't remember exactly but its one of those. I called T-Mobile a few months ago and that's what they told me.. It might be a recent change