Related
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.
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
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.
Guys i wounder if you are aware of it
.
Removing SIMlocks was banned in the United States from 26 January. Everyone who buys the phone with a SIMlock after that date in order to "free" his mobile will need to obtain an official permission from a carrier . The new legal regulation does not include phones purchased before January 25, carriers are still free to offer unlocked handsets. However, if an American buys a phone with a SIMlock, he would be unable to remove blockages in simple way without permission.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NO UNLOCKED SIM-LOCK= NO UNLOCKED BOOTLOADER
Oh how glade i am that i am not in USA?:laugh: how much i hate anti -hacker policy !
Warning think twice before you buy phone !!! Simfree
You can always break the law
America. Land of the free..........
Sent from my LT26i using xda premium
You just have to buy them sim free... Obvious, no?
Sent from my LT26i using xda app-developers app
alexpraga said:
You just have to buy them sim free... Obvious, no?
Sent from my LT26i using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah,and what if its much cheaper to buy on the contract,how about that?
There's a huge problem with this law... Developers are NOT going to honor it. In theory, and on paper, they will. (To protect themselves from legal action) ... But the fact of the matter is this.. It's illegal to download music... How many people has THAT stopped?
If anything, this new law in effect will cause an outrage, and actually help the community. It's bred in our genetic code to be "curious"... So that "curiosity" may very well spark new findings and methods for unlocking, just for the simple fact "someone" is trying to tell us we can't.
This wasn't put in play to hurt the modification community. It was put in place to protect the carriers themselves.
Retail Value -vs- Contract termination to move your newly unlocked phone to a cheaper carrier.
Contract termination is almost always cheaper... So the carriers are actually losing money that way. It's all about the money, and never about the customer. Well...the majority of the time anyways..
power323f said:
America. Land of the free..........
Sent from my LT26i using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean united states, because America Is not a country, is a continent.
I honestly think we should feel stepped down on devs pride with this law.The operators are putting themselves in "God Mode" and trying to stick you to them.They have absolutely no right to this!Screw these bastards!
panchuckles said:
You mean united states, because America Is not a country, is a continent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes i know. But ask somebody in the United States of America on the street and they will say they live in America.
Sent from my LT26i using xda premium
I think this will just make people who really care about this sort of thing step back and take a look at how much money they are wasting buying locked phones. Last time I checked and things may have changed is when I buy a carrier locked phone from att the phone it self costs me 100$ while the phone unlocked is about 450$ so they make it sound like I am getting a good deal buying the phone with two year contracts while in turn they force me to buy expensive and UN-needed carrier provided data plans that are extremely limited. Last time I was with att back when g1 came out it cost me something like 49$ for the phone plan plus extra 39$ for data plan they would not allow me to get the cheaper data plans since the higher priced one in what was "required" by that phone. Soon I canceled that plan. Next I bought with cash a sony x10 cost me something like 300$ then I had my 39$ unlimited talk and text from t-mobile and then 10$ a month for 2gb data since it is all i needed since wifi is everywhere. That saved me 29$x24 months = 696$ - 300 for the phone = total savings of 396$ Not counting the fact that t-mobile plan was cheaper.
Point is for the most part it is cheaper to get an unlocked phone and a lower data plan than it is to buy a contracted phone.
and btw this law effects SIM locks only not BOOTLOADER locks. Still safe to break bootloaders for now. Odd how last year the DMCA made it so they had to give us unlock codes and now it makes it so it is illegal to unlock sims.
DekinGBar said:
I honestly think we should feel stepped down on devs pride with this law.The operators are putting themselves in "God Mode" and trying to stick you to them.They have absolutely no right to this!Screw these bastards!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It still comes down to the fact that carriers pay you to use their service for 18 months - 2 years. They pay you by giving a $400-$600 phone to you for CHEAP and even FREE prices. No one is forcing anybody to get a subsidized phone instead of unlocked versions. This reaction is comparable to free G-Mail users complaining about how Google scans and saves ALL users E-mail to create a database on them for possible ways to sell something. They can do this because YOU LET THEM. If you don't like how AT&T or others treat customers then don't use their services
power323f said:
Yes i know. But ask somebody in the United States of America on the street and they will say they live in America.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only if you ask someone that doesn't care about the United States of America, how it was founded and the Constitution that gives us our Liberty.
Sorry for the off-topic, but as a happy AT&T customer and a citizen of the USA I felt the need to mini-rant
Sent from my LT26i using xda premium[/QUOTE]
DekinGBar said:
Yeah,and what if its much cheaper to buy on the contract,how about that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It seems cheaper but it's not in the long run! Telecom companies are not really there to buy us phones from manufacturers and give them to us! We are just asking for a loan to buy a phone!
DekinGBar said:
Yeah,and what if its much cheaper to buy on the contract,how about that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know about your country but in Germany it is always a lot cheaper to buy an unlocked phone.
The only difference is that when you get a locked phone from a carrier, you don't have to pay it all at once (but with extremely high monthly fees)
Gesendet von meinem LT26i
Please note that is not completely illegal for you to unlock your phone in the US - you just cannot use third party companies to do it. A carrier can willingly allow you to unlock your phone - this part is not illegal as they still can issue an unlock code if it inline with their unlock policies.
Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal. Hurry!!! Few Days Left!!!
Here is the link where you can submit your vote against making unlocking illegal (new government program)
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
mine420 said:
and btw this law effects SIM locks only not BOOTLOADER locks. Still safe to break bootloaders for now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly.
______________
From my LT28
LT28 Thread Index
Sv: SIM-unlock is illegal in the U.S
In Denmark we don't have SIM locks anymore... Only on iPhone if there is any
What is the penalty for unlocking the lock in the US then?
Sent from my LT26i using xda app-developers app
I don't day that. I say I live in heaven
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2