Related
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
The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
I believe this only applies to new phones.. and you have 90 days from the date of the law to unlock your phone without any penalties.
page 16 of the docket: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-26308.pdf
so most of us are okay. but it sucks for people buying new phones. Might be okay on used phones, but I haven't gotten to that part yet.
chances are they'll revise the law in 2 years.
Seeing as T-Mobile is doing away with subsidized phones and the other carriers will probably follow suit much the same as international markets then one would no longer have a need to lock into a2 year contract unless of course there are to be plan discounts. That said there should be no reason for a carrier to refuse to unlock a phone that a consumer is now paying full price for, which is pushing $600 to $700 for the newest high end models.
I certainly don't agree that we should be paying upwards of $700 for something that has a realistic life span of 2 years, i would expect a laptop of the same price to last 5+. However i do agree that if you purchased a phone at a lower subsidized price and signed a two year contract then no you should not be able to Sim unlock it. Now if you pay your early term fees and are clear of your contact them there should be no reason for a carrier to deny unlocking said device.
If you are a person that travels abroad and need an unlocked phone them you should take that into consideration at time of purchase or contact the carrier to deal with it then.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
I'm not sure but can this be posted in other threads without getting in trouble so we can make everyone know about this situation?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium
blakdrew said:
I'm not sure but can this be posted in other threads without getting in trouble so we can make everyone know about this situation?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see why not...but whats the point? Everyone should know about this by now, its been mentioned on various websites all over the internet.
Also, no offense to the OP but this petition is pretty useless, I mean, we all know how good petitions (ones pertaining to mobile phones) have worked before. Companies don't pay attention to it, so I doubt Congress will. The whole issue is redundant seeing as whoever wants to unlock their phone, will end up unlocking it, whatever the law may be. Its not like the government will set up random checkpoints to take your phone and make sure its not unlocked. People are just over reacting like they usually do. Its been illegal to download music and movies for a few years now and that doesn't seem to stop the people doing it. The only thing I see the this law harming are the various websites and ebay auctions that make money from unlocking phones. The truth is compared to the old Nokia days, smart phones(some, not all) are pretty easy to unlock.
One of the provisions is if you buy a phone from a 3rd party youre exempt.
My opinion? Its a sad day in this country when you dont have complete ownership of some you purchase.
Today its phones, tomorrow its......?
blackangst said:
My opinion? Its a sad day in this country when you dont have complete ownership of some you purchase.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know. Even the cell phone industry (CTIA) basically admitted in its arguments to the Library of Congress that the reason they want this is purely in order to protect their business model (based on subsidies) and has nothing to do with copyright. It's bizarre to claim that it can possibly be a violation of copyright to use a physical device that you fully own the way you want. And it's pathetic that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world in terms of having a rational competitive wireless market.
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidised price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
yeah, but all carriers have ETF's (Early Termination Fees) that you have to pay if you jump ship before fulfilling your contract. That should take care of the subsidized cost of the phone.
mike-y said:
yeah, but all carriers have ETF's (Early Termination Fees) that you have to pay if you jump ship before fulfilling your contract. That should take care of the subsidized cost of the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes if those fees actually get paid. Or most likely someone who is being shady in the first place will just let those fees go to collection and later written off in bankruptcy or simply forgotten about for years and years.
Take me for example, i got my phone for $99 (2 of them actually) and i am very unhappy with T-Mobile but still have 18 months on my contract well my thought is to unlock the phone, jump ship, and worry about the early term fees at a later date which by the way wouldn't be in my name anyway. So really if i break up with my girlfriend then I'm not responsible and i just made a $400 profit. Now i have two reasons not to do all that 1I'm not a shady person and 2 its now illegal.
My point is that all one needs to do is ask the carrier to unlock the phone and if there are no contact obligations then the carrier has no reason not to. The only ones that should have issue are those trying to be shady.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
explodingboy70 said:
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidised price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
explodingboy70 said:
Yes if those fees actually get paid. Or most likely someone who is being shady in the first place will just let those fees go to collection and later written off in bankruptcy or simply forgotten about for years and years.
Take me for example, i got my phone for $99 (2 of them actually) and i am very unhappy with T-Mobile but still have 18 months on my contract well my thought is to unlock the phone, jump ship, and worry about the early term fees at a later date which by the way wouldn't be in my name anyway. So really if i break up with my girlfriend then I'm not responsible and i just made a $400 profit. Now i have two reasons not to do all that 1I'm not a shady person and 2 its now illegal.
My point is that all one needs to do is ask the carrier to unlock the phone and if there are no contact obligations then the carrier has no reason not to. The only ones that should have issue are those trying to be shady.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, sir, I believe YOU are missing the point if you honestly believe this is about carriers trying to recoup their $$$ from subsidized phones. Seriously? NOTHING in the bill states carriers can unlock phones after a contract is fulfilled, or that they have to. Therefore, after said contract is fulfilled, you STILL own a device you dont have control over.
Do you own a house? Do you have a mortgage? If so, you know that just by paying off the mortgage it doesnt give you any more property ownership rights that you didnt have when you signed the mortgage. Once you've signed it, you legally own it, even though you still owe money on it. Until this overreaching law took effect, it was that way for phones (for the most part).
explodingboy70 said:
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidised price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You forgot an important point in your comment. YOU HAVE TO PAY 20-30USD PER MONTH FOR DATA! Therefore, your cost of adding a line is 120$+20x12=360$. So the profit is not as great as you mentioned.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
What's next? Putting restrictions on oxygen?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium
Signed and reposted on Hackforums.
http://www.hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3226550
Hope you don't mind.
I linked this thread, and quoted the contents of the OP.
Figure it'd be good to get it out to a broader audience.
45,000 more signatures needed.
Go ahead and put my name on it. I'm too lazy to register, and I don't want a bunch of new e-mails trying to get me sign a bunch of other petitions.
And to the debate: Use an Obama phone, Save your money, and BUY a phone outright. The faster they see that this hurts the big TWO (AT&T, Verizon), it will change.
If you're impatient and want a phone NOW, understand the consequences. You are licensing that phone, and may never own it. And you'll also be advertising for whatever company you go with.
Yes, I know I'm advertising for T-Mobile in my signature. That's because I think they are honest, and very beneficial to the XDA community.
explodingboy70 said:
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidized price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WELL SAID! BRAVO! This I would support as well as many others!
I have been on this side of things for a long time! I used to live in Seattle, had Sprint and Verizon because ATT and T-Mobile are both very sketchy up there, Verizon is top dawg and since Sprint uses Verizon's towers and is cheaper than anyone else, you get the best phones (imo) and best value, not to mention unlimited data.
That being said, I recently moved to Dallas, and Sprint/Verizon down here are really terrible! I mean Seattle, West Seattle I was pulling upwards of 70mb down and 50-60's up, ridiculous speeds, but made it a lot better when you paid your bill because you felt like you were getting something! Down in Dallas I never saw it go past 10-15mb. Not to mention my signal bars never reached full unless I was under a tower.
Tmobile, my current provider (only for another week or so) is just terrible everywhere. Best I have seen them anywhere is 6-10mb, and I'm sorry but they claim to have better call quality than ATT now, which is horse$hit! Dropped calls, taking over a minute just to start dialing, and when you do talk, lets just say its not good.
I just think that payment plans should be based on where you are at in their coverage area. (If you leave state/town for a trip that's on you). That's like car companies making you pay retail price for a used car same as a new one! Would you do it?
I hope you guys know they unlocking your device is legal. What's illegal is buying an unlock code from online sources. You can no longer just go online and pay a small fee (like $10) for the unlock code. You can call your service provider (T-Mobile as an example) and ask them for the code. (They shouldn't have a problem giving it to you.) Another way of legally unlocking your device is by doing a method like the one in this thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2024514
Or you could have someone that knows coding and have then do it for you. (As long as it is not through an online coding site you are good.)
Source: T-Mobile employee and target mobile employee.
----------------------------------------------
I'm full of great idea's, but don't have the time to create them or learn the coding to create them. If you want to make one of my ideas a reality just message me and I will give you my idea as specific as possible.
ideas:
Spoiler
-launcher/lock screen
-line rider type game where you control the character
-2d fighting game like art of fighting for the SNES
-multiplayer fps where you create your own map with a creative mode (minecraft style)
-roller coaster tycoon style game
-many more!
Just message me which idea you want info on and I'll tell you!
----------------------------------------------
Well said Ariana....
Service provider must ... unlock the device at any time and at no charge.
At least that's what the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is recommending.
It's warm day in February when I have something good to say about the CRTC but they do finally appear to cracking down on service provider fees, lengthy contracts, and cell phone locking.
I mention this because the title of this thread sounds like the opposite of ongoing discussions in Canada about how North American consumers are paying more than cell phone customers the world over.
More information by search for "Buyer's remorse" and CBC or go to the Canadian governments CRTC website to download a full pdf of current proposal.
(I'd give you the links, but I'm newly registered here
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
After spending an hour on the phone with Motorola, and being escalated five different times i finally spoke with someone who actually knew what they were talking about. The gentleman i spoke with said that there currently is no software available to unlock the BL for our Droid Turbo 2 how ever, they have my email on file and i was assured by the supervisor on duty for the tech dept that i would receive an email as soon as the BL unlock was available. So unfortunately unless the Devs here can find something, we are going to have to wait for Motorola to release there official unlock.
I will keep everyone posted here and as soon as i hear anything you will be the first to know.
I am curious, according to the FCC FAQ: "Your postpaid device is eligible to be unlocked by a participating provider after you have fulfilled the applicable service contract, completed the device installment plan or paid an early termination fee. Your prepaid device is eligible to be unlocked by a participating provider no later than one year after activation, consistent with reasonable time, payment, or usage requirements." It goes on to say that, "...providers have agreed to unlock eligible devices, provide you with unlocking instructions, or initiate an unlocking request to the device manufacturer – or provide an easily understood explanation of denial – within two business days of receiving an unlock request." For myself Verizon participates in the FCC's CTIA. My question stand has anyone gone through the formal channels with this and if so what was the result and if denied did they notify the FCC via their complaint section below the FAQ?
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/cell-phone-unlocking-faqs
http://www.ctia.org/policy-initiatives/voluntary-guidelines/consumer-code-for-wireless-service
My bloods curdling hearing the mear fact that we must talk to motorola's support...
nmbenson said:
I am curious, according to the FCC FAQ: "Your postpaid device is eligible to be unlocked by a participating provider after you have fulfilled the applicable service contract, completed the device installment plan or paid an early termination fee. Your prepaid device is eligible to be unlocked by a participating provider no later than one year after activation, consistent with reasonable time, payment, or usage requirements." It goes on to say that, "...providers have agreed to unlock eligible devices, provide you with unlocking instructions, or initiate an unlocking request to the device manufacturer – or provide an easily understood explanation of denial – within two business days of receiving an unlock request." For myself Verizon participates in the FCC's CTIA. My question stand has anyone gone through the formal channels with this and if so what was the result and if denied did they notify the FCC via their complaint section below the FAQ?
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/cell-phone-unlocking-faqs
http://www.ctia.org/policy-initiatives/voluntary-guidelines/consumer-code-for-wireless-service
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this refers to carrier unlocking, say, moving a gsm locked phone from at&t to t-mobile. now with that regulation, most phones aren't locked any more, or are easily unlocked. does not affect the bootloader at all unfortunately
Man, the US cellular device market needs to be shaken up. ALL the OEMs need to band together - pull all devices from all carriers, make devices that're compatible with all carriers, and sell 'em at slightly over-cost through normal retail channels, IE: Walmart, BestBuy, Target, Amazon, Newegg, etc. Leave the carriers with nothing to sell but their service. No more locked-down devices. No more carrier lock-in.
I love my DT2, but every day that goes by without a 6.0 update, especially considering the kernel source is out, is a day closer to me buying an X Pure and selling the DT2.
Unless laws change, the carriers do NOT have to activate just any Ole phone that is compatible on their network... It in their best interest to usually, but if manufacturers tried to bully/strong arm them they could fix that very quickly...
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk