Unlocking smartphones without permission illegal in US after 01/25/13

[Bob Maxey]

Ok so let me get this straight.....the Librarian of Congress changed this law?A F'ING LIBRARIAN!?So I guess the ruling of the Supreme Court doesn't mean anything anymore.I don't see how one person has the power to do that.I see this article was from the LA Times so I'm sure they got something wrong in that write up.I've been interviewed by them before and my gf will tell you they DO misquote people very easily.The LA Times reporter I was interviewed by reminds me of the kid from the movie The Stupids starring Tom Arnold.

You should probably research the LOC before you post. And BTW, I am on the side of the unlockers in a very general way. No offense, but the Chief Liberian is not your typical librarian. He or she is appointed by the President of the United States and lest I remind you, it was such a person that made it legal to JB/ROOT our devices, siding with us against Apple.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I never said anything about any of the carriers financial situations. Frankly it doesn't matter. People signed a contract agreeing to certain terms, they should fulfill it.

This is only here to enforce that contract that people signed. Theres no real power to a contract that you can decide you don't like after they've given you a huge discount on your phone

I learned to read the fine print.

As it is now, I am in daily violation of my carrier's TOS which states I am NOT ALLOWED to use by cell phone for business purposes. Not sure too many of us would give using our cells for business a second thought; we would assume, well, Duh . . . sure we can use it for business.

Sadly, not according to the rules.

 

[ocnbrze]

sorry...didn't know...lol...thought I would post tho

its all good. this has been popping up all over AF so you are not the only one....LOL

 

[Bob Maxey]

Or I can cut out the middle man and do it myself.
My money. My property. My decision.

Unless you bought one of those subsidized phones you will be paying for over the length of your contract. Then it is like buying a car or TV on time. You really do not own it. Yet.

 

[Bob Maxey]

This is your government hard at work. Instead of fixing things like the debt ceiling (delaying it is not fixing) and working together, they are wasting their time to pass laws to benefit big business.

Telcos already have early termination fees that supposed to pay for the subsidy on the phone. Either through the ETF or fullfilling the contract, you own that phone and should be able to do anything you want with it.

I guess the lobbyist dumped a lot of money in to politicians pockets. Just another grievance that keeps the telcos and politicians among the most hated around...

Perhaps, but there are tens of thousands of gubberment departments and they all have laws and rules thaty are of concern to others. I agree, fixing this or that might be more important than rooting, unlocking and JB issues.

That said, there are rules we consumers must abide by. If your service agreement/TOS says you cannot do this or that, then do not do this or that, rather than get upset because a ruling was made you do not agree with.

I think we should be allowed to unlock our phones. but I can see the reason for the change, too. If your TOS says NO CHANGES, then YOU are the one that broke the law, right? You gave your word that you would abide by the agreement you signed and so here you are, unlocking your cell to save money.

 

[jhawkkw]

CDMA carriers already for the most part refuse to unlock their devices for other carriers, and I fear that the GSM carriers could follow suit. They know you're not allowed to unlock it, even if you buy the device outright, without their consent and can use it as leverage to induce you into using their service. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[RolaAddict]

You should probably research the LOC before you post. And BTW, I am on the side of the unlockers in a very general way. No offense, but the Chief Liberian is not your typical librarian. He or she is appointed by the President of the United States and lest I remind you, it was such a person that made it legal to JB/ROOT our devices, siding with us against Apple.

The JB/ROOT was a Supreme Court case had nothing to do with LOC.LOC deals with patents and patent protection rights if I remember correctly.Now if it is legal for us to JB/ROOT because as the decision was made that "it is the property of the consumer" and that the only thing a manufacturer can do is just "void the warranty of the product" if it has been JB/ROOTED then how in the hell is unlocking a phone different!?The unlockers are not taking the software/hardware and altering it in a way to make a similar product to sell.That's where LOC can step in due to violation of patent rights.An unlocked phone is still the same phone only it's able to be switched to another carrier.From a legal stand point of patent protection it doesn't violate it because the phone still has the original carrier/manufacturer names still on it.This reminds me of when Blink (I think that was the comany) made this software to allow Dreamcast owners to play PS 1 games on the Dreamcast.I think they got taken to court but I can't remember the out come.I believe as an individual you should be able to do whatever you want with the phone or whatever else you have.As long as you have paid for it they shouldn't be able to do anything.I'd like to see if anyone can sue based on this decision.

 

[Rxpert83]

I really don't understand why this is so controversial

 

[Hadesminion13]

I think this is dumb as shit, when you pay several hundred dollars for anything you should be able to do whatever you want to it (E.G. prostitutes, then again they're illegal too).

I can't really complain though, I have no respect for the law (There are many, many obsolete laws and laws put in place because certain people tend to campaign to ban things instead of talking to their children or getting proper education about the subject themselves) and if something doesn't strike me as morally wrong I have no problem doing it.

Frankly this doesn't surprise me one bit.

I think the way it should be is that if a phone is only available with one carrier, but you want the phone and want/need to go with another carrier, you should go ahead and do it.
On the other hand, if your phone is available in multiple carriers and the carrier you don't want is offering a better deal, you should not hook up the deal with that carrier and then unlock your phone and use it with the carrier offering the worse deal just because the other carrier had a better deal.

 

[windsorclarenc]

Whew! For a split second I thought this meant no more rooting. I almost fainted.

 

[Rxpert83]

I think this is dumb as shit, when you pay several hundred dollars for anything you should be able to do whatever you want to it (E.G. prostitutes, then again they're illegal too).

I can't really complain though, I have no respect for the law (There are many, many obsolete laws and laws put in place because certain people tend to campaign to ban things instead of talking to their children or getting proper education about the subject themselves) and if something doesn't strike me as morally wrong I have no problem doing it.

Frankly this doesn't surprise me one bit.

I'd you buy the phone outright, you should be able to unlock it from just about any carrier.

If you're under contract, they won't unlock it because they gave you a $300-400 discount on that phone.

What's the problem?

 

[Rxpert83]

Merged like threads

 

[jhawkkw]

I'd you buy the phone outright, you should be able to unlock it from just about any carrier.

If you're under contract, they won't unlock it because they gave you a $300-400 discount on that phone.

What's the problem?

True, this is the way it should be in theory, but who says carriers don't abuse their power and refuse to unlock it even if you do buy it outright. It wouldn't be the first time a carrier abused it's power.

 

[mikedt]

would not matter if it was unlocked or not. some phones only work on certain carriers regardless. i cannot use a CDMA phone on a GSM network, or vice versa, for example. which means my otherwise good LG Optimus V is still a paperweight or a very dinky wifi-only phablet

Thing is now, many CDMA phones are dual mode, they can do GSM/HSDPA as well as CDMA, e.g. the iPhone 4S and 5. If say a CDMA/GSM dual mode phone is locked to Verizon Wireless, it makes the GSM capability effectively useless. Also probably means you can't use it outside of the United States either, on any foreign GSM carrier.

Does CDMA do roaming? Can you roam a CDMA phone on another CDMA carrier? i.e. you have a CDMA phone that's locked to Verizon, would you be able to use it on China Telecom, which is a CDMA carrier?

 

[jhawkkw]

Thing is now, many CDMA phones are dual mode, they can do GSM/HSDPA as well as CDMA, e.g. the iPhone 4S and 5. If say a CDMA/GSM dual mode phone is locked to Verizon Wireless, it makes the GSM capability effectively useless. Also probably means you can't use it outside of the United States either, on any foreign GSM carrier.

Does CDMA do roaming? Can you roam a CDMA phone on another CDMA carrier? i.e. you have a CDMA phone that's locked to Verizon, would you be able to use it on China Telecom, which is a CDMA carrier?

Yes, you can roam on other cdma networks, it happens quite a bit when I'm close to the Canadian border at the 1000 islands where Rogers has strong signal while Verizon is weak.

 

[Rxpert83]

Sprint and Verizon are compatible with roaming as well

 

[Gmash]

I'd you buy the phone outright, you should be able to unlock it from just about any carrier.

If you're under contract, they won't unlock it because they gave you a $300-400 discount on that phone.

What's the problem?

That's what the ETF is supposed to be for. And even if you buy the phone outright, the carrier has no obligation to unlock it for you. Some will provide the unlock code if you tell them you are going on vacation overseas or something, but they don't have to, and from what I've read, it's very inconsistent on whether they will do it or not. They should also be forced to unlock it once you have completed your contact, but they currently don't have to.

That's the problem.

 

[deathsled]

Big difference between rooting/unlocking a phone and "carrier unlocking a phone".

All they're really saying is if for example you buy an AT&T phone under a 2 year contract that during those 2 years you can't carrier unlock the phone to use it on another provider like T-Mobile. Once the contract is up with the carrier you can do what you want. That's REALLY not a big deal.

 

[JIMV]

It seems that it only refers to the unlocking of your device for use on other carriers. Rooting and unlocking the bootloader seem to still be fair game, legal wise. Carriers will say different

Which brings me to the big question. Where does the government get off making modifying ones own property illegal through regulation?

Do you own the phone or simply rent it?

It is like buying a car but being prohibited from changing the channel on the installed radio

 

[miked6875]

Big difference between rooting/unlocking a phone and "carrier unlocking a phone".

All they're really saying is if for example you buy an AT&T phone under a 2 year contract that during those 2 years you can't carrier unlock the phone to use it on another provider like T-Mobile. Once the contract is up with the carrier you can do what you want. That's REALLY not a big deal.

So can I take my EVO V to Cricket for example since I'm not under contract with Virgin ?

 

[XplosiV]

Surely for those who want an unlocked phone, you simply shop around untill you find the phone you want supplied unlocked with whoever the carrier might be?

@ JIMV - to take your point and put it another way. is it legal to buy a replica M16 and make it fully functional?

 

[Rxpert83]

Which brings me to the big question. Where does the government get off making modifying ones own property illegal through regulation?

Do you own the phone or simply rent it?

It is like buying a car but being prohibited from changing the channel on the installed radio

If you buy the phone outright then its yours.

If you get a $400 discount offered by the carrier and sign a 2 year contract the phone is only truly yours after the contract is up.

 

[JIMV]

I really don't understand why this is so controversial

It has to do with the nature of property and the concept of ownership...If I buy something I own it and can therefore do with it whatever I desire. If I buy a car I can replace the radio. If I buy a home I can repaint it. Apparently, if I buy a phone I can only do what the seller desires...

That is not ownership but some weird rent relationship.

Imagine if You bought a car but the car could only be driven on roads approved by the seller! Would you say you owned your car then?

 

[JIMV]

Surely for those who want an unlocked phone, you simply shop around untill you find the phone you want supplied unlocked with whoever the carrier might be?

@ JIMV - to take your point and put it another way. is it legal to buy a replica M16 and make it fully functional?

With the proper permits and license, yes....

 

[JIMV]

If you buy the phone outright then its yours.

If you get a $400 discount offered by the carrier and sign a 2 year contract the phone is only truly yours after the contract is up.

No, the phone is yours immediately. The contract is for the service, not the phone. They could care less which phone you use or if you use the ssytem at all. They simply demand their monthly check.