I've had with with smartphones and carriers. Seriously, I'm done..

[Bob Maxey]

Actually, we do. It's all about that thing called "anti-trust", and locking the phones to a specific carrier by itself is infringing.

And besides, contracts have been completely invalided in the past with laws being written so why not now?

So here is my question.

If you went to AT&T for example and you bought a phone, you signed a contract, right? So you knew what you were getting into and it was your choice. I am not sure anti-trust laws apply in this case.

You have many carriers to consider before you make your choice. Don't you?

And a cell phone is not a right, after all.

Bob is not a lawyer and he knows that he might be wrong.

Bob Maxey

 

[IOWA]

So here is my question.

If you went to AT&T for example and you bought a phone, you signed a contract, right? So you knew what you were getting into and it was your choice. I am not sure anti-trust laws apply in this case.

You have many carriers to consider before you make your choice. Don't you?

And a cell phone is not a right, after all.

Bob is not a lawyer and he knows that he might be wrong.

Bob Maxey

Yes but the contract is for the terms of service and not my hardware used to access the service.

What if Comcast/ATT/YOURISPHERE said you can only use their computers with their service? Would that be ok? Whats the difference?

 

[Snow_Fox]

Can rooting affect anything at all, no matter how minor, in some way that violates the law or your contract? Is rooting that important that it is a big issue with the public?

this is actually a major part of the problem. if I buy a dell with a dell warranty, there are certain things *I* Can do that void the warranty. I am completely ok with this. If I overclock a computer and burn the processor up, thats MY fault, I'm not bitching to dell or to the cpu manufacturer.

However, if I install Ubuntu and have tech problems.. I understand I'm relying on the community and my dell warranty is useless.

If the hard drive goes out, thats not "i need help trouble shooting" that is, "your equipment failed!"

Does the proposed class action lawsuit serve the greater good; are you materially affected by not being able to do whatever you want to do? I say no and I'll also say that a mere handful of Droid Phone Users (as a percentage of the whole) care about Root access.

I would say yes, it does serve the greater good, and my counter argument is that I would say that the same PERCENTAGE of windows users know/understand what administrative privileges are but, they still have them and it still affects them.

You mentioned computers and root access or administrative privilege. Well, sir, see what can happen when this is allowed? People screw up their systems meddling in things they should leave the hell alone. Every site I read about rooting provides a stern warning about what can happen.

We can also how do carriers try to make sure your phone gets bricked if you root. Its not like they want you doing it in the first place.. I have screwed up computers beyond belief before.. but, as long as hardware doesn't go out there is a way to flip a cmos pin and everything magically gets reset in bios.

From there I can reinstall an operating system of my picking and everything will work just fine. There is no reason there is not some sort of "failsafe" for phone's as well, I don't see it being impossible to implement. There is always a "reset button" on almost any device out there.. so in the event all else fails there should be a "debrick" button similar to cmos don't have to make it easy to use so your average jo won't brick his device or something.. but, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to fix phones. Heck if your suppose to reinstall your regular OS every 9 months why not your phone os at least twice in the life of the phone?

Did you know about rooting before you bought your phone? Did you know it was locked and you bought it anyway? Why? You bought something you consider "defective" and you are surprised? I once bought a car with no breaks. Should I sue the seller because I hit something and damaged my car?

Better example, you buy a car with no breaks, the manufacturer does not allow you to install them, should you be allowed to sue him when you hit someone?

You are not always free to make changes to the consumer electronic devices you buy. So does this mean you really do not own them? Some things are blocked and you are prevented access. For example, see what happens if you get caught with a modified amateur radio that receives cellular calls. Illegal. You own the HT and we all own the airwaves. So why block access? The public good. Again, admittedly a stretch and a tad far afield, but your case would not be simple and the other side will go as far afield as they need to to win.

By the same token, you own your computer. You have full control, OVER YOUR COMPUTER. Download child porn? enjoy the jail time!

Point being root access should not affect the air waves. Could you alter programming of said phones to affect air waves? Well yes but, why are we held accountable for what we MIGHT do on phones and nothing else? Having root/admin means you could maliciously alter your computer to do illegal things on the net, personal responsibility is on you to make sure your comp doesn't have a virus making it part of a malicious bot net.

I think we should have more control. I want to delete several apps added by Cricket, but I am not allowed. This does not affect me in the slightest and it certainly ain't no federal case.
Bob Maxey

Not yet.. but, just imagine if dell had programs you couldn't delete when you bought their pc.. I doubt you'd get another dell :/

We don't have options that are available in the pc world so we have to fight for them.

I can build my own pc and install a stock os at no void of any of the component warrant. No bloat, no add and no crapware.

If I buy a dell, I can at least delete the crap on there.

As phones grow more powerful and I am on a phone more than I am around a computer why should I have to deal with crap on phone's that I spent a fair amount of time perfecting the art of avoiding on pc?

And as time goes on these are going to become bigger issues.

Why should the company be allowed to create artificial demand by blocking apps in order to push their more expensive and possibly inferior service?

 

[IOWA]

this is actually a major part of the problem. if I buy a dell with a dell warranty, there are certain things *I* Can do that void the warranty. I am completely ok with this. If I overclock a computer and burn the processor up, thats MY fault, I'm not bitching to dell or to the cpu manufacturer.

However, if I install Ubuntu and have tech problems.. I understand I'm relying on the community and my dell warranty is useless.

If the hard drive goes out, thats not "i need help trouble shooting" that is, "your equipment failed!"


I would say yes, it does serve the greater good, and my counter argument is that I would say that the same PERCENTAGE of windows users know/understand what administrative privileges are but, they still have them and it still affects them.

We can also how do carriers try to make sure your phone gets bricked if you root. Its not like they want you doing it in the first place.. I have screwed up computers beyond belief before.. but, as long as hardware doesn't go out there is a way to flip a cmos pin and everything magically gets reset in bios.

From there I can reinstall an operating system of my picking and everything will work just fine. There is no reason there is not some sort of "failsafe" for phone's as well, I don't see it being impossible to implement. There is always a "reset button" on almost any device out there.. so in the event all else fails there should be a "debrick" button similar to cmos don't have to make it easy to use so your average jo won't brick his device or something.. but, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to fix phones. Heck if your suppose to reinstall your regular OS every 9 months why not your phone os at least twice in the life of the phone?


Better example, you buy a car with no breaks, the manufacturer does not allow you to install them, should you be allowed to sue him when you hit someone?

By the same token, you own your computer. You have full control, OVER YOUR COMPUTER. Download child porn? enjoy the jail time!

Point being root access should not affect the air waves. Could you alter programming of said phones to affect air waves? Well yes but, why are we held accountable for what we MIGHT do on phones and nothing else? Having root/admin means you could maliciously alter your computer to do illegal things on the net, personal responsibility is on you to make sure your comp doesn't have a virus making it part of a malicious bot net.


Not yet.. but, just imagine if dell had programs you couldn't delete when you bought their pc.. I doubt you'd get another dell :/

We don't have options that are available in the pc world so we have to fight for them.

I can build my own pc and install a stock os at no void of any of the component warrant. No bloat, no add and no crapware.

If I buy a dell, I can at least delete the crap on there.

As phones grow more powerful and I am on a phone more than I am around a computer why should I have to deal with crap on phone's that I spent a fair amount of time perfecting the art of avoiding on pc?

And as time goes on these are going to become bigger issues.

Why should the company be allowed to create artificial demand by blocking apps in order to push their more expensive and possibly inferior service?

YES!!

As these things are getting more and more powerful (and they are at an ALARMING RATE) and with the ability to stream HDMI out, bluetooth 3.0 coming up, soon people who only need very basic browsing capabilities will be able to hook it up to a large monitor, keyboard, mouse and go to town to surf the web etc. Sure it will only be good for basic tasks, but still useful none-the-less.

And I should be able to buy a VZW phone and Flash it to Sprint, and vice versa. The hardware is 100% there. It's the carriers refusing to let us, by both locking the bootloaders, and ESN blacklisting.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Actually no, now there is a recent law that just got passed that makes it perfectly legal to Root/Jailbreak your phone/device and the carrier can't penalize you for it.

Then there is this from CNN:

So does Apple have to support jailbreaking?

Nope. Section 2(c) of the Apple iPhone Software License Agreement (PDF) bans any attempt to "modify" the iPhone software or to reverse-engineer it.
What that means is that Apple can still legally -- if it chooses -- protect its phones from jailbreaking. The contract formed between the user and Apple (and the user and the wireless carrier) when the iPhone owner agrees to the user licensing agreement is binding, says Tom Sydnor, a senior fellow with the Progress and Freedom Foundation who takes an expansive view of copyright law.

Just because the DMCA allows individuals an exemption to jailbreak their own phones, "it doesn't mean Apple or a carrier can't protect contractual restrictions to deal with it," Sydnor said. "Essentially the exemption says this is the sort of thing that falls in bounds of contracts."
Apple could pursue breach of contract if someone jailbreaks their phone, or they could sue a person or company that creates jailbreak software for inducing someone to breach their contract with Apple. In other words, Sydnor said, "even if there was no DMCA, you could still be bound not to circumvent that technological protection."

I get the feeling it is not over yet. And yes, I think the phone should be open. Let users decide what apps to remove and install.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Yes but the contract is for the terms of service and not my hardware used to access the service.

What if Comcast/ATT/YOURISPHERE said you can only use their computers with their service? Would that be ok? Whats the difference?

For one thing, I would likely know that the system was limited and I would not buy it. Also, if i did buy it, knowing I was restricted, I do not have any right to sue.

Bob Maxey

 

[Snow_Fox]

The flaw in your argument, is you are "damned if you do, damned if you don't" on contract.

If i buy a full price smartphone right now from at&t with no contract..it is *STILL* locked, and I *STILL* pay the full price on my bill at no discounted rate.

Why should I be required to pay subsidized cost on a phone I paid so much for even though my contract is up?

If we had options, this would be different.. odds are they can unbrick a bricked phone as long as hardware is fine.

We as users don't have this option.

This raises the question why can't phone's be handled like computers? if the hardware goes out.. thats on manufacturer.. if I screw up software, its on me?

If this wasn't an issue of control, I wouldn't care but, why should anyone else have final control over my device?

 

[clutchy]

if that law passed that says jailbreaking/rooting is no longer illegal to gain features the phones offers by default. locking out the ability to root or jailbreak is going against that very law. so if the provider is allowing you access to every single feature the phone is capable of then go ahead and block rooting on my device. but as long as theres some feature or app that can only be had on rooting, the companies have no right to bloc myou from gaining them

it wasn't a law that was passed.

The Library of Congress made a ruling which applies to the DMCA or digi millenium copyright act. It might as well be a law but what it does is make it not illegal to do it.

 

[Bob Maxey]

it wasn't a law that was passed.

The Library of Congress made a ruling which applies to the DMCA or digi millenium copyright act. It might as well be a law but what it does is make it not illegal to do it.

Perhaps vendors will simply make it more difficult to root their phones. Certainly allowed, regardless of the ruling.

Bob Maxey

 

[IOWA]

Perhaps vendors will simply make it more difficult to root their phones. Certainly allowed, regardless of the ruling.

Bob Maxey

Which is exactly what they are doing, which is what we are fighting against.

 

[clutchy]

^ it's happening already and yes, i see that as the future.

 

[tommy_ed]

Better example, you buy a car with no breaks, the manufacturer does not allow you to install them, should you be allowed to sue him when you hit someone?

yes, i would say that would be one of the easiest cases won in the history of the court system

personally, I wish it was illegal for any company you have a signed contract and are paying regular payments with to advertise to you. Time warner cable sends me shit in the mail all the time and it really pisses me off! The funny part is they are advertising services I'm already subscribed to lol

 

[mpw]

Suppose for a moment that you're successful and manufactures by law must sell you unlocked hardware; what do you think that will do to the price?

And with regards to warranty claims on hardware that has non-OEM software, would you be okay with there being a charge to determine that a software fault is not the cause? or with there being a charge if a software fault IS the cause?

How would you define the law exactly? How much would it cost Nokia to allow full access to a Nokia 1100? You may not want it, but somebody might, and surely if the law says they have to they'd have to for all phones, or computers... how're you going to define that? Many TV's are getting more like computers, jeez, even some home appliances are able to connect to the internet now; is Zanussi going to have to give me ROOT access to my tumble drier by law? Audi to my MMI?

What is so wrong with a manufacture making a product, marketing as doing 'X', and you buying it in that full knowledge without wanting to sue so you can have it do 'Y' too?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Suppose for a moment that you're successful and manufactures by law must sell you unlocked hardware; what do you think that will do to the price?

And with regards to warranty claims on hardware that has non-OEM software, would you be okay with there being a charge to determine that a software fault is not the cause? or with there being a charge if a software fault IS the cause?

How would you define the law exactly? How much would it cost Nokia to allow full access to a Nokia 1100? You may not want it, but somebody might, and surely if the law says they have to they'd have to for all phones, or computers... how're you going to define that? Many TV's are getting more like computers, jeez, even some home appliances are able to connect to the internet now; is Zanussi going to have to give me ROOT access to my tumble drier by law? Audi to my MMI?

What is so wrong with a manufacture making a product, marketing as doing 'X', and you buying it in that full knowledge without wanting to sue so you can have it do 'Y' too?

Nothing wrong at all. Well, unless you are someone that is not happy and wants to tinker. I think it is appropriate for us to want to delete stuff we do not like. I can't delete UNO or a silly bowling game - offered for sale and the trial lasts 90 seconds, so I would like it gone.

But this idea that it is appropriate to sue a company over this issue is wrong. I think we might see a time when companies simply lock down their hardware so tight, we can't do anything about it.

The recent actions might have made it legal to root or jailbreak our phones, but nothing says a manufacturer can't make it impossible to change.

Bob Maxey

 

[mpw]

Nothing wrong at all. Well, unless you are someone that is not happy and wants to tinker...

Sucks to be them then, but they can always pop down to Radio Shack and build something to blow HTC's offerings out of the water, with an OS they wrote themselves.

 

[IOWA]

Suppose for a moment that you're successful and manufactures by law must sell you unlocked hardware; what do you think that will do to the price?

And with regards to warranty claims on hardware that has non-OEM software, would you be okay with there being a charge to determine that a software fault is not the cause? or with there being a charge if a software fault IS the cause?

How would you define the law exactly? How much would it cost Nokia to allow full access to a Nokia 1100? You may not want it, but somebody might, and surely if the law says they have to they'd have to for all phones, or computers... how're you going to define that? Many TV's are getting more like computers, jeez, even some home appliances are able to connect to the internet now; is Zanussi going to have to give me ROOT access to my tumble drier by law? Audi to my MMI?

What is so wrong with a manufacture making a product, marketing as doing 'X', and you buying it in that full knowledge without wanting to sue so you can have it do 'Y' too?

And no big surprise, here's MPW to come and take opposite sides against me yet again, with no real grasp of the situation, because he's not even an American, and it concerns him zero.

Yep, he's still stalking my posts/threads.

Anyways, I can only see benefits to this, can anyone name any negatives? Legit negatives?

 

[Thefoodman52]

Honestly, since rooting my Evo, I won't stand idly by to watch this happen. Hell, before rooting, my Evo ran like horse shit, pardon my French. The fps cap made everything chug, it was unpleasant to use, and the volume was never loud enough. I rooted, and whaddya know, all my problems went away!
Hell, the poor little hero is totally unusable as a phone unless you root and flash cm6 (cyanogen mod) on it, because the dialer locks out for 30 seconds to 2 minutes between calls! Take away rooting rights-- let me say ' access ' here, and the phones are either totally junk and useless, or are no longer what they should be. Granted, some phones run as they should, and rooting isn't necessary to make them perform properly. However, why should access to grab total control over your (emphasis on your) hardware, and make it work as you want and need it to be denied by some outside source?

Imagine going out to eat somewhere in a neck brace, and asking for a Henry straw because you can't raise the glass to your lips to drink. They hand you a straight straw that's either too short or too tall and say that's all you get. Yea, sure, you can make it work, but it's not what you want, or what you need.

 

[Swizz]

Anyways, I can only see benefits to this, can anyone name any negatives? Legit negatives?

Before I try to add my two cents, please be very specific on the issues you are trying to cover; as I didn't get a firm feeling on what you were trying to accomplish.

Are you trying to prevent manufacturers from SIM locking(or the CDMA equivalent) their phones? Market restrictions (like AT&T)? Prevention of rooting?

All of which will have different arguments and different points to be made. If you could specify where you're going, it would be much appreciated.

 

[IOWA]

Before I try to add my two cents, please be very specific on the issues you are trying to cover; as I didn't get a firm feeling on what you were trying to accomplish.

Are you trying to prevent manufacturers from SIM locking(or the CDMA equivalent) their phones? Market restrictions (like AT&T)? Prevention of rooting?

All of which will have different arguments and different points to be made. If you could specify where you're going, it would be much appreciated.

All three. There's no logical reason, other than sheer profit greed, for us to NOT have those already.

 

[howetechnical]

Actually, we do. It's all about that thing called "anti-trust", and locking the phones to a specific carrier by itself is infringing.

And besides, contracts have been completely invalided in the past with laws being written so why not now?

I just bought an electronic appliance from Europe, but I can't plug it into my home in the United States. Different plug and different wattage and voltage. Heck, that's Anti-Trust! They made something that I can't use however and wherever I want! Let's sue somebody!

Meanwhile, the rest of us are at least OK with sticking with out carrier, otherwise we wouldn't be (minus that small number who don't like their carrier). Some things need to be left alone. The excuses and arguments people (usually Americans) come up with these days to sue somebody is lunacy. Seriously. I bet my dog will get sued one of these days for peeing on the bush outside our house, and it offends somebody's nasal passage walking by, and they'll cry that it mentally prohibited from taking that route ever again.

 

[ImaYam]

..Taking their bullshit. I've been doing a bit of research, and I think we can appeal to the FCC, BBB, and even SUE for carriers/manufacturers locking down our handsets. (i.e. no root access)

THe BBB is bullshit, its a scam.. All it does is charge honest businesses for keeping their name in a directory. It will not help anyone do anything. GIve em a call, and complain, and realize how much of a joke they are. Its truly the modern pyramid scheme.

(Sad sigh)

Honestly, being in finance and 'big' business, I do not think that even if everyone in this forum brought a lawyer to the table, the FCC (let alone the big corps) will not move an inch. Its very corrupt, you see, this economy we live in.. Fortunately, I support those trouble-makers and hooligans at XDA, apple jailbreaking, BB -whatever-they-use-to-unlock, and Nokia's Eurohackers..

 

[Swizz]

Well, let's start from the top then!

SIM locking:(I'll only talk GSM because that is what I am most familiar with)
If you were to buy a phone at full retail, I can see the merit of either ensuring it be unlocked at time of purchase or being given a very easy way to have it unlocked. Such as: the company it was purchased from retrieves the code at purchase.

On a contract is where it can get a little stickier, but the fact that the customer is contractually obligated to the company for X number of years should be reason enough to forego SIM locking. This is compounded by the fact that some providers will give the customer the SIM unlock code after 90 days of active service; and 90 days into a 730 day contract is pennies.

In the end this is more of a "dont be a dick" sort of thing; and the legal system has agreed that neither carrier nor manufacturer can impeed the unlocking process.

Market Restrictions:
I gotta say, out of all three, this one concerns me the most; and has the most 'big brother' feel to it.

Yes, the carrier or manufacturer can make the arguement that they are only looking to protect the end user from harmful software. But it's clear that this is just being in it for the money. At which point, on the consumer end, really pisses me off and is reason enough for me to steer clear of any carrier or manufacturer who wants to put those kinds of restrictions in place.

Root restrictions:
Really, my opinions are covered under the Market Restrictions portion, so I don't have much to add. But, I take solice in the fact that there are tons of modders out there who love a good challenge and in the end they win, for the most part.

Conclusion:
In the end, companies will be considered dicks for restricting their products. But, before it was the consumers product, it was the companies product. And just like the consumer is allowed to make any modifications to any item they own without fear of reprisal, the same freedom is granted to the manufacturer. Really what it should come down to is caveat emptor. When a consumer buys a product, they should research enough to know what they are getting in to. If a consumer is technically savvy enough to modify their phone, they should be savvy enough to know what restrictions are there at time of purchase. In the end, if a product isn't going to suit your needs: DONT BUY IT, and certanilly don't buy it with the intention of suing. I don't buy apples, then sue when it doesn't taste like a grape.

 

[UBRocked]

If there were a way to win a legal battle over this (there's not IMO), all that I would see happening is that we would have devices that have less capabilities and longer delays before releases.

Mobile hotspot for example...I can do this on my droid but it is not a service I am paying for, not something that was ever listed as a feature of my device. If the manufacturers were not able to include but lock out functionality...I simply wouldn't be able to do that today. Verizon wouldn't have allowed it and It would have been removed from the phone completely. Bad thing for me...

When you buy a PC, you can do what you want...but the PC is just the hardware. Software (including being loaded with an operating system when purchased) is optional. That is not the way these phones are sold. You can't buy a mobile phone without a ROM pre-installed. It is part of the device and intellectual property of the manufacturer. So we are now "legally" able to erase their software, write your own software for it and unlock any feature that the hardware allows. While I want to do all of this as much as many people on here...If I'm the president of a phone company, I'd be dammed that the customer could sue me over the fact that I didn't do it for them or make it really easy to do. If you don't like the device as sold...don't buy it (That's why I wouldn't buy the DroidX today if I could).

What you are describing is not a reason for a lawsuit IMO...I think it's an opportunity for a new company to provide a "Saleen" experience, with suped up performance, and 100% unlocked devices, manufactured supported and guided performance/appearance enhancements. Now, will the carriers support these devices...would they "have" to? Would they subsidize the cost of the devices like they do with most phones in the US?

So who wants to start the company that provides these phones? Call it "Unlox" and get on with the true open source phones. Gotta make sure Google is on our side though...or create our own operating system (that'll be easy ). Then find carriers to partner with (who may want to impose their own requirements like no side loading apps (which could force us to limit the devices we have built).

I don't want to be the party pooper...but I think we'd have better luck suing Pepsi and telling them we like real sugar better than corn syrup.

 

[Swizz]

What you are describing is not a reason for a lawsuit IMO...I think it's an opportunity for a new company to provide a "Saleen" experience, with suped up performance, and 100% unlocked devices, manufactured supported and guided performance/appearance enhancements. Now, will the carriers support these devices...would they "have" to? Would they subsidize the cost of the devices like they do with most phones in the US?

I completely forgot to add this in my post. If you build it, they will come; then the other companies will realize they shouldn't lock down their hardware and follow suit.

 

[Thefoodman52]

...excuses and arguments people (usually Americans) come up with these days... seriously.

I bet my dog will get sued one of these days for peeing on the bush outside our house, and it...

Oh man... where to begin...

It's hard to tell you what points you're off on here when the points you make aren't related to the argument at hand...

What you said would be kind of like someone coming here and posting, "Well, I like ketchup and sugar. Cats are fun to pet." We just kind of read it, cock our head to the side, and wonder if you posted in the right thread...


You are right on one thing though, Americans tend to Sue over everything they can in general... even minuscule things that shouldn't be fretted over like jamming a toe in a supermarket. Someone would try to make a miltimillion lawsuit over it, but only in America because said jammed toe would prevent us from getting in our SUV's and driving down to McDonald's for a double Big Mac with an extra large milkshake.

Did I miss any stereotypes there? Maybe I should have mentioned a shotgun in a gun rack on the floor and a mini beer fridge in the center console. That and the driver has to be wearing camoflogue hunting gear heading out to their job.... (I think my post is now heading in the direction of yours, I'll stop now.)