What You Can Do About the Phone Unlocking Fiasco 416
itwbennett writes "Now that the ridiculous phone unlocking law is a done deal, and we all understand exactly what that means (i.e., 'fines of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to five years'), you might be left wondering what can you do about it. Well, you could start by lending your John Hancock to this petition at the White House's 'We The People' platform. It's already over halfway to the number of signatures required to get a response from the executive branch."
Hate to be a troll or anything, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...seriously - even if it got 500,000 signatures, I doubt the White house will do a damned thing about it. The law would have to be reversed by Congress, and right now, even if Obama wanted to, he's going to save his political capital for those fights which advance his own goals
Re:Hate to be a troll or anything, but... (Score:5, Funny)
What if Obama's iPhone 5S platinum plus edition is locked to AT&T, but he wants to use BOOST MOBILE? Then this would be a fight which advances his own goals.
Re: (Score:2)
The man rakes in way north of $400k a year from just his paycheck and subsequent pension... do you seriously think he's going to quibble over a $300 ETF?
How America has withered ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that phone unlocking law is totally ridiculous.
That law suits North Korea much better than it does in America.
But the fact that this has happened in the United States of America says a lot about how the Americans themselves have changed.
It used to be that the congress critters were afraid of their constituents.
It used to be that those living inside (and the surrounding area) of Washington D.C. have to listen to the people living outside of that area.
No more.
Nowadays we have ridiculous laws being passed, without even a single objection from the public.
Nowadays the Americans are so complacent, that the congress (and the White House) get to do anything that they want to do, because they are not afraid of their constituents anymore.
The death of Mr. Aaron Swartz should not have happened in America.
America supposed to be a country where abusive officials do not get any foothole.
In fact, the birth of the United States of America was because the British government got too abusive, so much so that the people rose up and chased out the Brits.
I used to live in America in the 1960's till early 2000's, and I've witnessed the change myself.
Americans no longer care for freedom.
Americans no longer willing to fight for liberty.
In other words, America has withered.
Can someone please change the wording of the American national anthem ?
The one about "Land of the Free", "Home of the Brave", in more ways than one, no longer apply.
Re:How America has withered ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Congress isn't afraid of the people any more because they've learned how to control them better. Distract the masses with things like immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, things that get people excited. Then while everyone is screaming about those things, pass laws that screw over the common person. That's why I don't think they'll ever resolve the distraction issues. They need them in the news, unresolved, to keep the attention elsewhere.
Re:How America has withered ... (Score:4)
The GP referred to these as distraction issues. Not calling them trivial distractions like hobbies, but issues used to distract. Notice how the mention of these issues quickly sidetracked the conversation. It works. These issues will not be resolved, because congress can throw them around to keep the masses busy believing that the two party system exists, and run around behind the scenes screwing over everyone for personal gain. Different definition of distraction.
Re:How America has withered ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because immigration reform and equal rights for homosexuals are stupid, trivial issues that are a waste of time that common men shouldn't be bothered with or care about. *sigh*
No, those are not stupid. What is stupid is to spend time on them, get the people excited, and actually argue about it. Specially homosexual rights (I'm not USAian, so I don't even know what immigration reform is all about). I have yet to see an argument against homosexual rights,yet it is argued, when there is no data to support the opossing position. (No, "I don't wanna" is not an argument. An argument is "this is how this group of people will be harm by they having the same rights as I have", preferably with a study supporting that the harm is real). I'm sure there are plenty of topics that are not or cannot be scientifically settled - those are the ones they should spend their times on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the birth of the United States of America was because the British government got too abusive, so much so that the people rose up and chased out the Brits.
They didn't "chase out" the British. They met them on the battlefield and killed them.
Our ancestors killed the Indians, killed the Spanish, killed the Mexicans. Today, we aren't willing to kill anybody for anything. Why on earth should congressmen be afraid? We're pussies.
Re:How America has withered ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans no longer care for freedom. Americans no longer willing to fight for liberty. In other words, America has withered.
How about we not engage in hyperbole like this. It makes people who aren't already convinced of it that the point you're trying to make is insane, and it becomes cyclical reasoning as well. And, it's not even true. "Ability to unlock your phone" isn't critical to what I'd call "freedom."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Your entire post is a tautology.
I can't figure out how that's supposed to invalidate or insult me (or if its even true) but thanks for modding me back down. Isn't the freedom we still have great? ;) But seriously, you are correct. Living without a smartphone does not help make it legal to unlock a smart phone, it just avoids the problem...unless, it makes you more apt to write letters to your congresspeople. I remember reading letters have the biggest impact...however small that may be...since a letter counts for something like 50 phone c
Re: (Score:3)
While you are mostly correct, there are some issues that still need to be resolved. On contract, you are spot on, after the contract has expired is a different story. No matter what ATT says, they almost never provide the unlock codes for phones once the contract has expired. Go ahead, and try, see what happens.
That is the primary issue at hand, I have fulfilled my end of the contract, and I should be able to do as I please, whether that is remain, or take my device elsewhere. As an exercise, every time
Re: (Score:3)
Once my contract was over I called them up and they gave me the unlocking code. Took a couple of minutes. I've done it a couple of times. So, I I do not understand your claim that "they almost never provide the unlock codes for phones once the contract has expired."
Re: (Score:3)
No matter what ATT says, they almost never provide the unlock codes for phones once the contract has expired. Go ahead, and try, see what happens.
Ok, I'll bite. I just did this the past week. I have 2 AT&T smartphones. One is under contract, one isn't. I called asking them to unlock both of them, and they gave me unlock codes without hesitation. So no, in my anecdotal experience, this isn't the case. In my experience, AT&T is happy to unlock your phone if you just ask politely, EVEN IF IT IS STILL UNDER CONTRACT.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom to make private contracts. Should WalMart not be allowed to offer you a TV for 10% of the normal price if you also contract with them to not play xbox on it?
You can always pay the full price without the contract
Re: (Score:3)
The man rakes in way north of $400k a year from just his paycheck and subsequent pension... do you seriously think he's going to quibble over a $300 ETF?
I thought your carrier could keep you from unlocking your phone (if they so chose) even after the termination of the contract. If a carrier isn't legally obligated to unlock your phone if you pay the ETF or let the contract expire -- and they decide they don't want to -- then unlocking it yourself would still be a case of breaking their DRM, right? And now that it's illegal for you to do it yourself, a company that was previously more "generous" might decide to get a little stingy just because they can.
Re: (Score:3)
What if Obama's iPhone 5S platinum plus edition is locked to AT&T, but he wants to use BOOST MOBILE? Then this would be a fight which advances his own goals.
If the President of the United States of America wants his phone unlocked, I don't see AT&T telling him no.
Re: (Score:2)
If the President of the United States of America wants his phone unlocked, I don't see AT&T telling him no.
Why not? You don't have royalty or nobility in the USA, remember. Not like us in backward, Old World Britain.
Re:Hate to be a troll or anything, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And then enjoy all that sudden new free time... you wanted to lose a little weight for 2013, boy have I got a plan for you!
Re:Hate to be a troll or anything, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have royalty or nobility in the USA, remember.
Well, in earlier times, royalty was measured by how blue the contents of your veins was. Today, it's measured by how green the contents of your wallet is. The net result is pretty much the same. Sure, in theory the law treats you equally, but you really think that you are equal, with equal chances?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hate to be a troll or anything, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If some petty functionary in a law enforcement agency asks AT&T to do what under current rules is illegal wire tapping they don't blink. They will do whatever the president asks and Congress will just grant them retro-active immunity if there is any problem on their side. The President has already placed himself above the law time and time again and with his party having the majority in the Senate that is not going to be challenged. If Obutthead wants his phone unlocked it will be.
The more interesting question is can congress even grant retroactive immunity? The president has the power of pardon so its clear that Bush or Obama could shielded AT&T in the wiretap cases but can Congress? Article I Section 9, contains the text "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". I think the intellectually honest among us would say that even a laws that prevents the enforcement of a law enforce at the time the act was committed is ex post facto.
We will never know though because of the "standing trap" which is another gross miscarriage of the notion of rule of law. "You can't sue us for violating your fourth amendment rights because you can't reasonably know first if we did or not" had to be one of the most morally and intellectually bankrupt arguments ever to fly to the date it was made; and then Obama just kept talking...
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference between the President and old world royalty is that presidents get changed every few years.
http://rt.com/usa/news/president-amendment-bill-repeal-541/ [rt.com]
There is some effort being made to eliminate that distinction.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the president would instead buy it outright from the Apple store, thus getting an unlocked phone to begin with.
It's probably a joke that Apple is one of the few stores selling unlocked phones. The Samsung store won't sell you phones, neither does Sony nor Microsoft... they just chase you to a carrier store so you can buy the locked one.
Re: (Score:3)
The law would have to be reversed by Congress, and right now, even if Obama wanted to, he's going to save his political capital for those fights which advance his own goals
And there is very little reason to think Obama will want to.
White House has not been taking these petitions seriously -- the "build a death star" petition got a much (much!) more thorough and well-written response than "legalize pot" or "ban TSA" petitions. This tells me quite a bit about the expected petition impact.
USA! USA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to being ruled by these corporations, politburo looks like a good idea...
--Coder
Re:USA! USA! (Score:4, Insightful)
In Russia, power is money.
In USA, money is power.
Re: (Score:3)
In Russia, power is money.
In USA, money is power.
There should be a great amount of money and power to be gained by moving between Russian and the US often.
Re: (Score:3)
Extremes are always a lot closer than it seems : in extreme socialism/communism everything is controlled by a single government entity ( the government owns everything, including all companies )
In extreme capitalism, everything is controlled by a single company ( the company owns everything, including the government ).
Unsurprisingly , the end results are the same.
Re:USA! USA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Extremes are always a lot closer than it seems : in extreme socialism/communism everything is controlled by a single government entity ( the government owns everything, including all companies )
In extreme capitalism, everything is controlled by a single company ( the company owns everything, including the government ).
Unsurprisingly , the end results are the same.
Right, compare Stalinism and Nazism, one extreme left wing the other extreme right wing, the difference wasn't really all that great in the way they operated. One of my favorite descriptions of these two systems comes from some nameless Soviet citizen who observed that Russians were forced to choose between two homicidal dictators and they chose the one who spoke Russian.
Re: (Score:3)
Stalinism was Communism. Nazism is Socialism.
Both are extreme. Both are left wing.
And North Korea is democratic. It's right in their official name (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)! They wouldn't lie in the very name they give themselves, would they? /extreme_sarcasm
Your actions define you, not your name. By actions, the Nazis were fascist, not socialist, and in the simple but flawed single-axis political spectrum, that falls more in line with right-wing thinking. So very sorry your feelings are hurt by the simple truth that fascists are ideologically closer to conservatives than t
Re:USA! USA! (Score:5, Insightful)
The systems aren't that much different when you strip the fluff.
Both systems are founded on a lie. The Communist lie was "Work hard today, and we'll all be living in paradise tomorrow." The Capitalist lie is more insidious, because it's more personal. "Work hard, and you can be rich too". What's insidious about it is that success is only dependent on YOU. If Communism fails, we all failed, and hence the system. If you don't work out in Capitalism, it only means you didn't work hard enough, it doesn't mean that the system is a lie. And as if to prove it is, there are some people who actually "made it", who managed to get rich. But once you look closer and find out just HOW they got rich, you notice that most of them either came from rich backgrounds or had backers who Joe Average has no chance of ever meeting. What's left of those self-made millionaires, who actually had an idea, risked everything and succeeded, is pretty close in number to lottery millionaires.
In other words, if you want to get rich, forget working and buy a lottery ticket. It's much easier, less risky and more likely.
The only "advantage" the Capitalist system has over the Communist one is that it's harder to see through. Plus we do not have a "West" that would show us that there's a better way.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is still generally true.
Re:USA! USA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:USA! USA! (Score:5, Informative)
Look up the old "when we reach communism" jokes if you are interested
--Coder
Re:USA! USA! (Score:5, Informative)
It looks to me that every year more and more laws in USA are being passed to the benefit of corporations, and less and less to the benefit of the people. Government in USA looks completely disfunctional. And I wouldn't care that much about it- I don't live in the USA. But USA right now is the biggest world power, and it keeps pushing all this crap down everyone's throats with all their might and influence.
--Coder
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Check congress' record on things like the can-spam act, the regs. on manipulating volume during commercials, and most importantly, the do not call list creation... They sometimes act on "easy" consumer-rights type stuff... AT&T and Verizon surely have their hooks in deep, but they're the only ones who benefit from locked phones and their arguments are running out. Especially with the ETF fees in place.
His goal has been advanced (Score:2)
even if Obama wanted to, he's going to save his political capital for those fights which advance his own goals
Obama got twice as much money [opensecrets.org] as Romney in the last election from Verizon. And that was just one cellular carrier.
You all think the law as it stands was not very much supported and driven by Democrats? Well enjoy laying in the bed you all voted for. I'm not going to sign the petition because I figure America should get what it asked for, full bore. Enjoy the next four years rubes! That should gi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:His goal has been advanced (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not liberal fascism. The whole liberal conservative thing is window dressing, there ain't no such thing as liberal fascism. You're state is fascist or its not. Our state is fascist. Any illusion to the contrary can be cured by a sufficiently long detox period. This is a nation of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation and politician's position on Gay Marriage only exist to get the "Rubes" as you so elegantly put it, distracted from the fact that they're being rectally assaulted.
My friends, they walls keep getting higher and the passages narrower. here's a bit of useful information. After the dip, comes the shearing, There are the herders and the Lamb Chops, and I don't expect anybody writing here is a herder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think our President, Barack Obama is a dick. Also I don't think there's any racial group I'd consider inferior or subhuman. Hold on while I yell the same thing out of my window.
Grow up kiddie. The world sucks and there's a lot of stupid powergames going on, and a lot of laws existing that shouldn't. That doesn't mean in any way shape or form our country resembles Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany. Get a sense of proportion.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell with Congress, the Big O is standing smack dab next to JOE BIDEN, a man whose nose is so deeply buried in the crack of service corporations that he can accurately determine whether or not they're brushing the backs of their teeth!
Re:Hate to be a troll or anything, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, we're acting defensively when we should be going on the offensive instead. Reinstating our rights to unlock our phones is not enough.
The locking of phones by carriers should be made illegal in the first place. Our airways are a public good. They're part of our public infrastructure. They're just like our public roads. As a society, we get to set the rules of the road, or update them as need be. The locking of phones may have been ok in the beginning, but this is a business practice that needs to stop right now.
Re: (Score:3)
How is unlocking a phone a right?
I agree with the sentiment, but here in New York, I pass by several scummy electronics shops who sell unlocking services for phones.
Do they have a right to do this? Somehow I don't think so.
Well if the GP had his way, you wouldn't need to go to one of those scummy electronic stores to get your phone unlocked in the first place. Secondly, you're paying for the phone either up front, or through an overpriced service plan. You bought it, you should be able to hack it to hell as long as it doesn't violate FCC regulations for causing harmful interference.
I don't get it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So if I pay the difference back to cancel my contract what is the reasoning behind paying $500K and going to jail for 5 years?
Same reasoning behind $250k per 99 cent song.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You can't copy a phone like you can copy a digital file.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Funny)
No. You can't copy a phone like you can copy a digital file.
Tell that to Samsung. Apple's lawyers disagree ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives no.... corporate hit men yes... Justice Scalia (gawd those two words don't go together), would pass off on this law so fast, it would cause time to flow backwards...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you pay the difference and cancel your contract, the phone is yours and I'm certain that the carrier would not only be obliged to, but be happy to give you the unlock code.
The part *I* don't get, is why they needed a new law for this. If you unlock your phone and use it on a different carrier, and STOP paying your old carrier, you've basically stolen your phone by way of defaulting on the payments for it. I'm sure there were/are plenty of laws already covering the provider under those circumstances.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Once you pay the difference and cancel your contract, the phone is yours and I'm certain that the carrier would not only be obliged to, but be happy to give you the unlock code.
The part *I* don't get, is why they needed a new law for this. If you unlock your phone and use it on a different carrier, and STOP paying your old carrier, you've basically stolen your phone by way of defaulting on the payments for it. I'm sure there were/are plenty of laws already covering the provider under those circumstances.
yeah, it's called an early termination fee which is supposed to reimburse the carrier for the full cost of the phone.
The part I REALLY don't get is Americans inability to understand that THEY DON'T OWN their contract phones - at least until the end of the contract. They don't seem confused about their leased cars, you don't see Americans simply stop paying their lease and assume the car's theirs. Why the fuck do they do it with phones?
The part you don't get is that the carrier is not obliged to unlock the phone at the end of the term - nor even if you paid the full unsubsidized price and kept the same phone for 5 years.
And even if you break your contract and pay the early termination fee, the carrier is still not obligated to unlock it for you.
Maybe you'd be less condescending if you'd learn a bit about the issue before s
Re: (Score:2)
They use it as a ball&chain to bind you to them. And if you find a better deal/a carrier that's not crappy then you will have to pay for the phone anyway.
Since I often find that carriers don't have the specific phone I want and I won't switch carriers just to get a new mobe I usually buy them myself. And snce they are jolly expensive, I only get a new phone every 3 years or when mine breaks. Since my Moto Defy still is happily c
Re: (Score:3)
The part you don't get is that the carrier is not obliged to unlock the phone at the end of the term
No one is asking the carrier to to do a damn thing. The phone is mine. I paid the full price for it (actually more than the full price if I completed the multi-year obligation). Why should I be a criminal because I modify something I friggin paid for and own. It's completely asinine. The congress idiots that passed such a law should be in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Since you couldn't steal what you already own, you needed a new law.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you didn't pay 650$, you paid 99$. If you get the 650$ version from Apple, it's not carrier locked.
You don't seem to understand the early termination fee.
AT&T has the iPhone 5 for $199, and if you cancel the contract early, an early termination fee of $350.
If you bought the phone, then broke the contract immediately by paying the ETF, you'd pay $550 for the phone.
Their "unlocked" price for the phone is $650, so you'd get a $100 discount.
But if AT&T is really losing money when selling the phone for "only" $550, then it seems like the answer to that problem is either to charge a higher purchase pri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it is the gvmnts job to ensure that monopolies and collusion do not hamper honest business practices.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not? Gee, the recent development in laws could easily have fooled me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is misrepresented. I think most people have a clear understanding that the phone is cheaper under a contract because the carrier is making the money back on service.
They don't just sell you the phone for $99. They sell you the phone for $99 under the conditions of the contract which include you either paying for the service every month or paying an early termination fee.
Re: (Score:2)
because why compete when you can legislate your shitty business model into the criminal system?
seriously, if any company was losing money even on "phone trafficking" scams, they need to learn how to math.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, here's one for you.
Say I walk into a phone store. In this case, let's say T-mobile.
I say I want a shiny new galaxy series smartphone, to replace my aging android froyo device. They eagerly wish to sign me onto a subsidized plan.
I tell them that I am already happy with my monthly refilled no contract plan, and that I have the 1K in my pocket right now to just buy the phone. They whinge a little by telling me they won't replace it if lost, stolen, or damaged, but transact the purchase.
I leave the store.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you suggest I proceed?
How do you want to proceed? You bought a phone that is locked to Sprint ... It is still locked to Sprint
Personally, I would be buying an unlocked phone and if Samsung does not make them available, then Samsung would lose my business to Apple.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you technically move anyway? (Score:2)
To me the whole aspect of unlocking in the U.S. is nearly moot because most phones cannot move between AT&T and Verizon, because the technologies used are so different. Verizon and Sprint both use CDMA which was never designed with the SIM approach in mind.
About all you can do is go from one of the others to T-Mobile. Now I don't hate T-Mobile, but it's a hard and fast truth you are not going to get the same coverage nor network speed there as you would one one of the major carriers.
Re: (Score:3)
In Hong Kong it's done rather differently - and I think better for the customer, and the carrier alike.
Here there are also plenty of subsidised phone plans.
What the carrier does: they offer phone+plan, then you have to pay for the phone full fee in advance, and get a monthly discount on your bill for the duration of your contract. Both those plans and phones are sold separately as well, and you have many mix-and-match options.
This is good for the customer: they get their phone at a discount, and can switch
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't deprive the carrier of their investment, which is why these days your carrier would unlock it for you anyhow. Unlocking is no longer a DMCA exception because carriers now regularly unlock phones that are paid off.
What about.. (Score:3)
Notwithstanding that this could violate a cell phone provider's terms of service agreement, and one could still be accountable to their cell provider for violating that.
However, in Canada, the unlocking of cell phones is *expressly* legal.
And, if people who are, for instance, residents of California, are allowed to travel to Nevada and gamble and then return without consequence, I see no reason why a person from the USA could not also go into Canada and unlock their phone there without legal repercussions.
I smell a potentially profitable business opportunity for people who live in border towns.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not disagree with the premise that unlocking a phone should be legal: indeed, I feel that creating criminal penalties for doing so is a travesty, and might border on treasonous for the legislators involved.
But...
I was not aware that Canada had joined the Union and become a state. That would be a legally relevant point of interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Logically, a person who works and travels in both countries would need his phone unlocked if he wants to use a Canadian provider while in Canada or in fact any area not covered by his provider. I can quite understand providers wanting to lock phones but to break such an agreement is not and should not be criminal. Intent should be a part of the equation in that if I have a good reason to need my phone unlocked (examples already given) and I want my contract to continue and intend to continue to use the or
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there actually *could* be potential harm if you consider loss of revenue to be harm. Why would anybody want to use a Canadian provider while in Canada? Presumably the same reason that I unlocked my phone to use a US provider when I travel to the US (from Canada). I don't want to pay the exorbitant roaming fees. The cell companies make good money off of people travelling and using their phones while roaming. Also, even though somebody might pay for a base plan the provider can still at times earn
Write a letter (Score:5, Informative)
While the "We the People" petition is a nice symbolic measure, it's not likely to result in any real action even if it reaches the signature limit.
It'd be far better if everyone wrote letters to their congressional representatives. There are lots of guides on the internet for doing so, here's one:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/letterscongress.htm [about.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the fact that anyone can sign this petition, including everyone on the planet, not just Americans. This is ridiculous.
In no other industry is this acceptable. (Score:3, Insightful)
These seem like crap excuses (Score:3)
CTIA [Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association] explained that the practice of locking cell phones is an essential part of the wireless industry's predominant business model, which involves subsidizing the cost of wireless handsets in exchange for a commitment from the customer that the phone will be used on that carrier's service so that the subsidy can eventually be recouped by the carrier. CTIA alleged that the industry has been plagued by âoelarge scale phone trafficking operationsâ that buy large quantities of pre-paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets where carriers do not subsidize handsets.
1. The industry business model is selling subsidized phones in exchange for a multi-year contract.
Most carriers have early termination fees that are prorated the longer you stick to your contract,
which directly reflects the cost of the subsidized phone they sold you.
The carrier could care less what happens to that phone, as long as I hold to my contract or pay the ETF.
2. If there is a big problem with pre-paid phones, then craft the unlocking exemption to exclude prepaid phones.
The CTIA must have gotten their guidance from the copyright industry, where singular counts of infringement are treated the same as large scale criminal enterprises.
Re: (Score:2)
CTIA [Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association] explained that the practice of locking cell phones is an essential part of the wireless industry's predominant business model, which involves subsidizing the cost of wireless handsets in exchange for a commitment from the customer that the phone will be used on that carrier's service so that the subsidy can eventually be recouped by the carrier. CTIA alleged that the industry has been plagued by âoelarge scale phone trafficking operationsâ that buy large quantities of pre-paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets where carriers do not subsidize handsets.
Emphasis mine. Their predominant business model doesn't seem to be working as more and more countries pass ahead of America as far as cellular telcos are concerned - with both better service and lower fares. And strangely, all those countries ahead have unlocking explicitly legal.
Maybe just forbidding everyone to lock phones would be a good idea? Just a hint of course...
Get over the petitions already (Score:4)
The petitions are worthless. Opium for the masses. No petition has ever had any useful effect.
No petition will ever have a useful effect, unless you count the placebo effect as useful: "I did something for my cause, now I can go back to sleep".
The People have already spoken (Score:2)
The ones that actually matter, anyway. Still, good luck with your petition guys.
Fiasco? (Score:2)
My plan was to just ignore the law and unlock my phone anyway and -- oh wait, I buy my phones used on eBay to start with and don't even get involved in the whole carrier-subsidy treadmill.
Don't buy subsidized phones (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty simple what you can do about it: Don't buy subsidized phones. Not only do you end up paying more for a subsidized phone, you lose your rights to do whatever you want with it.
I really don't understand why people are so up in arms about this. I'm a card carrying member of the EFF and ACLU and, apart from the fact that this is a criminal offense instead of a civil issue, I'm not really that concerned because the "loophole" is so simple: Buy your fucking phone instead of renting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except this ignores the second-hand phone market. Someone could buy a subsidized iPhone 5 today and use it for two years, then sell it. If the original owner doesn't remember to request an unlock prior to the sale, the buyer is now stuck.
I bought a second hand 3GS and decided to pay for a SIM unlock rather than having to wait for ultrasn0w to update every time iOS increments. It's too bad future purchasers of used phones won't have that option open to them. And for what it's worth, AT&T doesn't seem wil
You don't usually pay more (Score:2)
Not only do you end up paying more for a subsidized phone, you lose your rights to do whatever you want with it.
That is not true from many angles.
For one thing a data plan for an iPhone on the major carriers is the same, subsidized or no. So you'd pay more for an unlocked phone, and then pay as much as the guy who bought a phone with a plan for service over two years. Yes you could bail earlier but most people keep the same carrier a few years.
You could pay less going to a company like T-Mobile but there
What can you do? Simple. (Score:2)
Since old phones are grandfathered, don't buy a new phone as long as you can't use it the way you want to use it.
My phone is good enough and shows no sign of wear.
Is this really a "done deal"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there some explicit "no unlocking whatsoever" clause in the DMCA? As far as I'm aware, the only thing that's happened is that the explicit exemption for unlocking has expired. While I'm not volunteering to be the test case, it seems like there's a good case to be made that the generic DMCA language doesn't forbid unlocking.
In most cases, I'm not altering the software on the phone by unlocking it. I'm merely entering a code, and the phone already has software onboard specifically for the purpose of unlocking that phone when I enter said code.
Watch out when installing Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine the fun if they did something similar with operating systems. You bought your laptop with Windows on it. $500,000 and a 5 year prison sentence for switching it to Linux next. After all, Microsoft expects the revenue from their new app store and you are depriving them off that by changing to an open platform!
It's no more ridiculous than this idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine the fun if they did something similar with operating systems. You bought your laptop with Windows on it. $500,000 and a 5 year prison sentence for switching it to Linux next. After all, Microsoft expects the revenue from their new app store and you are depriving them off that by changing to an open platform!
And that's getting it completely backwards. The DMCA law makes it illegal to breach encryption, but then exemptions were made to allow people to do things that they should rightfully be allowed to do. Like owning an unlocked phone, or running the OS of your choice. In the case of unlocked phones, it was decided that there are so many ways now to get unlocked phones that no exemption of the DMCA is needed anymore. If it turns out to be hard to install Linux on computers without violating the DMCA, then I wou
Taking the petition a bit further (Score:2)
Technological limitations on unlocking your phone aren't the only questionable business practices of cellular providers. I think we need both legalized unlocking, better billing practices, and limitations on the contracts. That is why I put together http://wh.gov/y6kK [wh.gov]. Please take a moment to sign it. Body text follows:
Customers of cellular phone plans in the US are treated poorly. We would like to see regulations that require things like:
1) A bill that reflects the advertised price, and separate line items
Completely misunderstood (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact 2: Unlocking your phone yourself requires a violation of the DMCA law.
Fact 3: It is entirely reasonable to want an unlocked phone. And it is entirely reasonable that anyone should be able to get an unlocked phone without breaking any criminal laws.
Three years ago, it was recognized that most people could only fulfil their wish to have an unlocked phone by unlocking it themselves, so an exemption was made that the DMCA violation of unlocking the phone yourself was not considered a crime. Now it is assumed that people can indeed get unlocked phones, so there is no need to unlock yourself, so there is no need for an exemption.
Now here is the conclusion: Since you are not allowed to unlock a phone yourself, surely your service provider _must_ unlock it when you ask for it and cannot refuse. So instead of asking for permission to violate the DMCA law, people should ask their service provider to unlock the phone and take them to court if they refuse.
Re: (Score:3)
And you should be required to front the cost of them taking the carrier to court, to be paid back only out of the monetary award the court might give them. This is, after all, the moral obligation of anyone that suggests using the courts in a country where the legal system is rigged so only the top two percent can actually afford to use it.
Disobey it (Score:4, Insightful)
It's darkly amusing... (Score:3)
How the carriers could've just, oh I dunno, raised their early termination fees. But instead, they get their pet lawmakers to effectively make contract violation a Federal felony. Something tells me this isn't about loss of contract profits.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm replying to an anonymous coward with anti-American tendencies... but he has a point. Laws like this do not exist anywhere else in the developed world, afaik. There's quite a lot of consumer protection about what you can do with your stuff in the EU, for example, and this kind of thing would be laughed out of any legislature.
Re:Wow... (Score:4)
Here (in Europe) we do have similar laws which have not been laughed out of the legislature. But those laws make the distinction between small time infractions and large scale commercial wrongdoings. And a prosecutor asking for the maximum sentence for a minor breach of the law would be laughed out of court. Being made an example of here doesn't involve ludicrous jail terms; if it happens at all, it means that when the judge has a choice between imposing community service or an equivalent jail term, he'll send you to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
To an Alpha, the Law is seen in the same light as a mugger. Both are potential threats, but neither are to be respected.
Organization has been around for ages - No matter how big one man gets, unless he joins a system, 10 men will be bigger than him.
That's kind of the point of the law - we have the entire country backing up the little man.... or at least that is how it is supposed to work
It doesn't work right in lots of cases - but it's better than everyone for himself.
Re: (Score:3)