28 replies to this topic

[aktrazer]

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

 

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

  54.07KB   147 downloads


Well, readers, remember a few months ago when T-Mobile was carpet bombing your TV with ads about bringing your unlocked phone to them? Well, with the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ruling, that will just be a pipe dream.

Now, I've done quite a bit of reading on this issue and I'm going to condense the information as most articles on this matter are ambiguous, at best.

Here's the lowdown:

First, when we talk about unlocking, we're talking about the ability to unlock the phone from being carrier-specific. Consider the iPhone, you could buy it from ATT, then take it to T-Mobile or Verizon and activate it with them if the phone is unlocked. This law prohibits doing that.

Second, and I can't stress this enough, rooting (or "jailbreaking" for you iPhone users) is still 100% legal as rooting your phone will not allow you to run the phone on a carrier that the phone wasn't designed for. The same goes for unlocking the bootloader on devices that allow it. That's still fine. It will still void your warranty, but it's legal.

Third, in order to change carriers, you'll need to have permission from the carrier you bought the phone from in order to unlock the phone (good luck with that one). Basically, if you buy a phone from a carrier at a discounted (upgrade, subsidized) price, you will not be able to unlock it and take it to another carrier.

Now, the big question is "how would they be able to enforce it?". Well, now with the new DMCA ruling, carriers will have federal legislative backing and can enforce this law. There are no specifics on what they can do, but it's a fair assumption that you'd receive a warning letter first, then they could, theoretically, terminate your service without warning.

In short, it's a mess. With all the caveats and ins and outs of this new act, it seems that "bringing your own device" ends tomorrow. Now, there is a 90 day window from tomorrow to unlock your locked phone, after those 90 days expire, unlocking phones will no longer be allowed.


So, readers, what are your thoughts? Think it's a good idea? Think it's just another way for our carriers to keep us corralled? Let us know in the comments!

[snives]

It is a negative for the market and is extremely poor economics. It promotes the idea of ditching the use of new products entirely rather than ever upgrading (stay with legacy unlocked devices). It also legally makes no sense as the user is the owner of the phone (once the contract is completed), not the carrier. It is like me walking up to somebody wearing an Aeropostale shirt and telling them they aren't allowed to use a water fountain or that they have to sit in the back of the bus because they have the wrong brand on. It is absolutely a digital age version of civil rights repression. If the facility is available, it is available to everyone. The act revision passed for the same reason that other agencies trying to control the digital age made such progress (SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/etc), the people with the power to vote have no clue what they are doing.

[Dave12308]

Actually, phones that are unlocked when you purchase them remain legal. The 90 day thing refers to devices that are currently carrier locked. There is a 90 day grace period for people to obtain unlock codes for those devices. Unlocked phones such as those sold by Apple and Google will still be sold that way.

[aktrazer]

Actually, phones that are unlocked when you purchase them remain legal. The 90 day thing refers to devices that are currently carrier locked. There is a 90 day grace period for people to obtain unlock codes for those devices. Unlocked phones such as those sold by Apple and Google will still be sold that way.

I was trying to figure out a way to say that in the article. Thanks!

OP updated

[Mr. Orange 645]

I can understand that while you're still under contract. Technically until the contract is up you're still paying for the phone you purchased at a subsidized price. However, if I buy the phone full retail, or finish my contract and move on, then how can they say the carrier has any say if I'm allowed to take my phone with me or not? I'm not leasing or renting the phone. I purchased it. Can Chevrolet tell me where I can fuel up my truck or what states I'm allowed to drive in? No. Its my truck.

Same goes for the phone. Its my phone and I should be able to put whatever service on it I want. We're losing our freedoms slowly but surely.

[Oaklands]

Our cronies, err leaders keep taking away our freedoms, then holds out their hands and ask, "Would you like another bite and would you vote for me again?" The sheeple reply, "Oh yes. Please give us more. You are the anointed one and you are great. I will gladly vote for more."

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk HD

[stealthmouse]

I can understand that while you're still under contract. Technically until the contract is up you're still paying for the phone you purchased at a subsidized price. However, if I buy the phone full retail, or finish my contract and move on, then how can they say the carrier has any say if I'm allowed to take my phone with me or not? I'm not leasing or renting the phone. I purchased it. Can Chevrolet tell me where I can fuel up my truck or what states I'm allowed to drive in? No. Its my truck.

Same goes for the phone. Its my phone and I should be able to put whatever service on it I want. We're losing our freedoms slowly but surely.

Actually, I don't completely agree with the part about paying for the phone. The carrier subsidizes the price in order to get a multi-year service plan from the consumer. So technically, it's not your problem that the device was sold to you (perhaps) below cost, you own it. I think of it more like signing up for a two-year DirecTV contract and getting a DVR for free, or getting a free cable modem with your internet service - in those cases, at least, the contract states that you own the device immediately, but you are obligated to a defined service period. VZW likes to make us think that we are still paying for our phones for the entire contract period (as they like us to think they are a content provider rather than just the pipe), but to the best of my knowledge, the contract requires you to pay for service, not the phone. It's paid for when you sign up. There must be some leasing plans too, just like DVRs and cable modems have, I'm just saying that's not always the case.

[jimboslice]

Actually, I don't completely agree with the part about paying for the phone. The carrier subsidizes the price in order to get a multi-year service plan from the consumer. So technically, it's not your problem that the device was sold to you (perhaps) below cost, you own it. I think of it more like signing up for a two-year DirecTV contract and getting a DVR for free, or getting a free cable modem with your internet service - in those cases, at least, the contract states that you own the device immediately, but you are obligated to a defined service period. VZW likes to make us think that we are still paying for our phones for the entire contract period (as they like us to think they are a content provider rather than just the pipe), but to the best of my knowledge, the contract requires you to pay for service, not the phone. It's paid for when you sign up. There must be some leasing plans too, just like DVRs and cable modems have, I'm just saying that's not always the case.

Actually, you are still paying for your VZW smartphone for up to 6 months after the contract starts. You can check out the terms of your contract if you'd like, but since I'm a former VZ employee, I'll paraphrase it for ya:

Pretty much states that if you CANCEL your line of service within 180 days (6 months), you MUST return your device, OR you will be charged the cancellation fee AND the difference in retail price. (up to $300).

The two year agreement is just to ensure a hefty profit from you.

I don't agree that they're trying to lock up our ish just to make more money off us. If I'm PASSED the 6 month mark, I should just be able to pay the ETF and take my ball to play elsewhere.

From here on out I'm buying my ish outright. This stuff makes me shake my head in disgust.

[danifunker]

Actually, you are still paying for your VZW smartphone for up to 6 months after the contract starts. You can check out the terms of your contract if you'd like, but since I'm a former VZ employee, I'll paraphrase it for ya:

Pretty much states that if you CANCEL your line of service within 180 days (6 months), you MUST return your device, OR you will be charged the cancellation fee AND the difference in retail price. (up to $300).

The two year agreement is just to ensure a hefty profit from you.

I don't agree that they're trying to lock up our ish just to make more money off us. If I'm PASSED the 6 month mark, I should just be able to pay the ETF and take my ball to play elsewhere.

From here on out I'm buying my ish outright. This stuff makes me shake my head in disgust.

So what are the technicalities of this law? Can you unlock the phone outside of the US and bring it back unlocked? Can an international user buy the phone and unlock it abroad? Do international unlocked phones suddenly become do much more valuable to the US market? It's it illegal to sell phones at full retail price while they are locked?

Fortunately I'm Canadian so this crazy law doesn't affect me... Guys, you need to overturn it. Or have explicit limits on carrier power, it will create so much waste if you don't.

Sent from my XT925 using Tapatalk 2

[tucstwo]

First, when we talk about unlocking, we're talking about the ability to unlock the phone from being carrier-specific. Consider the iPhone, you could buy it from ATT, then take it to T-Mobile or Verizon and activate it with them if the phone is unlocked. This law prohibits doing that.

I'm pretty sure regardless of sim unlocking, an iPhone purchased from ATT won't work on VZW because of CDMA technology? Perhaps the LTE iPhone 5 may work because of the Global GSM abilities introduced but that was in Android, in ICS, but to date, it's been pretty tough to use American GSM devices on VZW.

[STiK]

I'm not sure how a carrier would know you unlocked a device in the first place. I highly doubt that T-Mobile would turn someone in for bringing an illegally unlocked ATT device to them or vice versa... All they care about is that you are bringing them business and as far as they know, you had it carrier unlocked before you brought it to them.

[stealthmouse]

Actually, you are still paying for your VZW smartphone for up to 6 months after the contract starts. You can check out the terms of your contract if you'd like, but since I'm a former VZ employee, I'll paraphrase it for ya:

Pretty much states that if you CANCEL your line of service within 180 days (6 months), you MUST return your device, OR you will be charged the cancellation fee AND the difference in retail price. (up to $300).

The two year agreement is just to ensure a hefty profit from you.

I don't agree that they're trying to lock up our ish just to make more money off us. If I'm PASSED the 6 month mark, I should just be able to pay the ETF and take my ball to play elsewhere.

From here on out I'm buying my ish outright. This stuff makes me shake my head in disgust.

Thanks for the clarification. Always good to know. And it's nearly impossible to find the full contract, other than generic one...so always good to have an expert in the house!

[Prymaldark]

I purchased my XT912M at full retail, partly because I was not eligible for an upgrade yet, and partly to keep my unlimited data line. I use the device for data mainly, text slightly, and voice rarely. I picked up an XT912 from eBay, and got stuck with it when it turned out my brother is not a RED customer.

A few months ago I looked into getting the XT912 unlocked for use with other US carriers, and basically got the run around. First RED claimed it was not possible. I succinctly pointed out that if it is capable of connecting to international GSM networks, then it is capable of connecting to domestic ones as well. I also pointed out that their agreement with the FCC when purchasing their portion of the LTE spectrum specifically prohibits locking features such as the ability to use it on another network. Their response was 'it comes from Moto like that, they will have to unlock it', to which Moto replied 'we configured it how RED wanted it, they will have to unlock it'.

During my investigation, it seems that even if I could get them to unlock it, the best I could hope for with a GSM carrier is 2G in any area that is not served by 4G. The 4G might work with BLUE/PUPLE, though in my area, these companies barely have service, let alone 4G. I have to drive for an hour to even get to a RED 4G coverage zone.

Eventually, I gave the XT912 to a friend for use as a multimedia device. He has a satellite internet connection at home, and a wifi network setup, so he can just set it in Airplane mode and turn on Wifi, and still be able to use it for browsing and email, as well as music and video whenever.

I think one of the main reasons that RED holds onto the CDMA technology so tightly is that it helps them keep a strong division of devices. They can just use the 'it uses a different technology' excuse, and the majority of their customers just accept it at face value. They would have a harder time preventing customers from demanding BYOD policies if they switched over to a GSM network.

Perhaps this is the reason for attempting to change the legislation recently. With the push for 4G services, all the major carriers are sharing the same frequencies. They are just trying to manufacture a reason to continue to deny their customers request to use the devices that are owned already. Though in reality, it just comes down to their desire to sell you a new device every time you start a new line of service. They must be making money hand over fist on these devices to push so strongly against allowing customers to use whatever device they already have.

[comakills]

I'm not sure if anyone watches fox news but they are incorrectly reporting this and saying that rooting a phone is illegal but they called it jail breaking as in the iPhone.

[comakills]

also apparently there is a petition to resend the law. if I can find the like I'll post it. so far there are twenty thousand signatures already.

[aktrazer]

I'm pretty sure regardless of sim unlocking, an iPhone purchased from ATT won't work on VZW because of CDMA technology? Perhaps the LTE iPhone 5 may work because of the Global GSM abilities introduced but that was in Android, in ICS, but to date, it's been pretty tough to use American GSM devices on VZW.

This was just an example. Tried to get the point across that you could buy a phone from one carrier, unlock it, and take it to a different. Bad example though. :/

Sent from my Motorola Galaxy s3 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[Dave12308]

I've done a bit more research on this, and apparently it is still okay to unlock a carrier locked phone AS LONG AS the carrier approves it.

Apparently, what isn't okay anymore are those places where you can purchase an unlock code, or send the phone in to get it unlocked. It would also, it seems, be illegal to try and force a device such as the Droid Bionic (GSM capable, but not enabled in software) onto a GSM network.

[Adevos]

I can understand that while you're still under contract. Technically until the contract is up you're still paying for the phone you purchased at a subsidized price. However, if I buy the phone full retail, or finish my contract and move on, then how can they say the carrier has any say if I'm allowed to take my phone with me or not? I'm not leasing or renting the phone. I purchased it. Can Chevrolet tell me where I can fuel up my truck or what states I'm allowed to drive in? No. Its my truck.

Same goes for the phone. Its my phone and I should be able to put whatever service on it I want. We're losing our freedoms slowly but surely.

This is true, from what I have read, this only applies if you are still paying off the subsidy on your phone (i.e. you are under contract). You can have your carrier unlock your phone if you want to pay for it in full. This is similar to the fine print restrictions put on a car when you finance it. Technically, the lien-holder owns your car, you are just paying it off while they hold your title. There are actually restrictions on a typical contract like this such as restrictions on where you can park your car, etc. These rules are pracdtically never enforced in these types of deals, however. Once you pay off your car, it is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it.

I'm pretty sure that these carriers can give you an unlock code if you just want to buy the phone in full from them. This law pretty much shuts down the third party organizations that can unlock your phone.

[Adevos]

I'm not sure if anyone watches fox news but they are incorrectly reporting this and saying that rooting a phone is illegal but they called it jail breaking as in the iPhone.

I would expect this type of misinformation from Fox, any other media outlets making this claim?

[Adevos]

A few months ago I looked into getting the XT912 unlocked for use with other US carriers, and basically got the run around. First RED claimed it was not possible. I succinctly pointed out that if it is capable of connecting to international GSM networks, then it is capable of connecting to domestic ones as well. I also pointed out that their agreement with the FCC when purchasing their portion of the LTE spectrum specifically prohibits locking features such as the ability to use it on another network. Their response was 'it comes from Moto like that, they will have to unlock it', to which Moto replied 'we configured it how RED wanted it, they will have to unlock it'.

If you bought your phone full price there is no reason why they should do this, it is just lies and misinformation to keep your contract...I have heard giving a valid excuse such as "where I work gets terrible reception and I need to switch networks" might help. They are just giving you the run around. Pretty lame...

It seems like there are rules put in place that favor the consumer, such as the said FCC agreement for not being able to lock phones, but these companies can just sidestep them without any consequence. However, if a consumer wants to side step a perceived unfair rule, they can easily get hammered.

...I can understand not being able to switch carriers when you get a subsidized phone (they are pretty much giving you the phone at a loss and recouping it under the agreement that you will carry a contract for a specified amount of time), but when you pay for it in full they are not losing any money through you to begin with.