Slashdot Mirror
Unlocking New Mobile Phones Becomes Illegal In the US Tomorrow
Tyketto writes "Referencing a decision outlined in the Federal Register, Tech News Daily has published an article noting that the window to unlock your new mobile phone in the U.S. is closing. 'In October 2012, the Librarian of Congress, who determines exemptions to a strict anti-hacking law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), decided that unlocking mobile phones would no longer be allowed. But the library provided a 90-day window during which people could still buy a phone and unlock it. That window closes on January 26.' While this doesn't apply to phones purchased before the window closes, this means that after 1/26/13, for any new mobile phone you purchase, you'll have to fulfill your contract, or break the law to unlock it."
It will still be perfectly legal to purchase an unlocked phone, which many carriers offer. This change removes the exemption for buying a new phone under contract (and thus, at a discount) and then unlocking it.
... if carriers actually released updated to their modified versions of the OS with little delay.
The times where you could live and not break any law are long since gone anyway.
This will stop absolutely no one. Just like to stopped no one before there was an exemption.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
"after 1/26/13, for any new mobile phone you purchase, you'll have to fulfill your contract, or break the law to unlock it."
That doesn't make sense. You own it or you don't. I own my iPhone, but in return for a reduced price I have agreed to use the carriers service. If I do not fulfill my agreement the penalty is financial, not the return of the merchandise. I don't even have to use my iPhone to fulfill the agreement.
Also, if you break the decryption, you break it. What if you agree to an upgraded OS version and it installs - is that now software obtained after the date of prohibition?
Clarification, anyone?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Fixed that for u.
You are free to purchase the handset, sans carrier lock in, for a lump sum. You are bound by the terms of the accompanying contract when you buy a subsidised handset, one of which being that the handset be locked to your carrier.
Free market economics, bub; If you don't like, you don't have to buy it. Go get yourself a 0% interest credit card and buy the handset outright. It will be cheaper than paying contract fees, and you get updates when the manufacturer releases them, not the carrier.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Land of the Free, home of the Brave.
- "...away from your phone with your hands behind your head" - "But officer..." - "Anything you say can and will be used against you"
You heard it here first, folks.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Please consider this action your invitation to take the FBI tracking devices that you peddle and shove them up your fiscally tight posteriors.
There is no one that I want to talk to so much that I will put up with this abuse.
Actually this is the result of the removal of a law. They added an unlocking exemption to the DMCA and have chosen not to renew it. The DMCA's so broad-reaching that they had to enumerate lists of things you were allowed to do because otherwise many entirely ordinary activities would've become illegal.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Why the DMCA is stupid.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Free market economics: a system in which megacorps unable to buy each other out and establish an outright monopoly collude to keep prices high and avoid full-scale competition that might drive one or more out of business, and use their unholy profit margins to influence laws and regulations that benefit their business interests.
You are free to purchase the handset, sans carrier lock in, for a lump sum.
Then how do Boost, Virgin, and other U.S. prepaid carriers get away with up-front sales of phones that are still locked to the carrier?
Go get yourself a 0% interest credit card and buy the handset outright. It will be cheaper than paying contract fees
Not on some U.S. carriers, who don't give a discount on monthly service for buying your phone up front.
I own my iPhone
No no you don't. Aooke have pretty much been anti-consumer for some time with EFF and others trying to keep the option of jailbreaking legal (Its still illegal on your iPad)
This is back from 2010 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ The PDF about Apples responce and basically jailbreaking does this,
"Crashes & instability
Malfunctioning & safety
Invasion of privacy
Exposing children to age-inappropriate content
Viruses & malware
Inability to update software
Cellular network impact
Piracy of developers’ applications
Instability of developers’ applications
Increased support burden
Developer relationships
The Apple/iPhone brand
Limitation on ability to innovate"
It also says your breaking Licence agreements and copyright infringement too as well as well as DMCA anti-circumvention
Boycott Apple products...Its not like there are mass of better value alternatives.
This has NOTHING to do with free market economics. This is about a poorly written group of laws (DMCA) being used to manipulate a market and prevent you from using something you purchased in a way you want. It impedes first-sale doctrine.
Excluding T-Mobile, all major US carriers include in their monthly pricing the cost to subsidize your phone. So, while TMO has a cheaper monthly plan if you don't get a contract phone...no one else does. In addition, it isn't always the case that you're free to purchase an unlocked version from the carrier.
Our lawmakers need to get their collective heads out of their nether regions and wake up to the reality of the world today. This just brings back yet another pointless, unenforced, and ignored set of restrictions.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Since unlocking a phone has nothing to do with circumventing copyright, the DMCA shouldn't apply.
That ship sailed in 1998 when the DMCA was enacted into law. The digital lock on a phone's copyrighted firmware controls access to the copyrighted firmware.
Good thing I don't actually live in the US.
It irks me when people post "sucks to be you" comments to Slashdot without providing an option for those negatively affected by regulatory capture, such as a guide to navigating a saner country's immigration system.
The problem is, the DCMA shouldn't be settling this, the MARKET should be. If i default on a subsidized phone, its a civil matter, take it up with the courts.
Good-bye
Mod parent up. Nail hit on head.
boost and virgin are cdma, that's how it works
Straight Talk you can buy almost any unlocked GSM phone and get a ST sim and use it on the carrier
This has nothing, zero, nada, nil, to do with jailbreaking.
It refers to the sim unlock that enables you to use the phone on a carrier other than the one who sold you the phone (eg, AT&T).
Again, nothing to do with jailbreaking in the slightest.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash though.
This will stop absolutely no one. Just like to stopped no one before there was an exemption.
...and is not the point, removing a right of ownership over something your have bought to do with as you please...and who is to say it will be possible going further...we have the same Apple users begging the government to remove their privacy, by permanently linking a phone to a person.
So, what happens when you need to travel out of the country during your contract time? Do they give you the unlock code, or are you forced to be roaming costs?
Je ne parle pas francais.
I'm surprised this issue hasn't been tossed out onto a We the People petition?
Although recently we've seen a few of those used for stupid things (death star) as well as being flat out trampled on a few times with responses that basically said "we don't feel like telling you that", it would still be nice to see it out there.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
... if carriers actually released updated to their modified versions of the OS with little delay.
Its *not acceptable* never mind fair. You own the phone, implying your hire it is a disgrace. If your only hiring it they should massively reduce costs, and inform you clearly they own the phone.
FCC should allow unlocking of phones after the subsidy period is completed (essentially rent to own) and there should be a usury limit on exactly what the effective rate of interest is, because, as a previous commenter pointed out, that is what is going on.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
I purchase a phone, with my money. It's in my house. I own the phone. I own the house. It's illegal for me to make a particular modification to a piece of hardware that I own, on my property. Is that what this law is saying?
Aside from the fact that I will never purchase an unlocked phone again, and the market for said unlocked phones will skyrocket, I'm skeptical that this little example of corporate/feudalistic dictatorial overreach is going to stand up to court challenges.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The problem is, the DCMA shouldn't be settling this, the MARKET should be. If i default on a subsidized phone, its a civil matter, take it up with the courts.
You are correct that it's a civil matter, but incorrect that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act doesn't apply - it also includes civil infringement and penalties. But yes, the cops shouldn't be coming after you.
You may be confused by the submitter's use of "illegal" - that term refers both to criminal acts and non-criminal acts that are still violations of the law (trademark infringement, patent infringement, parking in a handicapped zone, etc.).
Excluding T-Mobile, all major US carriers include in their monthly pricing the cost to subsidize your phone. So, while TMO has a cheaper monthly plan if you don't get a contract phone...no one else does. In addition, it isn't always the case that you're free to purchase an unlocked version from the carrier.
So switch to T-Mobile. Everyone switch to T-Mobile, and I guarantee the other carriers will shit bricks and change their policies within days. Too bad we're all too sicked in to buying the latest HTSamsiPhoLGoogAndroid phone to tell "the man" to go fuck his contract terms, and his bought laws.
Our money buys these laws. Stop giving them your money.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I'm sorry, but you're in idiot if you think this doesn't happen in Europe. The universal complaint I hear from family living in various European nations is that their governments do whatever the hell they want regardless of the desires of the people. Sometimes it works in favor of the people, but usually it doesn't. For all the problems with our government at least the people still feel like they have a tiny change of shaping policy.
It's not difficult at all to immigrate to Europe if you've got the balls to do it and can prove you can earn an income. But their immigration policies do tend to be more strict than America's. Think at least on par with the sort of thing Arizona was excoriated for. Which is kind of ironic considering even some Europeans got on their high horse about it.
even with a contract you should be able to roam and put in a local sim that costs way less. Hell some systems let you rack up $5000-$10000+ in roaming fees and still don't cut you off.
I dont understand USA carriers, in Brasil you can unlock your phone anytime, the carriers have the contract to keep us "lock" to them for 1 year. And ANATEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Agency_of_Telecommunications) established a few years ago that every cell phone must be unlocked, because, one more time, the carriers have the contract to keep us "lock" to them for 1 year. And in Brasil 2 years contract for carriers become illegal.
Jailbreak = breaking the OS protection to perform operations not sanctionned by the phone manufacturer/integrator
Unlocking = breaking the radio layer protection to use the phone with another carrier
Both are "breaking" which is a concern for the DMCA but both had "waiver" as part of the DMCA. Now, the later does not have a waiver any more.
Your phone is locked when you get it at a reduced price in exchange for exclusivly using it with the carrier that sold it to you. It is locked to its network. Unlocking a phone yourself was breaking the promise you personnaly made to the carrier. If you are not fine with having your phone locked, you can either buy it unlocked but for a bigger price, or ask the carrier to unlock it, usually free after a (long) time or for a fee.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I don't get the issue.
Unlocking just lets you use the phone with a different carrier than the one from which you bought it. It's not jailbreaking.
Quite. This isn't about "free market economics". This is about personal property rights being eroded to the benefit of large corporations. This isn't even an example of a bad contract. At least those have some basis to be defended by "libertarians".
This is a statute bought and paid for by industry that interferes with YOUR basic civil liberties.
Since it's property, it's even MORE fundemental a right from an economic perspective than something like free speech.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
also offer good roaming costs or yet you unlock for roaming out side the usa.
In the US you have to pay the same amount for service whether you're subsidising a handset purchase or not, right? That doesn't seem like a great incentive to buy outright.
Meanwhile in Europe, where we have oversight of our telecoms industry, almost every carrier offers unlocking even during the contract for about £25 and you can get super-cheap service-only tarrifs everywhere. I'm on uncapped data and a decent amount of calls and texts for £15, using a nearly three year old iPhone.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Slashdot: A place where people think their entertainment needs and entitlements allow them to violate contract law (and whatever other laws they want) at will.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash though.
As someone who owned a iPhone locked to the O2 to service in the UK, and had to *jailbreak it* to use on an alternative network, what do you think they are going lock the phones down with a padlock.
I am sorry if your favourite mega-corporation treats its customers like cattle
The law was made 10 years ago, but Im glad youre paying attention now.
Freedom is possible, slavery grows out of the exhaust pipe of an internal combustion engine.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
.... illegal to unlock a new mobile phone purchased after tomorrow 3 years later, *after* the contract has expired?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
> right?
No, wrong. Some carriers offer plans for people who buy unlocked phones.
I have a pay as you go plan - don't pay unless I use the phone. Costs me about $100/year.
I know I'll get modded into oblivion, but this actually makes sense somewhat. You get on a contract and buy a subsidized phone for $50 and pay 1 month of your bill. Then you cancel your contract, don't return the phone etc etc. You'll owe the carrier a lot of money, but they'll have to go through the debt-collection stuff to get it back. So, assuming you don't pay the collectors, you might have a $600 phone that you effectively paid $100 for
Note: this doesn't cover prepaid OR unsubsidized phones. What it covers is the situation I described and then unlocking the phone and going prepaid on another carrier. It doesn't "fix" the problem, it just encourages people to stick with their contract. I assume that there is also some clause that if you cancel the contract AND pay early-termination fees, then you can unlock the phone as well. Also, the article is quite vague in details, but I don't suspect it's the end of the world like most of you are saying.
No mod points left, but I couldnt agree mord
Yeah - you can tell that corporate, money grubbing, fuck the environment and the people son-of-a-bitc....
Wait...who were we talking about?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's quite possible to buy nice a unlocked droid and use it on T-Mobile.
The free market hasn't been completely suppressed.
How cute, you think there is a connection between what they name a law and what the law actually does.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You did? How odd. I also own an iPhone on the O2 network in the UK and didn't have to jailbreak it to unlock it.
Anything else you want to lie about?
http://www.smartphonetracker.co.uk/apple-iphone/iphone-3G/iphone3g-guides/298079/how_to_jailbreak_and_unlock_an_iphone_3g.html
I'm sorry you were late to the smartphone race, in *context* of this article Apple used to have carrier exclusive deals these were preserved through software locks on the phone. You should check your facts before attacking other people. Its against the law here ;)
Slashdot: A place where conservative whack-jobs think that big business is entitled to everything, and if you disagree, these same conservatives complain that you think you are "entitled."
There's that word again.
Now, if only you had a clue what "free market", "monopoly", etc means. If you have monopolies, you don't have a free market. if you have competition, you don't have monopolies. And, of course, if you have a government intervening to create the situation, then you don't have a free market either. What is the point of making up new definitions that nobody recognizes for existing terms?
And you're under 30, and white.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The way I see it, laws like this are made to be broken. Reading the comments, I can see that the Slashdot community is predictably opposed to it, as am I... But, then again, I don't really care at the same time; because even though it will technically illegal, that isn't going to stop me. And it wont stop you. Unless they plan on throwing half the country in jail, nobody cares. P.S. Hello NSA guy. Yes i have just said that i am prepared to break the law. What are you going to do about it? Probably nothing. Because nobody cares, not even you. I bet you are going to break it too aren't you. It's okay, we all will.
How is this a problem for any carrier? All of the subsidized phones I've seen all come with a minimum contract term (2 years?) and a high penalty fee to break the contract (Verizon is $350, lowered by $10/month, $175 for non-smartphone lowered by $5/month).
Does any carrier let you buy a subsidized phone without a contract, or let you break the contract with no penalty?
In the early 70's you had to rent a phone from Ma Bell and a guy came out to your house and hardwired the phone (you had to rent) to the wall. You had no choice, and you paid them what the bill said or you didn't get a phone. When the monopoly was broken up you had modular jacks installed and you used whatever phone you wanted.
This seems no different.
Locking the handset is simply immoral. There is already contract laws in place to protect businesses from selling subsidised handsets and the buyer subsequently breaking the contract. Implementing technical measures like handset locks in addition only hurt the paying customers, for instance:
I may want to go on holiday and use a local simcard in my handset, carrier lock prevents me.
I might be perfectly happy with my existing phone, but take a new subsidised handset (since many carriers dont offer discounted plans for not taking a phone so there is no reason not to get one) so i can give it to a friend or family while maintaining the contract on my existing handset.
Locking prepaid or up front purchased phones is even worse, as is not even offering a free unlock option once the contract has expired (or been paid off).
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
This has fuck nothing to do with contract law. After the contract ends, it's still illegal for you to remove the SIM lock without the carrier's permission.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
There's a simple solution: don't buy phones under contract. There are many good unlocked phones around.
Phone contracts are a scam. If you willingly participate in such a scam, you're contributing to the problem.
If people stopped buying locked phones, or contracts, then carriers would stop offering them. You do have plenty of unlocked and no-contract alternatives.
Last time I checked the Library of Congress can't make (legislative) or interpret (judicial) the law.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
If you unlock your phone, then you can sell it to anybody on eBay once your contract is up/you are tired of it. If you can't unlock your phone, then you can can only sell it to other $your_carrier customers, so $your_carrier gets/keeps another subscriber.
-- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
To shoot your phone up?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Then you can call and get the unlock code.
The term 'contract' translates to 'lease' as far as the service providers are concerned. And they have gotten the lawmakers to proclaim that putting a pushpin on their walls is breaking the law.
TFA seems to indicate that if they refuse, you have the right to unlock it-- so long as you have fulfilled contract terms. Perhaps the article is wrong?
Once you have accepted a locked phone at a discounted rate don't go whining in public about how restrictive the contract you agreed to is.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
From TFA "This can be useful to international travellers who need their phones to work on different networks. Other people just like the freedom of being able to switch carriers as they please." So besides blatantly stepping on a customer's rights, what is the main detriment of this law? For the average consumer, which isn't the typical slashdot reader, they would have no idea about any of this. For the typical slashdot reader, this could be annoying, especially for travel, but in the end it doesn't seem like unlocking a phone would save you any substantial amount of money, considering that you'd get hit with an early termination fee for switching carriers after unlocking your phone. For the majority of you, is unlocking your phone about saving money, or just about the funsies of playing with the tech toys?
Boycott Apple products...Its not like there are mass of better value alternatives.
Sure, you could go to Aooke.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
This change removes the exemption for buying a new phone under contract (and thus, at a discount) and then unlocking it.
Let's run some numbers here...
If a new phone, let's call it a J-Phone just as an example, costs $650 at full price, and I can enter into a three year contract to get it for $100 plus $80 a month, that's a discount?
$100 + (3 * 12) * $80 = $2980.
That's a discount of -$2330, or roughly $65 a month for service, interest, and miscellaneous fees, and even if you unlock your J-phone and take it to another carrier, you're still paying for it until the three year contract is up.
Who exactly is getting ripped off by this?
lets hope they don't jump onto this little racket. No more code readers, no more after market diagnostic devices unless purchased from the manufacturer , no more switching out stereos or speakers as they're tied into the system and removing them deactivates your cars computers, blah blah , $$$$, $$$$ ,$$$$ and $$$$.
The only thing I've see the auto industry go after is counterfeiters and some fan sites usign their logos or schematics but so far not much anti usage rights attacks.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
... is a HOT cup of tea.
And a ROMable phone I can restore to factory condition if needed. I'll take my chances with a hosed phone if it happens.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This only becomes truly depressing when you factor in that giving anyone and everyone a lengthy list of criminal acts to choose from, powerful people and corporations can arbitrarily choose to ruin anyone's life anywhere via selective prosecution.
It will still be perfectly legal to purchase an unlocked phone, which many carriers offer.
Or you can just buy one from various retailers. I just bought a new phone from Amazon and put my existing T-Mobile payg SIM into it. When I visited the UK I used my UK Orange SIM.
StraightTalk is another great option. You can use the ATT or T-Mobile infrastructure (you choose when you order your sim). $45/mo unlimited (there is a 2Gb limit on your unlimited data).
You can get the T-Mobile from WalMart and use their 5GB w/100 voice minutes plan for $30/mo if you really don't use voice calling it's an even better deal.
(AFAIK StraightTalk is walmart brand of trac phone that contracts usage on ATT and T-Moblie networks).
My advice for *most* people is to buy the Google Nexus 4 outright and get a StraightTalk plan.
My advice for *data centric/only* people is to buy the Google Nexus 4 outright and get a WalMart/T-Mobile plan.
Yep - and now that they are rolling out 1900 Mhz 3GSM, phones from the rest of the world will actually work on T-Mobile properly (i.e. at speeds faster than EDGE).
Ahhh, if only we could nullify the Patriot Act, for having nothing to do with patriotism. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way over here (or anywhere else AFAIK).
You should be able to unlock your phone and still fulfill your contract. So long as I keep my service for however long I'm supposed to, I should be able to root and update my phone. Penalize people for breaking contract (civil obviously, not criminal), but let us do whatever with hardware we bought and paid for, even if you sold it to us at a discount. So long as we uphold our end of the bargain, the rest should be moot.
the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I disagree. They are very popular to the typical US consumer, who doesn't want to pay more than a couple bucks for a new shiny phone in their hands.
If it wasn't popular, then the business model wouldn't be viable, because no one in their right might would voluntarily chain themselves to a carrier for years knowing that plan pricing, internet caps, speed throttling, and terms of usage are continually shifting and subject to change without notice, approval, or even the threat of class action from the affected.
To say it is popular when it is the only choice available is a sign of ant-trust violations, not good business models. There are only a handful of cellular companies and they somehow all have the same business model with out collusion? Seems might odd. When the railroads tried this back in the first part of the last century, the government stepped in to protect the rights of the users. My how times have changed. Today, the government seems more interested in protecting the rights of the companies.
The idea is to force a customer to pay the cost of the phone, the cost of the comms and a big chunk for the companies. The price THEY pay for an iphone is not the MSRP !! It's a chain of big chunks, where the consumer pays it all. Locked phones should be illegal. If you want a new fancy shmancy phone, pay it!. Several companies in Europe treat the phone and the service as different items in the invoice. You are BUYING the phone in installments and paying for the service. If you want to change companies, you just finish your contract (you may have to pay early termination fees) and you change companies, but you are still invoiced for the phone. The "pay as you go" users are the ones paying the higher prices in comms, allowing the spoiled teenagers and young consumers get their last gadgets. When there are regulations, the concept of free market is just an illusion...
Tip: search the 'net by SoC names. Maybe start off by googling "mtk 6577 gsm android" (if, say, you use T-mobile (GSM)). There are a few others but that's a good one to start with. Check out the phones' features and prices.
Here is what you'll find, which (imho) wasn't quite the case a couple years ago: the "subsidized" prices of the carriers' phones these days, is only just barely competitive! You don't need to accept a locked phone from your carrier anymore. You don't save money -- NOT EVEN [much] UP-FRONT MONEY -- by taking the deal. (And you definitely lose money, over the long haul.)
It is outrageous that assholes in DC say you're not allowed to work on your own computer, so by all means I still advocate repealing DMCA. But in this particular scenario, it's a nearly dead issue. Locked phones will be a thing of a past soon, I think.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Switch to T-Mobile is exactly what I did. It's my phone, I paid for it, and it's certainly not worth $650. Nor have I ever called up a carrier for permission to unlock my own phone, nor will I. I unlock, (and jailbreak), every phone I get, even if I'm not planning to change carriers, just on principle. And if I'm not happy with my carrier, I can move along. If these carriers were actually competitive, they wouldn't need contracts to keep subscribers. Unlocked phones serve the economy as a whole, and the individual, much better.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
I think what he means is that they should be able to sue you in court - like any other company for breach of contract instead of having this be part of the DCMA. You signed a contract saying you wouldn't do this and you did this. That is simple contract law. Probably the reason the phone companies want it under DCMA is that they have to show damages for breach of contract. At most that would be $200 for the subsidy on the phone and that would be only if broke on day one of the contract. Legal fees and court costs would far outstrip any damages. Under the DCMA, however, they can charge you criminally and the penalties are substantially higher.
If you want to get to the crux of the matter, follow the money.
It's a huge plus for making the switch to T-Mobile. Sure, their service sucks in many places, but I'd like to support this idea that if I buy an unlocked phone at full price, I can get service for cheaper, even with a contract.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I don't believe they feel that the phone belongs to you until the contract is fulfilled.
But wouldn't that be covered by the contract?
Personally it seems that if the carrier wishes to maintain control of a device they can't charge you for the device (or write off it's giveaway cost) until the contract is fulfilled. Why do the big spenders get their cake and eat it too, this decision is clearly biased and not taking into account all the angles that are getting played. The carriers are double dipping.
And WTF is LoC doing interpreting law? That I am sure is a judicial matter.
Rick B.
To those posters who saying that unlocking a phone is breaking a promise to the carrier because of the subsidized phone, I think they forget what the contract is actually about. The contract is that I'll take service from this company for a period of time, for a specific rate, or else pay a fee for the termination of the contract. Whether or nor I fulfill the contract or buy out with the termination fee, the phone still gets paid for in its entirety. So it doesn't matter here: the phone really is yours and you can and should be able to unlock it. The only time a phone isn't paid for by you is if the carrier changes their terms of service and you exercise your right to leave the contract, but that's their loss for breaking the contract terms to begin with.
There is nothing financial here, nor is there anything about copyright. The SIM lock isn't encryption (an "Access Control" and it doesn't require a firmware modification. So I don't see how the DMCA applies at all, nor why the Library of Congress thinks they have any say in the matter.
from the Wikipedia article Libertarian Theories of Law
The defining characteristics of libertarian legal theory are its insistence that the amount of government intervention should be kept to a minimum and the primary functions of law should be enforcement of contracts...
It is a liberal trope that free markets are an uncontrolled dog-eat-dog social order in wich all forms of corporate treachery, deceit, and fraud are explicitly sanctioned by a laissez-faire philosophy embodied in law. In fact, it is the opposite; Free markets are strictly and invariably governed by the single dictum that all and only voluntary transactions are permissible. An essential implication of governance under that system is the enforcement of contracts.
Consider, for example, if you and I were to voluntarily agree to the sale of a bushell of apples to you for $10.00. I provide the apples but you fail to pay me $10.00. Your failure to pay me would result in an involuntary transaction prohibited under the laws of a free mareket. I would have voluntarily agreed to the exchange of a certain amount of apples for a certain amount of money. The actual exchange of apples for no money was involuntary on my part. Therefore, to enforce the mandate that only voluntary transactions are permissible, to enforce freedom, the government must intercede by compelling you to pay the agreed amount. In a free market, governments enforce contracts because involuntary transactions are inconsistent with freedom.
Consider cell phone contracts. If you purchase a cell phone and sign a contract agreeing not to unlock the service, but you do unlock service, then you have violated the contract. To enforce freedom the government must compel you not to unlock your phone because by unlocking your phone you are compelling the company with wich you signed a contract to engage in an involuntary transaction. It never agreed to provide you with an unlocked phone at the price which you paid for it. If you force the corporation to engage in an involuntary transaction by violating the terms of your contract then you have curtailed its freedom by compelling it to engage in a transaction to which it did not agree.
There are three ages of selfishness. The first, infantile selfishness, makes no distinction between "I want," and "I should have." The second, adolescent entitlement, is a conviction that your parents must give you anything you ask for and allow you to do anything you wish. The third, liberalism, substitues "government" for "parents." Those who violate their cell phone contracts by unlocking their service in the name of "freedom" are in fact acting selfishly and violating the freedoms of others. To some, freedom means they get whatever they want. It is infeasible to build any system of governance upon that definition for societies with population greater than one.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I'm up in Canada...my dad just re-upped with his cell provider for 2 years. In return he paid $50 for a phone that would cost $300 to buy outright. He's on a $25/month plan with voice/text only, no data.
As for "plan pricing, internet caps, speed throttling, and terms of usage" constantly shifting, while the cell company can change the plans they offer to new customers they can't change the details of a contract that has already been signed.
although not by much. $200 flat discount with the one provider, I think.
The big difference is that if you bring your own phone you can use whatever plan you want, but if you take the subsidy you need to get a plan that costs at least $50/month.
It still really bugs me that people refer to U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A. (Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act ) as 'the Patriot Act."
If you want a nickname, call it the "spying and torturing American citizens act", otherwise refer to it by it's name: U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.
KthxBi.
Changa hates change.
free market? You're actually going to sit there and call the market Verizon & AT&T are in a Free Market? AYFFM?
To me this is very simple. The companies saw an opportunity to use an outdated law to their advantage. The fact that you could do jailtime for it is absurd. Simply put this is to make it harder for people to switch between phone contracts by swapping sim cards. Whether this is for international use (all companies have an addon fee for international use which they would then loose out on) or you just want to be able to have a different number on the same phone. The bottom line is that it's about money, plain and simple. The problem is that it infringes on peoples rights. If you sign a contract stating that you will not unlock the phone during the the contract period then whev, they don't need to use a this law to sue you. But if you are criminally charged for modifying your own property (whether you are still under contract or not), that is bullshit. What if I bought a car and put new rims on it before I had it paid off? My guess is that if there is enough complaining then the companies will start allowing you to unlock the phones but only by them and for a stupid price. They will get their money however they can, and if they can't then they will ask the government for some help lol
"Sim cards? What are those?" -- Verizon hostage
The link shows in that case they jailbroke the phone to unlock it (not always the case as there have been unlocks that did not require jailbreaking, or your carrier may just unlock it also).
But it also shows that the original point - jailbreaking has nothing to do with unlocking - is correct. Jailbreaking is a totally different thing and not covered by this edict; in fact jailbreaking has been explicitly declared legal.
So can you please stop digging the hole?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Free market romanticism is hard to swallow when the "market" is dominated by a few large players.
My rationale is, if they want to maintain control of their device, then I shouldn't have to take the responsibility of owning it. They provide their property for my use on their network, and I give it back when my contract is completed... I'll even pay for any wear and tear they determine with their assessment. If it's my property I should be able to do what I like with it.
Ok so my idea of fair doesnt align with theirs? Go somewhere else right? Where? There's only 3 providers in my area and they form ideological cartels on issues like these, because they can. Move to the little guy? He doesn't exist.
The traditional ideals of free markets don't work in the telecom sector because:
a) the core infrastructure is still privatized
b) the capital required to compete in these complex industries is too high
We'd need to appropriate the core infrastructure into the public domain, contract maintenance and expansion, and lease access to any ma and pop startup that wants it. Only then will your free market ideals apply.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
So if I want to travel to, say Europe, and buy a local SIM card, can I just wait until I'm in Europe, and then unlock my phone?
Does doing so still violate US law? Does possessing the still unlocked phone when I return to the US violate the DMCA?
I once thought I should open a DVD-ripping shop in Mexico. You ship your DVDs to me, I decrypt them and send them back to you along with the decrypted backups. Has any law been broken?
I've travelled all over the world and the state of mobile phone services in the USA is about the worst I have come across, especially for a short-term tourist who just wants a cheap pre-paid SIM with a data plan for their iPhone. Neither AT&T, nor Verizon could offer me a SIM at all claiming I had to buy a locked phone in order to get one, and all t-Mobile could offer me was a very expensive pre-paid SIM with connection to an Edge network only, no 3G or 4G. Compare this to most EU countries where you can buy prepaid SIMs from vending machines that come with 3G and 4G out of the box, or even Cambodia (and indeed most Asian countries) where for about US$10 you can buy a SIM from one of a dozen services as soon as you get off the plane with 2GB of 3G data built in. In Australia it's illegal for a telco to NOT unlock your phone on request, most places will sell you an unlocked phone directly if you like, and as a tourist most airports will sell pre-paid SIMs with 3G and 4G data plans quite cheaply. But in the USofA it's all vendor lock-in, restricted access, crappy coverage and shitty treatment for those of us who like to visit every now and again to visit friends unfortunate enough to live there, and take advantage of the shitty dollar to buy cheap clothes. Land of the free my arse.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
The link shows in that case they jailbroke the phone to unlock it (not always the case as there have been unlocks that did not require jailbreaking, or your carrier may just unlock it also).
But it also shows that the original point - jailbreaking has nothing to do with unlocking - is correct. Jailbreaking is a totally different thing and not covered by this edict; in fact jailbreaking has been explicitly declared legal.
So can you please stop digging the hole?
The insanity that comes with protecting a mega corporation is sometimes frightening especially when Apple are not coming out and protecting *their* users, in fact they tried the very same behaviour only a year ago...and were only stopped by EFF.
The sad fact is waffle aside I personally needed to *jailbreak* a phone, to enable functionality I wanted. You can't change that empirical fact that's just weird. Apple implicated the restrictions not the carrier :)
Why is it, that increasingly I am becoming a criminal just by living?
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
So glad I don't live in America
I really don't understand this at all. Once you buy the phone (subsidized or not) it should be *yours* to do with as you please. The argument that it protects the carrier from you switching to another provider is ridiculous. If you buy a subsidized phone, sign the contract, and then jump ship, you still have to pay an ETF if you move elsewhere...so what's the big deal? At that point, you've paid for the phone. There is no way this should be a law.
Dear DMCA lawyers, Fuck you, I will do what I want until I'm arrested. Then I'll keep giving you the finger until people see reason and bring these laws down. I urge all who have the opportunity to continue practicing civil disobedience against laws that unfairly benefit large corporations, or for that matter any law that is contrary to basic rights.
Plutocracy or oligopoly would be good choices, depending whether you're referring to it as a form of government or as a market force.
There is nothing about a free market that will prevent a monopoly. It's pretty easy to see how totally free markets would result in monopolies.
Competition. High prices from the existence of a monopoly result in incentives to enter the market. The monopolist might be able to keep them out by losing money (say buying the competitor at exaggerated price or conducting costly undercutting wars).
Yet another law to ignore altogether. Ho hum. I suppose next you suggest I wear my seat belt, drive the speed limit, and pay a private corporation for the right to drive (insurance)? In the land of the insane, every law is in my ignore list.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
boost and virgin are cdma, that's how it works
CDMA2000 uses CSIM, yet Verizon, Sprint, and their MVNOs (such as Virgin) still program the subscriber identity directly into the handset. Why is that?
Straight Talk you can buy almost any unlocked GSM phone and get a ST sim and use it on the carrier
Is there still a big frequency band difference between T-Mobile GSM phones and AT&T GSM phones?
The monopolist doesn't buy competitors. He buys Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents. Much cheaper in the long run.
The competitors magically seem to disappear after that...
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
It's not like there are not alternatives out there. Yes, the major carriers generally push subsidized phone purchases with a contract, but there are also plenty of pay-as-you go providers, and T-Mobile even offers plans that don't offer phone subsidy and have lower month-to-month costs.
Most consumers don't care that they don't get to unlock the phone after the contract, because they're going to get a brand new phone on a new contract.
So I would submit that the consumers not only know exactly what they are getting, they also LIKE it!
paintball
T-Mobile offers a cheaper plan with no phone subsidies, and there are plenty pay-as-you-go carriers as well (boost, virgin, etc)
paintball
The monopolist doesn't buy competitors. He buys Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents. Much cheaper in the long run.
Again. Not free market since you implicitly have interference from government above.
On an Android phone, the code the carrier's firmware is based off of has GPLed code in it (kernel, etc..) So how is locking the entire firmware not a violation of the GPL?
> Except that your not technically buying it, your purchase is subsidised by the contract.
Legally irrelevant. You own your phone 100% the moment you walk out the door with it. The fact that you owe the carrier a hefty ETF if you don't satisfy the contract is why.
For various reasons, American mobile phone carriers have ALWAYS been prohibited from directly leasing phone hardware to consumers. BellSouth Mobility did its best to get the policy overturned around 1991 (and went into high gear after Hurricane Andrew, using it as their perfect pretense), and they got smacked down by the government every time.
I believe the rationale back then was that mobile phone manufacturing was an oligopoly (basically, Motorola owned the US market), and if carriers could lease phones to consumers, the manufacturers would jack up the retail cost to levels that made purchase by end users economically untenable, then rebate most of it back to their biggest customers (ie, carriers).
Everyone is missing the point. This isn't about unlocking your cell phone, this is about who owns the software on your mobile.
In 2010 the register concluded``[t]he record * * * leads to the conclusion that a substantial portion of mobile phone owners also own the copies of the software on their phones.''
But the CITA (the wireless trade association) convinced the Register that the phone owners don't own the phone. Plus the case law: "Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010), holding that ``a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) Specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.''
The claim here is, since you don't own the software, you can't change it (or unlock it). The Register decided that since the case law was inconsistent across the country, AND that numerous options exist (most providers have the ability to unlock the phone) then they would remove the exemption.
What is also interesting is the Register concluded "exemption to the prohibition on circumvention of mobile phone computer programs to permit users to unlock ``legacy'' phones is both warranted and unlikely to harm the market for such programs"
BUT they decided to remove the exemption anyways.
Also, they said "anyone considered to own the software on their phones under applicable precedent--would be entitled to exercise the Section 117 privilege." Does this mean if you live in the proper district, you can still unlock new phones?
No, wrong. Not like that at all in the states.
Oh, and take your medicine you fucking douchebag. The ridiculous crap you're spewing has zero to do with the fucked up cell phone landscape in the US.
I may not agree with this change, but I can understand it. If I understand this correctly, it doesn't actually make it illegal to unlock phones. It just makes it illegal to unlock phones while under contract (assuming the contract doesn't permit unlocking). You can still buy the phone outright and then unlock it, or even buy an already unlocked phone. So what's the big deal?
This would be worthy of n+1 mod points... sadly I have none.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
I thought the point of the regulators was to regulate uncompetitive industries, you know, where I can count all the players on one hand.
I am quite content to break the law. Something about unjust laws and so on and so forth. On the other hand, after I can get my hands on an unlocked phone, I don't think I'll purchase a locked phone again.
No carrier lock. No restrictions. Half the price of a "no contract" phone from the carriers.
This is a statute bought and paid for by industry that interferes with YOUR basic civil liberties.
Large piles of money are more efficient money-making machines, and the more efficient they get the more inequality they engender. It has everything to do with free market economics, which holds that the political sphere should follow the lead of private capital and not stand as a check against the latter.
When it comes down to it, money is power but a lot hinges on how pervasive that power is. But I digress a bit.
Since this story deals with phones that are under contract anyway (and is not the kind of civil liberty issue you think it is), the real threat comes from the conflation of DMCA copyright protection (criminal penalty) with the protection of phone contracts (civil penalty). But breaking your phone contract has nothing to do with copyright. The courts are misapplying the law due to their usual post-Reagan thirst for persecuting average folks.
I think his point was that there is no such thing as a free market.
Left on their own businesses will form monopolies and buy out the government.
The DMCA was actually very well written. You just weren't the intended beneficiary of it.
Make no mistake, these laws are written the way they are on purpose.
Oh wow, you mean that regulation actually keeps customers from getting raped in the ass?
Gee, I wonder why we suck so bad here in the states.
Price fixing, colluding to limit choice, etc, by all the providers of a service seems to violate the fair dealings and good faith requirements of a valid contract. You and the courts may disagree, but don't assume the desire to break contract law isn't based on a sincere objection to the validity of said contract.
As for other laws, don't even pretend that all laws are just and the only reason people violate them is for 'entertainment and entitlements'.