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.
"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?
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/
You heard it here first, folks.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You're not cheating the other party. You're still under contract whether or not you use the phone and either have to keep paying or pay the termination feee.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
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?
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.
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.
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/
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)
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.
According to TFA, you can unlock it yourself - you're the only person authorized to unlock it. The catch is that nobody can help you, or they'll be in violation of traffiking in circumvention methods or software, which is illegal. Just like DVDs and Bluray discs.
If they take you to court, you can claim either fair use and/or interoperability requirements in order to make your phone work on another carrier. If they take your unlocking service to court, your service will likely have no such claim as it was not for their use. At least, that's how I understand the goofiness which is the DMCA.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You've got it right. Typically, "may" is used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Typical_usage
TV has been screwing it up for ages.
Beware of the Leopard.
To shoot your phone up?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.