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.
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/
It's not fair in any case, since the sole purpose of such laws is to protect business models that were not viable on their own.
You heard it here first, folks.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
there is a difference between jail breaking/rooting and unlocking.... this would only affect those ppl who are using an old phone to travel in other countries... or ppl who, like it says, are buying a phone under a contract and then switching contracts
This refers to carrier unlocks, not rooting or jailbreaks.
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.
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.
the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I'm not really sure which laws you mean by "such laws", exactly, but if you mean the DMCA, it's being used in a much wider scope than originally intended. That means it's vague, which makes it unenforceable and potentially unconstitutional, depending on the enforcement action taken. Additionally, whenever you have an entity in a section of government not located squarely in the Judicial branch making decisions on what is and isn't covered by a specific law, you have a clear invitation for judicial review. The LoC isn't the final say here, if the ban on unlocking new phones is actually enforced, the law as it applies to the unlocking activity is going to get reviewed by judges.
What would be more fair is if they set an actual fair rate for the "no contract" price. They basically jack up the prices heavily on the no contract phones to try and force you to the subsidized ones.
Google's Nexus 4 is unlocked and sold for $299, yet Verizon essentially wants $150-200 for "subsidized" versions of the similar level phones or $500-600 for no contract versions.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
There's nothing preventing you from buying a phone at the unsubsidized price and then modifying it. You're making a deal with the cell phone provider: You agree that you'll honor the contract you signed, and they give you a phone at a discount. Hopefully this is going to be a bit easier over time as everyones moves to LTE (does this mean that CDMA finally bites the dust?) and phones become standardized like the rest of the civilized world.
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/
Im not clear here, unlocking is specifically for joining a new carrier, correct? TFS indicates that fulfilling your contract would allow you to unlock your phone, and if you havent fulfilled your contract Im not seeing how you could have unlocked your phone anyways without breaking contract.
From TFA
Other people just like the freedom of being able to switch carriers as they please.
Which you cant do, nor should be able to on contract-subsidized phones, until the contract term is complete; however you could always
.... pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go.
Can someone clarify what the actual issue is?
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.
do you really need every point update of android? what does it give you?
Wrong question. Try "Should anyone but me get to decide which updates I need?". Then we can at least start that discussion (not the same one in TFA, BTW) in a meaningful way.
As for the "real" topic from TFA - Should I have the right, if I visit the UK this summer, to put in a local prepaid SIM card (legally obtained and paid for - They actually have sane rules over there about this stuff, and you can buy minutes for a pittance) so I can use my own phone without paying my normal carrier their insane international roaming fees? Keep in mind that my carrier still gets paid their normal monthly contract fee (the one they agreed to when they subsidized my phone up front) during my vacation, and they don't even need to route calls for me during that time.
I would tend to say "yes, I damned well should". But then, I wouldn't buy a locked phone in the first place.
That's not what the article says, in fact it specifically says
(Note that unlocking is different from "jailbreaking," which opens the phone up for running additional software and remains legal for smartphones.)
so I read it as referring to sim unlocking.
God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
Why is this a special case and needs a special law? Why is the contract you sign insufficient?
Why do they need to make it illegal to unlock a phone, rather than keeping it completely within contract law?
Do you realize how insane a situation it's going to be where a phone company can ask the police to arrest you because you have unlocked your phone?
I agree - they should be able to sue you in a civil court - like any other company would do if you brake any other contract! not sure why this is a special case.
Sigs are for the weak.
Not just joining a new carrier. I'm an e.g. T-Mobile subscriber, and I'm traveling to e.g. Canada. I'd like to use a local account while I'm in Canada so I'm not paying the international roaming charges (0.59/minute voice, $10/MB data). So I'd like to temporarily swap SIMs. I still plan to honor my contract with T-Mobile.
As an example of charges, it would cost over $10 just to view the page (http://www.t-mobile.com/international/roamingoverview.aspx?tp=Inl_Tab_RoamWorldwide) that tells you how much you'll be charged, and that's just for that single page. It doesn't account for the navigation it took to get there.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to unlock your cellphone. It is a matter that should be covered under contract law, not criminal law.
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?
True. By extension, my house isn't truly mine until I pay off the mortgage. Does this mean I can't make any changes to it?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I agree - they should be able to sue you in a civil court - like any other company would do if you brake any other contract! not sure why this is a special case.
Why should they? There are many reasons to unlock your phone that don't amount to exiting your contract early.
ie. I travel overseas and like to purchase a local SIM to avoid enormous roaming charges. I still pay my monthly fee and I don't end up using my included minutes on my plan.
ie. I occasionally like to have a different number for dealing with some people (recruiters, companies who I know will sell off my details to every bidder, etc). I can just pop in a second SIM (perhaps on the same carrier, perhaps not, depending on who has the best pre-paid offer this week). I can call them, give them 'my' number and when my business is concluded I can destroy the other SIM and never have to worry about their tele-spam again. No, I don't want (or need) a whole second phone to do that; the GSM spec allows it with interchangeable SIMs.
In either case I am not carrier jumping. I am maintaining my monthly plan in good order, and most of the time making the majority of my calls via that plan.
The reason carriers want the phones locked is not because you pay your monthly bill. It's because they want you to use up all of your included 'value' (I don't know how I get $750 of 'value' each month but only pay $49, but that's a deceptive practices discussion for another day). They want you locked in when you've used up your included value. If you can't switch out the SIM for one that isn't in the penalty range they have you by the love spuds! That's what they want!
I drink to make other people interesting!
Why should they? There are many reasons to unlock your phone that don't amount to exiting your contract early.
If the contract you signed specifically prohibits you from unlocking your phone, then they will be within their rights to sue you.
I'm not suggesting they should be given any additional rights (which are not specified in the contract that you agreed upon in advance).
Personally, I only get full priced unlocked phones. I then get a no-contract SIM card.
Admittedly, it's much more affordable in the UK than in the US.
Sigs are for the weak.
True. By extension, my house isn't truly mine until I pay off the mortgage. Does this mean I can't make any changes to it?
Some, but not all, no. There are restrictions on what you can do with a mortgaged house. For example, you can't just tear it down because you feel like it if it's mortgaged. Nor can you make any changes that would intentionally depreciate the value of the house. You also can't sell it without paying off the mortgage. You also have to insure the house. I'm sure there are other restrictions, but yes, it's not the same as owning the house outright.
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.
More Twoson than Cupertino
It is not necessarily a matter of fulfilling the contract for example:
I am an ATT customer and have been for 10 years. I get a new phone periodically which starts a new commitment, no problem. I pay my monthly bill fulfilling my part of the contract, again no problem.
I travel overseas frequently and wish to purchase a local SIM to communicate with my local business partners. Now, according to this ruling, it is illegal for me to unlock my phone to use the local, problem.
ATT, before Cingular bought them, had no problem with unlocking my phone as I was a long time customer now I have to purchase a second phone to use while overseas, problem.
Now if ATT gave me a price break for bringing my own phone instead of using a subsidized phone I could understand their reluctance to unlock my phone but considering I am a long term customer... Maybe time to not be a customer...
>> 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.
The subsidized handset business model is popular with typical US customers because customers do not realize that they are actually paying full price for their handset through what is essentially an installment plan. Pay one cent up front and several hundred dollars spread over the next two years. If US mobile phone users are not going to have the ability to do as they will with their mobiles after the contract has expired then the carriers should be honest about the situation and rent the handsets instead of using stealth leases.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Except that "locked" phones are "locked" to a single carrier for the purpose of preventing the end user from swapping a SIM. "Jail-breaking" is an entirely different thing, and has no relation to carrier locks.
If you want to swap the SIM, you need to unlock the phone. If you want to install third party software on your iPhone, you need to jail-break it. It's easy to confuse the two terms, but they are not the same.
No this is not true. In fact, if it were true, unlocking would remain legal. It becomes illegal, because they want to force you to use that particular phone while you are with them and that you cannot use the phone with a different provider after the contract has ended!
it's not a viable business model evidently without excessive lobbying for laws to make it so.
mainly because they don't want to call them rentals phones.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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 DMCA says unlocking is illegal. The (soon to be expired) exemption says that unlocking is legal. There is nothing in the exemption or in the DMCA about a contract.
To drive me last comment home, I did a quick Google search. According to this article, Verizon's profit margin is at over 40%. They could easily offer their customers a better experience and still make a nice profit but they instead choose to line their pockets since they don't have enough competition to justify putting more money towards customer experience.
The DMCA says unlocking is illegal. The (soon to be expired) exemption says that unlocking is legal. There is nothing in the exemption or in the DMCA about a contract.
The DMCA says nothing about unlocking; it talks about circumventing measures that are used to prevent copying. An exemption to the DMCA was made to allow such circumvention in order to unlock a phone. So there was no question that unlocking a phone is perfectly legal, the only problem was that to do something perfectly legal you had to do something illegal as well, and the exemption was there because huge numbers of users wanted to make use of their legal right to unlock a phone.
Now it seems that the situation has changed to the point (that's the reasoning) that people can unlock their phones without any circumvention of copy protection, and therefore the exemption isn't needed anymore. If that's the case then fair enough. On the other hand, if your service provider refuses to unlock your phone, then you should complain.
Sort of. Except you don't pay less on the monthly bill if you opt to pay for the phone up front. You're paying the amortized "fee" either way.
This depends on the carrier. T-Mobile has become more upfront with the charges, and now factor in the cost of the phone in your monthly charges, and charge less if you BYOP or when you have paid off your phone. Not as much less as they should, but still.