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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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!
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.
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.