Slashdot Mirror
What You Can Do About the Phone Unlocking Fiasco
itwbennett writes "Now that the ridiculous phone unlocking law is a done deal, and we all understand exactly what that means (i.e., 'fines of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to five years'), you might be left wondering what can you do about it. Well, you could start by lending your John Hancock to this petition at the White House's 'We The People' platform. It's already over halfway to the number of signatures required to get a response from the executive branch."
...seriously - even if it got 500,000 signatures, I doubt the White house will do a damned thing about it. The law would have to be reversed by Congress, and right now, even if Obama wanted to, he's going to save his political capital for those fights which advance his own goals
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Notwithstanding that this could violate a cell phone provider's terms of service agreement, and one could still be accountable to their cell provider for violating that.
However, in Canada, the unlocking of cell phones is *expressly* legal.
And, if people who are, for instance, residents of California, are allowed to travel to Nevada and gamble and then return without consequence, I see no reason why a person from the USA could not also go into Canada and unlock their phone there without legal repercussions.
I smell a potentially profitable business opportunity for people who live in border towns.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Because you didn't pay 650$, you paid 99$. If you get the 650$ version from Apple, it's not carrier locked.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
While the "We the People" petition is a nice symbolic measure, it's not likely to result in any real action even if it reaches the signature limit.
It'd be far better if everyone wrote letters to their congressional representatives. There are lots of guides on the internet for doing so, here's one:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/letterscongress.htm
So if I pay the difference back to cancel my contract what is the reasoning behind paying $500K and going to jail for 5 years?
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Let's first recognize that the "cell phone" is in fact a radio. Now imagine if the radio in your car was locked to one station and you had to buy a new radio in order to listen to a different radio station. Imagine if you had to buy a new TV when switching cable providers. It's absurd. I've always thought that people should be able to buy hardware of their choosing and use it wherever it is compatible. These smartphones are little computers. I should be able to buy any hardware platform and load any OS on it. Then I should be able to go to any cellular ISP and install their radio/modem/SIM. (Note there are only 2 types of radio and 4 companies to chose from). It would be more expensive but there is no reason to make preposterous legislation around it.
CTIA [Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association] explained that the practice of locking cell phones is an essential part of the wireless industry's predominant business model, which involves subsidizing the cost of wireless handsets in exchange for a commitment from the customer that the phone will be used on that carrier's service so that the subsidy can eventually be recouped by the carrier. CTIA alleged that the industry has been plagued by âoelarge scale phone trafficking operationsâ that buy large quantities of pre-paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets where carriers do not subsidize handsets.
1. The industry business model is selling subsidized phones in exchange for a multi-year contract.
Most carriers have early termination fees that are prorated the longer you stick to your contract,
which directly reflects the cost of the subsidized phone they sold you.
The carrier could care less what happens to that phone, as long as I hold to my contract or pay the ETF.
2. If there is a big problem with pre-paid phones, then craft the unlocking exemption to exclude prepaid phones.
The CTIA must have gotten their guidance from the copyright industry, where singular counts of infringement are treated the same as large scale criminal enterprises.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The petitions are worthless. Opium for the masses. No petition has ever had any useful effect.
No petition will ever have a useful effect, unless you count the placebo effect as useful: "I did something for my cause, now I can go back to sleep".
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
How do you suggest I proceed?
How do you want to proceed? You bought a phone that is locked to Sprint ... It is still locked to Sprint
Personally, I would be buying an unlocked phone and if Samsung does not make them available, then Samsung would lose my business to Apple.
It's pretty simple what you can do about it: Don't buy subsidized phones. Not only do you end up paying more for a subsidized phone, you lose your rights to do whatever you want with it.
I really don't understand why people are so up in arms about this. I'm a card carrying member of the EFF and ACLU and, apart from the fact that this is a criminal offense instead of a civil issue, I'm not really that concerned because the "loophole" is so simple: Buy your fucking phone instead of renting it.
Is there some explicit "no unlocking whatsoever" clause in the DMCA? As far as I'm aware, the only thing that's happened is that the explicit exemption for unlocking has expired. While I'm not volunteering to be the test case, it seems like there's a good case to be made that the generic DMCA language doesn't forbid unlocking.
In most cases, I'm not altering the software on the phone by unlocking it. I'm merely entering a code, and the phone already has software onboard specifically for the purpose of unlocking that phone when I enter said code.
So if I pay the difference back to cancel my contract what is the reasoning behind paying $500K and going to jail for 5 years?
Same reasoning behind $250k per 99 cent song.
It doesn't deprive the carrier of their investment, which is why these days your carrier would unlock it for you anyhow. Unlocking is no longer a DMCA exception because carriers now regularly unlock phones that are paid off.
Once you pay the difference and cancel your contract, the phone is yours and I'm certain that the carrier would not only be obliged to, but be happy to give you the unlock code.
The part *I* don't get, is why they needed a new law for this. If you unlock your phone and use it on a different carrier, and STOP paying your old carrier, you've basically stolen your phone by way of defaulting on the payments for it. I'm sure there were/are plenty of laws already covering the provider under those circumstances.
The part I REALLY don't get is Americans inability to understand that THEY DON'T OWN their contract phones - at least until the end of the contract. They don't seem confused about their leased cars, you don't see Americans simply stop paying their lease and assume the car's theirs. Why the fuck do they do it with phones?
Is it just me, or is capitalism in USA becoming even scarier than socialism in USSR was? I mean, I understand ending up in a mental institution (or a gulag in earlier times) for criticising the party. That's harsh and ruthless and unfair and evil, but at least understandable. But life-ruining fines and jail time for downloading an mp3 or using a device you own to the fullest? That's just insane. Well, not insane. It's exactly the same thing. It's a punishment for resistance against the Powers that Be. In USSR this was the government and the party, so you were punished for speaking up against government. In USA government does not matter. In USA it's the corporations, so you'll get punished for doing anything at all that annoys them.
Compared to being ruled by these corporations, politburo looks like a good idea...
--Coder
Imagine the fun if they did something similar with operating systems. You bought your laptop with Windows on it. $500,000 and a 5 year prison sentence for switching it to Linux next. After all, Microsoft expects the revenue from their new app store and you are depriving them off that by changing to an open platform!
It's no more ridiculous than this idea.
The part you don't get is that the carrier is not obliged to unlock the phone at the end of the term
No one is asking the carrier to to do a damn thing. The phone is mine. I paid the full price for it (actually more than the full price if I completed the multi-year obligation). Why should I be a criminal because I modify something I friggin paid for and own. It's completely asinine. The congress idiots that passed such a law should be in jail.
Who is John Galt?
No. You can't copy a phone like you can copy a digital file.
Tell that to Samsung. Apple's lawyers disagree ;-)
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Fact 1: There is the DMCA law, and it won't go away.
Fact 2: Unlocking your phone yourself requires a violation of the DMCA law.
Fact 3: It is entirely reasonable to want an unlocked phone. And it is entirely reasonable that anyone should be able to get an unlocked phone without breaking any criminal laws.
Three years ago, it was recognized that most people could only fulfil their wish to have an unlocked phone by unlocking it themselves, so an exemption was made that the DMCA violation of unlocking the phone yourself was not considered a crime. Now it is assumed that people can indeed get unlocked phones, so there is no need to unlock yourself, so there is no need for an exemption.
Now here is the conclusion: Since you are not allowed to unlock a phone yourself, surely your service provider _must_ unlock it when you ask for it and cannot refuse. So instead of asking for permission to violate the DMCA law, people should ask their service provider to unlock the phone and take them to court if they refuse.
Since you couldn't steal what you already own, you needed a new law.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not? Gee, the recent development in laws could easily have fooled me.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, that phone unlocking law is totally ridiculous.
That law suits North Korea much better than it does in America.
But the fact that this has happened in the United States of America says a lot about how the Americans themselves have changed.
It used to be that the congress critters were afraid of their constituents.
It used to be that those living inside (and the surrounding area) of Washington D.C. have to listen to the people living outside of that area.
No more.
Nowadays we have ridiculous laws being passed, without even a single objection from the public.
Nowadays the Americans are so complacent, that the congress (and the White House) get to do anything that they want to do, because they are not afraid of their constituents anymore.
The death of Mr. Aaron Swartz should not have happened in America.
America supposed to be a country where abusive officials do not get any foothole.
In fact, the birth of the United States of America was because the British government got too abusive, so much so that the people rose up and chased out the Brits.
I used to live in America in the 1960's till early 2000's, and I've witnessed the change myself.
Americans no longer care for freedom.
Americans no longer willing to fight for liberty.
In other words, America has withered.
Can someone please change the wording of the American national anthem ?
The one about "Land of the Free", "Home of the Brave", in more ways than one, no longer apply.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Its not liberal fascism. The whole liberal conservative thing is window dressing, there ain't no such thing as liberal fascism. You're state is fascist or its not. Our state is fascist. Any illusion to the contrary can be cured by a sufficiently long detox period. This is a nation of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation and politician's position on Gay Marriage only exist to get the "Rubes" as you so elegantly put it, distracted from the fact that they're being rectally assaulted.
My friends, they walls keep getting higher and the passages narrower. here's a bit of useful information. After the dip, comes the shearing, There are the herders and the Lamb Chops, and I don't expect anybody writing here is a herder.
It's not really the consumer protection side (or lack thereof) that I find scary, it's vague laws that state "If you do something bad, you will receive an appropriate punishment ranging from a slap on the wrist to 5 years in jail". If you make the unlocking of phones illegal (which I don't agree with btw.), there should be a clear distinction between one guy unlocking his own phone after his agreed contract expires, and a guy running a shop unlocking hundreds of phones a week for a fee. In the first case a small fine would be appropriate; the second case would warrant much stiffer fines or even criminal charges (depending on your laws). Ideally the law itself makes that distinction to some degree; the problem is that apparently you could get the $500k fine / jail time even for unlocking a single phone, if the prosecutor decides to make an example out of you. We've all seen how that works recently...
Here (in Europe) we do have similar laws which have not been laughed out of the legislature. But those laws make the distinction between small time infractions and large scale commercial wrongdoings. And a prosecutor asking for the maximum sentence for a minor breach of the law would be laughed out of court. Being made an example of here doesn't involve ludicrous jail terms; if it happens at all, it means that when the judge has a choice between imposing community service or an equivalent jail term, he'll send you to jail.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
In Hong Kong it's done rather differently - and I think better for the customer, and the carrier alike.
Here there are also plenty of subsidised phone plans.
What the carrier does: they offer phone+plan, then you have to pay for the phone full fee in advance, and get a monthly discount on your bill for the duration of your contract. Both those plans and phones are sold separately as well, and you have many mix-and-match options.
This is good for the customer: they get their phone at a discount, and can switch carriers any time they want. But when stopping a contract you have to pay an early termination fee (typically around USD 40-50), and you lose all future discounts. So if you stop halfway, you lose have the subsidy.
This is good for the carrier: they don't have to finance the phones, as they get the money for it upfront, and no extra losses on that phone were a customer to cancel the contract before it's finished.
Also that there is real competition here with at least five networks and more providers (including some without their own network), and by law when you want to switch providers you can take your number and it's ported over in a matter of days. The procedure is also very simple for the customer, as the new network will arrange everything for them. It makes for a very vibrant market, that's on top of the latest wireless technologies.
The irony of you considering an Apple device because you dislike lock-in is not lost on me.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I plan to just disobey it.
The death star was after a couple of years, I believe the first petition was to legalize various recreational drugs.
How the carriers could've just, oh I dunno, raised their early termination fees. But instead, they get their pet lawmakers to effectively make contract violation a Federal felony. Something tells me this isn't about loss of contract profits.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
I vote for the "most people are stupid" option. It wouldn't even occur to most people that their phone isn't their phone and that they can't switch providers.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I think our President, Barack Obama is a dick. Also I don't think there's any racial group I'd consider inferior or subhuman. Hold on while I yell the same thing out of my window.
Grow up kiddie. The world sucks and there's a lot of stupid powergames going on, and a lot of laws existing that shouldn't. That doesn't mean in any way shape or form our country resembles Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany. Get a sense of proportion.