Unlocking smartphones without permission illegal in US after 01/25/13

[james912]

They passed the law a few days ago. Anybody read about it?

This week, a new federal mandate kicked in that makes it illegal for you to unlock a phone that you bought locked from a carrier. The rule states that unauthorized unlocking of a phone you bought -- even if you paid full price for it, minus a carrier subsidy -- is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Hey mods? Can you combine or delete this duplicate thread?

To James: we are discussing/debating/arguing this very topic in another AF thread.

Be aware that the law says nothing about jailbreaking and/or rooting. Different animal altogether.

 

[james912]

Its not showing up as duplicated for me.

 

[Rxpert83]

Its not showing up as duplicated for me.

Its in the lounge. I'll move it

 

[dan330]

if it is a lease / rent.. the contract will say so.
that is not purchasing.. and there are differences. I purchase my phone!

the device is $700. to get my promise to pay 2 yrs of service. they discount the price to $300; a savings of $400. I buy/purchase the phone. it is mine.
if i cancel i have to pay ETF of $400. makes sense.

i am now contracted for 2 yrs for service for $x/month. this $x has a built in profit to pay the carrier back the $400 (em more). so at the end of 2 yrs.. once they got their discount back...do they lower the $x/monthly service?
NO.. they do not. we are still paying the $x/month. but we have the right to upgarde again for another 2 yrs.
If the carrier has a lower monthly fee for clients that have their own device, you have to call and argue for it. changing your plan.. and what it comes with.

since they do not lower the $x/monthly charge. then it stands to reason that device and contrat.. are 2 separate entities.

 

[zuben el genub]

Most carriers. TMO has a value plan. You either buy the device outright, finance it over a couple of payments, or bring your own. The cost on the plans are cheaper.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Perhaps we simply assume things we should never assume? I will stop taking sides--carrier vs me and thee--because I am torn. On the one hand, I am a law and order kinda guy. On the other hand, I think some things should be allowed.

Me thinks with most cell contracts we sign, we do not read the fine print and boiler plate. When the LOC decides to make unlocking illegal, we take offense and start asking why...how dare they...what makes them think they can do this...?

I say perhaps we need to read what we sign (before we sign on the line, rather) and proceed from there. If we do not like the terms, we should find another carrier. Perhaps ask the carrier if they will let us unlock our phones when our contract is done.

My guess is most carriers will let you unlock your phones after your contract is up and the fees and bills are paid.

I can see the reason for the law and I understand why carriers want the law passed. Then I see it from my perspective: I paid for the bloody phone; I paid my bill on time and it is MY phone. Let me unlock it if I want to switch.

But I use off contract devices and I really cannot see any benefits to unloscking my phones because the cost is just about as low as it can be. and I do not travel much.

Fair or unfair?

 

[Kamau]

Perhaps we simply assume things we should never assume? I will stop taking sides--carrier vs me and thee--because I am torn. On the one hand, I am a law and order kinda guy. On the other hand, I think some things should be allowed.

Me thinks with most cell contracts we sign, we do not read the fine print and boiler plate. When the LOC decides to make unlocking illegal, we take offense and start asking why...how dare they...what makes them think they can do this...?

I say perhaps we need to read what we sign (before we sign on the line, rather) and proceed from there. If we do not like the terms, we should find another carrier. Perhaps ask the carrier if they will let us unlock our phones when our contract is done.

My guess is most carriers will let you unlock your phones after your contract is up and the fees and bills are paid.

I can see the reason for the law and I understand why carriers want the law passed. Then I see it from my perspective: I paid for the bloody phone; I paid my bill on time and it is MY phone. Let me unlock it if I want to switch.

But I use off contract devices and I really cannot see any benefits to unloscking my phones because the cost is just about as low as it can be. and I do not travel much.

Fair or unfair?

And if this was simply about being fair and law abiding, I woulds say okay.
But this is not about anything but pure greed on the part of the carriers. They are simply trying to find another way of squeezing a few more pennies out of consumers. You can't tell me that with all the millions each carrier makes in pure profit every quarter, that allowing consumers to unlock their phone is gonna break their bank. They are crying about losing millions in this unlocking thing, yet they charge $300 for a phone that costs less than a hundred to produce in some cases. Then they charge you for everything they can. Take a look at your bill, and just look at the amount of different types charges there are. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?
Then they are deceptive in how they get you in. They tell you "unlimited" data, when in fact they will throttle or cut you off at a certain point, or add a charge to the service. I hear people say all the time that it's in the contract, and it is. But it's buried in fine print. To me, that is like those radio ads where at the end , the guy is talking about 4 or 5 words a second. That's not the truth, that's called being slick.
No, I'm sorry, but in spite of how little this really means to anyone, I think in response every cell phone owner should unlock their phone as a message. I have little regards for a law that steps on my toes.
My Money.
My Phone.
My Choice.

 

[Rxpert83]

.
My Money.
My Phone.
My Choice.

Purchase an unlocked phone then.

If you're under contract, there's no good reason to unlock.

if it is a lease / rent.. the contract will say so.
that is not purchasing.. and there are differences. I purchase my phone!

the device is $700. to get my promise to pay 2 yrs of service. they discount the price to $300; a savings of $400. I buy/purchase the phone. it is mine.
if i cancel i have to pay ETF of $400. makes sense.

i am now contracted for 2 yrs for service for $x/month. this $x has a built in profit to pay the carrier back the $400 (em more). so at the end of 2 yrs.. once they got their discount back...do they lower the $x/monthly service?
NO.. they do not. we are still paying the $x/month. but we have the right to upgarde again for another 2 yrs.
If the carrier has a lower monthly fee for clients that have their own device, you have to call and argue for it. changing your plan.. and what it comes with.

since they do not lower the $x/monthly charge. then it stands to reason that device and contrat.. are 2 separate entities.

At the end of the 2 years you are no longer on contract. Switch if you please.

 

[Slug]

If you're under contract, there's no good reason to unlock.

Not true.

I upgraded my contract to the GS2 when it was still exclusive to my network, so it was a 'locked' device. For the majority of the time their coverage is more than adequate, but when I'm hiking or photographing in remote areas I need to be sure of the ability to stay in touch. I therefore unlocked it so that I can use whichever network is available, no matter where I am.

 

[agentc13]

If you're under contract, there's no good reason to unlock.

Not true.

I upgraded my contract to the GS2 when it was still exclusive to my network, so it was a 'locked' device. For the majority of the time their coverage is more than adequate, but when I'm hiking or photographing in remote areas I need to be sure of the ability to stay in touch. I therefore unlocked it so that I can use whichever network is available, no matter where I am.

Also if you travel overseas and want to use your (US gsm) phone while there.

 

[davoid]

My guess is most carriers will let you unlock your phones after your contract is up and the fees and bills are paid.

But for the law to be fair there should be a proviso that they MUST allow you to unlock your phones after your contract is up and the fees and bills are paid.

From what I understand, it is illegal to unlock your phone even if you are out of contract. It should be reneguing on your contract that is illegal, not unlocking your phone.

 

[PrinceCorwin]

Yes and no.

Examples - I have the benefits of a broadband sale for my home internet but I had to agree to two years and to a termination fee if I cancel early. I got an upgraded DVR from my satellite provider for a song, with a contract extension, and I have to pay dearly if I cancel early. I have some equipment on a lease/buy for cheap for my laboratory, but I have to pay a penalty if I cancel that.

So - it's not an unusual business practice, nor one without many other precedents.

Do the carriers have us behind the 8-ball and are having their way with us?

That, I won't argue with.

But - I signed the contract, so it is what it is.

I don't see anyone arguing the right of the carriers to charge early termination fees or whether or not we should be held liable to the contract (of course we should). This is about a LAW that governs what I am allowed to do to an electronic gadget that I own. I understand the necessity of contract RULES that stipulate that I would be charged a fee (or whatever) if I unlock my phone and change carriers, but we are now talking about a LAW that makes me a criminal for doing so.

As I said in a previous post, it's the same thing as making it illegal to modify the body of a Ford to accept a Chevy engine, even if I am still making payments. Granted, doing so while still under payment contract may void my warrenty and/or maintenance plan, but that is my decision. It's not illegal, nor should it be. There is nothing wrong with documented rules that both parties must abide by if one expects the other party to fulfill their side of the contract.

And we already have civil court for proceeding in which one party wants to sue the other for breach of contract.

But we're talking LAWS here, not RULES or contract STIPULATIONS. In short (a little to late for that I know.lol), the federal governments should not have to right to pass such a law. I signed the petition to repeal the law and I just hope the system of checks and balances of this country of our wins out in the end.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7

 

[PrinceCorwin]

But for the law to be fair there should be a proviso that they MUST allow you to unlock your phones after your contract is up and the fees and bills are paid.

From what I understand, it is illegal to unlock your phone even if you are out of contract. It should be reneguing on your contract that is illegal, not unlocking your phone.

I don't think it should EVER be illegal. If the carrier want to charge you a fee for early termination... fine. But is should never be illegal.

 

[JIMV]

Purchase an unlocked phone then.

If you're under contract, there's no good reason to unlock.

I disagree...I bought a new Droid 3 in November of 2011. The phone was brand new and costly. Within a month I discovered ice cream sandwhich was out/near out. No plan to update the Droid III...and not a word about it being obsolete a month after I paid top dollar for it.

Should I be bound to a contract that was less than honest about their plans when I entered it? Why are these contracts only binding on individuals but never to the providers.

 

[EarlyMon]

I don't see anyone arguing the right of the carriers to charge early termination fees or whether or not we should be held liable to the contract (of course we should).

(snipped for brevity)

But we're talking LAWS here, not RULES or contract STIPULATIONS.

(snipped)

I responded to a specific question related to contracts that came up.

So for that exchange, we _were_ discussing contract stipulations.

Not sure why you're wanting to correct me on that side-topic.

 

[Bob Maxey]

And if this was simply about being fair and law abiding, I woulds say okay.

But this is not about anything but pure greed on the part of the carriers. They are simply trying to find another way of squeezing a few more pennies out of consumers.

But don't most agreements stipulate that you cannot do certain things to or with your phone? I have not had a contract in many moons, so I honestly do not know.

Seems to me it is not greed, it is the customer wanting to do something they agreed not to do when they signed the agreement.

It is like signing a lease and deciding not to honor the terms and you are either evicted or your car is repossessed, then shouting to the world, "it is a case of the landlord and finance company wanting to make a little more cash.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I disagree...I bought a new Droid 3 in November of 2011. The phone was brand new and costly. Within a month I discovered ice cream sandwhich was out/near out. No plan to update the Droid III...and not a word about it being obsolete a month after I paid top dollar for it.

Should I be bound to a contract that was less than honest about their plans when I entered it? Why are these contracts only binding on individuals but never to the providers.

What do the papers you signed have to say about updates? My Zio documentation (as I recall, anyway) did not mention updates or their availability.

What makes you think all carriers are required to provide every update when a new OS arrives? I recall (?) only one update with the old Zio and I really do not remember what it was.

I come from a manufacturing background and trust me when I tell you we tend to keep updates and new models a secret for as long as possible. We were selling "underpowered" devices to an unsuspecting public knowing full well, the next version was the one people would go for. We did not want a warehouse filed with "obsolete" devices.

Like when we went from a black and white to color screen and offered more memory. And for less money, as I dimly recall.

I do not see the unfairness, frankly.

 

[EarlyMon]

But don't most agreements stipulate that you cannot do certain things to or with your phone? I have not had a contract in many moons, so I honestly do not know.

Seems to me it is not greed, it is the customer wanting to do something they agreed not to do when they signed the agreement.

It is like signing a lease and deciding not to honor the terms and you are either evicted or your car is repossessed, then shouting to the world, "it is a case of the landlord and finance company wanting to make a little more cash.

I'm trying to imagine this contract wording not being found unconscionable by a competent court -

"If you ever decide to use your phone outside the USA, you may not replace your SIM card during your trip to access another carrier. You must pay for international roaming, where we do nothing more than pay said foreign carrier for you, plus an exorbitant fee."

I'm probably sure no contract comes out and says it that way, but that's what this all amounts to for quite a few people.

And if you could replace your SIM card during your vacation or business trip, you'd still be paying your regular monthly fee for domestic access.

This is the essence of the argument that they're being greedy and providing nothing in return.

 

[Bob Maxey]

But for the law to be fair there should be a proviso that they MUST allow you to unlock your phones after your contract is up and the fees and bills are paid.

From what I understand, it is illegal to unlock your phone even if you are out of contract. It should be reneguing on your contract that is illegal, not unlocking your phone.

Why? Seriously, why? Isn't the law already fair? Ignoring the contract does not make the carrier a bad guy; it speaks volumes about the user, I should think.

I agree. If you finally paid for the device, it is yours and you should be able to unlock it. If you want an unlocked phone, carriers sell them. If your bill is too high, a top quality Android phone is available from VM/Boost/Cricket. Not sure who has been harmed here.

Here is one for the group: this issue is getting lots of press. Perhaps rather than complaining about what carriers should do, we wait and see what they actually do.

Perhaps some carriers will indeed give you the unlock codes when your contract is done? I simply do not know either way. Wasn't this law or rule or edict from Independence Avenue designed to protect the carriers rather than punish customers?

Has anyone actually tried to unlock their phone by asking the carrier? Does this law ban all unlocking outright or can a carrier grant you permission? I do not know.

 

[EarlyMon]

The unlock ought not be tied to the contract, Bob, the case has been presented multiple times here, including in the post just above yours.

Proving an over-constrained scenario misses the issue.

 

[mikedt]

I disagree...I bought a new Droid 3 in November of 2011. The phone was brand new and costly. Within a month I discovered ice cream sandwhich was out/near out. No plan to update the Droid III...and not a word about it being obsolete a month after I paid top dollar for it.

But it's not obsolete is it? It still works, you can make phone calls, you can browse the internet, play Facebook, install apps and games, or whatever you want to do with it? And they should fix or replace it under warranty if it goes wrong.

Should I be bound to a contract that was less than honest about their plans when I entered it? Why are these contracts only binding on individuals but never to the providers.

You'll probably find that the contract you signed has absolutely nothing about them providing OS upgrades. It'll be about you agreeing not to violate any applicable laws, and to paying your monthly bills in a timely and prompt manner, and about their obligations for providing you with service as wireless carrier.

 

[EarlyMon]

Let's try to move on a little bit.

The guy is complaining about bait and switch during the selection process for the phone, part of an overall deal at the time.

You can describe hydrogen and oxygen until the cows come home, but you'll not describe water with that approach, and that's where he started.

Now - waiting to hear Bob's answer about how greed still isn't the point, in light of earlier posts.

 

[mikedt]

What do the papers you signed have to say about updates? My Zio documentation (as I recall, anyway) did not mention updates or their availability.

What makes you think all carriers are required to provide every update when a new OS arrives? I recall (?) only one update with the old Zio and I really do not remember what it was.

I come from a manufacturing background and trust me when I tell you we tend to keep updates and new models a secret for as long as possible. We were selling "underpowered" devices to an unsuspecting public knowing full well, the next version was the one people would go for. We did not want a warehouse filed with "obsolete" devices.

Which is avoiding something called the Osborne effect. While the Osborne Computer Corporation were still trying to shift their current Osborne 1 computers. They announced their next Osborne computer, which was supposed to be much better. So no one wanted to buy their current Osborne 1 computers. And that killed the company, before the newer Osborne ever saw the light of day.

Microsoft sort of done it as well. When they announced that their currently available Windows Phone 7.5 handsets wouldn't be upgraded to the WinPhone 8. Before WinPhone 8 handsets went on sale, and carriers were still trying to shift the WinPhone 7.5 ones.

 

[Gmash]

Why? Seriously, why? Isn't the law already fair? Ignoring the contract does not make the carrier a bad guy; it speaks volumes about the user, I should think.

I agree. If you finally paid for the device, it is yours and you should be able to unlock it. If you want an unlocked phone, carriers sell them. If your bill is too high, a top quality Android phone is available from VM/Boost/Cricket. Not sure who has been harmed here.

Here is one for the group: this issue is getting lots of press. Perhaps rather than complaining about what carriers should do, we wait and see what they actually do.

Perhaps some carriers will indeed give you the unlock codes when your contract is done? I simply do not know either way. Wasn't this law or rule or edict from Independence Avenue designed to protect the carriers rather than punish customers?

Has anyone actually tried to unlock their phone by asking the carrier? Does this law ban all unlocking outright or can a carrier grant you permission? I do not know.

It doesn't ban the carrier from unlocking it, only unlocking without the carrier's permission. But from what I can tell, it doesn't require them to give you that permission, even if you buy the phone outright or complete your contract. Not saying they definitely won't, but it's up to them.