 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | What Problem? From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
| said by pnh102:From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved. Isn't that against the TOS? |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved. My iPhone is unstable jailbroken. I don't want to jailbreak it with software from who knows where with who knows what in it just to run an app I should be able to run. |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Uncle Paul
So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by pnh102:So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me. Fortunately, as a society we're not allowed to ignore rules we are contractually obligated to follow just because we don't like them. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Matt:Fortunately, as a society we're not allowed to ignore rules we are contractually obligated to follow just because we don't like them. But no contract can override the law. If I own something, then I should be able to modify it. I understand that this will void the warranty and that the use of a modified device might cause other problems for me, but if the device is truly mine, then no one should be able to legally challenge my right to modify it.
I see it this way. I should be allowed to uncap a cable modem that I bought. But the cable company has every right to ban me from using said cable modem with their network. I view jailbreaking and/or unlocking of cell phones in the same vein.
If AT&T wants to legally disallow people from modifying equipment, then it should consider renting out the equipment instead of selling it.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| reply to Matt
Once you buy equipment you can do anything you want with it that does not break any laws.
Jailbreaking your phone does not break any laws, thus it is legal to do it. If you do jailbreak you phone apple is in its right to void your warranty.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Matt:I see it this way. I should be allowed to uncap a cable modem that I bought. But the cable company has every right to ban me from using said cable modem with their network. I view jailbreaking and/or unlocking of cell phones in the same vein. If AT&T wants to legally disallow people from modifying equipment, then it should consider renting out the equipment instead of selling it. You just described why it's against the ToS to modify your iPhone. Sure you may be legally allowed to do it, but AT&T isn't obligated to allow you to connect it to their network. That is what the ToS states. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Matt:You just described why it's against the ToS to modify your iPhone. Sure you may be legally allowed to do it, but AT&T isn't obligated to allow you to connect it to their network. That is what the ToS states. And I have no problem with that. A lot of people use Google Voice with Wifi so they do not burn through minutes or rack up bytes on their cellular data connections.
AT&T and Apple banned Google Voice because it is a direct competitor to their offerings. But because there is a workaround, I do not see a need for the government to get involved.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by pnh102:said by Matt:You just described why it's against the ToS to modify your iPhone. Sure you may be legally allowed to do it, but AT&T isn't obligated to allow you to connect it to their network. That is what the ToS states. And I have no problem with that. A lot of people use Google Voice with Wifi so they do not burn through minutes or rack up bytes on their cellular data connections. AT&T and Apple banned Google Voice because it is a direct competitor to their offerings. But because there is a workaround, I do not see a need for the government to get involved. We're running in circles here.
But the "workaround" requires you to break the ToS of the contract you signed. As Karl237  stated, there is no technical reason to deny Google Voice, it's a blatant anti-competitive move. So yes, that is what the government is for and why they should be involved. |
|
 Ual
@bellsouth.net | reply to r81984
said by r81984:Once you buy equipment you can do anything you want with it that does not break any laws. Jailbreaking your phone does not break any laws, thus it is legal to do it. If you do jailbreak you phone apple is in its right to void your warranty. Actually jailbreaking your own phone that you bought and own is against the law under DMCA. Not like it matters though because you tell 95% of people that changing something about something they own is illegal under some law they've never read and they will say "Yeah, sure..." and do it anyway. The majority rebelling against an unjust law has led to such laws being overturned many times in history so hopefully DMCA will end the same way, because it really is unfair that you can't modify something legally that you've paid for already. |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | reply to Matt
This point isn't about getting GV on your phone, it's about how GV is blocking access to some free conference numbers and should htey be deemed a telephone company. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to Ual
said by Ual :
Actually jailbreaking your own phone that you bought and own is against the law under DMCA. Not like it matters though because you tell 95% of people that changing something about something they own is illegal under some law they've never read and they will say "Yeah, sure..." and do it anyway. The majority rebelling against an unjust law has led to such laws being overturned many times in history so hopefully DMCA will end the same way, because it really is unfair that you can't modify something legally that you've paid for already.
Unfortunately, these days, many things are less sold than they are "licensed". Not only does software comes with EULAs, but so does much hardware. While you may have paid for your software or device in a single, up-front payment, the ever increasing use of EULAs, and the creeping scope of those EULAs, have created a situation where you don't exactly fully own what you think you've bought. Basically, when you agree to the EULA, you often give away certain rights (at least till someone files a class-action suit). So, *always* read the EULA.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Matt:Fortunately, as a society we're not allowed to ignore rules we are contractually obligated to follow just because we don't like them. But no contract can override the law. If I own something, then I should be able to modify it. I understand that this will void the warranty and that the use of a modified device might cause other problems for me, but if the device is truly mine, then no one should be able to legally challenge my right to modify it. Try changing a semi-automatic rifle to full automatic and see how far that argument gets you when the ATF comes after you. There are laws that prevent you from doing what you say in MANY, MANY areas(like modifying the power levels on radios where the FCC prevents it). Don't like the laws, then get them changed. But you can't ignore them in the meantime.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by fAcEtIOUs:But you can't ignore them in the meantime. Technically, you CAN ignore them ... 
Just be prepared for the repercussions of your actions.
--
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me. Be careful with that, the Mac fanbois will wipe the floor with their TOS. It's even ironic that every Mac user is in violation of the TOS. According to the Mac OS TOS it says that you can't install it on non-Mac hardware, but guess what is inside of a Mac? PC parts.
There was a story I read where the iTunes or Quicktime TOS restricted it from being used on Windows, but I can't find that story so if someone knows where you can find that article can you post it? |
|
 TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
 ·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved. This is ironic. My phone is not jailbroken. I have GV on my iPhone. I installed it from iTunes before it was "banned", it has, and continues to work a charm. I am sure I am not the only iPhone owner/GV user in this class of users.
So, isn't Apple/AT&T discriminating against those who didn't get GV from iTunes before the ban? They allow some to use GV, and others not? Isn't this discriminatory? Illegal?
Bob
--
Would you ever go over to Czechoslovakia, and marry me daughter for me?" |
|
| reply to nixen
said by nixen:said by Ual :
Actually jailbreaking your own phone that you bought and own is against the law under DMCA. Not like it matters though because you tell 95% of people that changing something about something they own is illegal under some law they've never read and they will say "Yeah, sure..." and do it anyway. The majority rebelling against an unjust law has led to such laws being overturned many times in history so hopefully DMCA will end the same way, because it really is unfair that you can't modify something legally that you've paid for already.
Unfortunately, these days, many things are less sold than they are "licensed". Not only does software comes with EULAs, but so does much hardware. While you may have paid for your software or device in a single, up-front payment, the ever increasing use of EULAs, and the creeping scope of those EULAs, have created a situation where you don't exactly fully own what you think you've bought. Basically, when you agree to the EULA, you often give away certain rights (at least till someone files a class-action suit). So, *always* read the EULA. Actually, with something like the iPhone, I don't think there's anything preventing you from modifying the phone or the hardware, within FCC regulations at least; meaning, you can't boost voltage to your antennas to increase your signal range past legal limits. Now, the software contained on the iPhone is a whole separate deal. It is what is being licensed for your used. The firmware of the phone is probably not allowed to be modified under the EULA, so removing it would be against the terms of use, hence making jailbreaking the slippery slope it currently is.
--
I am the Flying Photog, see my website accordingly named Flyingphotog.com. User known formerly as zakooldude. |
|
 koma3504AdvocatePremium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to TamaraB
That would probally be against the F.C.C. rule that states that you can not treat one customer any different than any other.
ATT is in violation of that. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me. No you can't, its been illegal for more than a decade (anti-circumvention). »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA |
|
