dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6849
share rss forum feed


Cartel
Premium
join:2006-09-13
Chilliwack, BC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Shaw
·TELUS

1 recommendation

Jailbreaking cell phones to become ILLEGAL at midnight

A new law that makes it illegal to 'unlock' your cell phone and switch carriers goes into effect today and will carry fines between $2,500 and $500,000, and in some cases, prison time.

The change made by the U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will make it illegal for consumers to unlock mobile devices without the permission of their carrier.

The lock feature on mobile devices essentially allows carriers a way to prevent customers from switching to a new plan with a different company. Unless your phone came unlocked and are grandfathered in under the law, you're device is legally chained to your service provider.

»www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article···J8ScdCQq

wow wth?



sivran
Seamonkey's back
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Irving, TX
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Unlocking is not jailbreaking.

Another law bought by telco lobbyists.


Snowy
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6

1 recommendation

reply to Cartel
Additional discussion found in news.
»Unlocking Your Phone Becomes Illegal on Sunday


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to Cartel
The lock is to prevent consumers from ripping off cell phone carriers...

Your handset is subsidized... To buy a iPhone 5 outright, for instance, is about $700 - not the $50 that your carrier charges you, when you sign up for a 3 year deal. They count on that 3 year period to recoup the subsidy. Once your contract is expired, some carriers automatically unlock it, some allow you to unlock it for free or a nominal ($20-25) fee.

There are some pretty assinine laws out there - this is one I kind of agree with... It's pretty unfair to expect someone else to pickup the bulk of the cost of your phone, don't you think? And just 'cause it's a big, faceless company, doesn't change the basic principal...

If you don't want your phone to be locked to a specific carrier, then pay full freight up front, and buy an unlocked one outright.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Cartel
I couldn't believe this. Is this a joke? If it is - it's a bad one. And it's too earlier to make April 1st jokes now.

Questions:
1. Since when U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress can change the law? Who had voted for the new law?
2. If customer buy a phone, who is the owner of the phone? Sorry, but the dumb laws are causing the dumb questions... If the owner is the customer (which is obvious here), then why a corporation can dictate what the owner should do with his properly?
3. What is "copied" here, that U.S. Copyright Office should protect from?
4. When we will finally recognize, what that DMCA doing for us, consumers, and when we finally start demanding to trash it?

It looks like we slowly but surely become a country, where The Corporations have all the rights, and The People are left with nothing, except the right to make profit for corporations. This is one more step in that direction, BTW
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

Your handset is subsidized...

Is there a cancellation fee, if it's subsidized? It looks like it doesn't matter for the law?

And second, minimum $2,500 punishment for unlocking $200 phone is way too much, don't you think? My "non-subsidized" phone cost me $400, but it was a top model at the time I've bought it... Lot of phones were cheaper than that.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 recommendation

reply to OZO
said by OZO:

It looks like we slowly but surely become a country, where The Corporations have all the rights, and The People are left with nothing, except the right to make profit for corporations. This is one more step in that direction, BTW

Somebody in another post, in another forum said:
quote:
Welcome to the Corporate States of America; one nation, under greed.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Yes, indeed...


DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

There are some pretty assinine laws out there - this is one I kind of agree with... It's pretty unfair to expect someone else to pickup the bulk of the cost of your phone, don't you think? And just 'cause it's a big, faceless company, doesn't change the basic principal...

If you don't want your phone to be locked to a specific carrier, then pay full freight up front, and buy an unlocked one outright.

What difference does it make if you buy it subsidized, or not? You're still under contract and if you breach the contract you pay a hefty early termination fee. Either way the end result will be the same. The carrier still gets it's money. Also A lot of people root their phone to avoid additional tethering fees. It's absolutely ridiculous that the phone carrier charges you extra to use your limited data as you choose. I think people should fight back and demand roll-over unused data and unreasonable charges, along with unreasonable bloatware the carrier puts on their phones.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by LazMan:

The lock is to prevent consumers from ripping off cell phone carriers...

If you pay the device off, who cares? You have a right to have it unlocked, and the normal contract termination fee will apply anyway.

But, telco's don't even want to play by those rules.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
said by Juggernaut:

said by LazMan:

The lock is to prevent consumers from ripping off cell phone carriers...

If you pay the device off, who cares? You have a right to have it unlocked, and the normal contract termination fee will apply anyway.

But, telco's don't even want to play by those rules.

I agree with you, but I'm not aware of any carrier that won't unlock a device after it's paid off... Rogers does it for free; TELUS charges $25 - dunno about Bell or any of the new entrants...

If a carrier won't unlock it (and this is a US law, and I'm not up on US cell carrier policy) - after it's paid off, that's a whole different deal, and completely wrong, IMO...


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to DarkSithPro
said by DarkSithPro:

What difference does it make if you buy it subsidized, or not? You're still under contract and if you breach the contract you pay a hefty early termination fee. Either way the end result will be the same. The carrier still gets it's money. Also A lot of people root their phone to avoid additional tethering fees. It's absolutely ridiculous that the phone carrier charges you extra to use your limited data as you choose. I think people should fight back and demand roll-over unused data and unreasonable charges, along with unreasonable bloatware the carrier puts on their phones.

Difference is - if the carrier is subsidizing the phone, they are counting on x amount of revenue over the term of the contract to recoup the cost of the subsidy... Like I said - an iPhone 5 costs about $700 to buy outright, and $50 on a 3 year contract... the carrier is $650 in the hole on day 1. The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way... Cost of acquisition is the term, and it's one of the biggest expenses carriers face)

Rooting/jailbreaking is different then the lock ruling here, from what I understand, and remains completely legal.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to LazMan
Rogers was $75 to unlock the last I've heard. Check out the complaints about Rogers on HoFo. It's ugly.

IIRC from what I've read on DSLR, AT&T is the same BS. I have 5 devices that are unlocked, and will get a Nexus 4 (factory unlocked). I buy all my devices outright. No contracts, no mandatory data plans. I stopped playing the game years ago.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia
said by Juggernaut:

I buy all my devices outright. No contracts, no mandatory data plans. I stopped playing the game years ago.

+1
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Dying to defend one's small piece of suburb...Give me something global...STAT!


DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

said by DarkSithPro:

What difference does it make if you buy it subsidized, or not? You're still under contract and if you breach the contract you pay a hefty early termination fee. Either way the end result will be the same. The carrier still gets it's money. Also A lot of people root their phone to avoid additional tethering fees. It's absolutely ridiculous that the phone carrier charges you extra to use your limited data as you choose. I think people should fight back and demand roll-over unused data and unreasonable charges, along with unreasonable bloatware the carrier puts on their phones.

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way... Cost of acquisition is the term, and it's one of the biggest expenses carriers face)

Hmmm, must be a Canadian thing. Anyways The way I understand it is if you go to the Apple store and buy an iPhone at full price the only 2 major carriers that will compliment you is AT&T and T-Mobile. Verizon and Sprint will not add the new IMEI's to their network. From what I understand is you have to buy the phones directly from Verizon and Sprint for it to be turned on in their network. This is not a hardware limitation as the 4s and 5 are world phones which can use GSM and CDMA networks...

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way...

Then why they don't set ETF accordingly to the phone price? Why do they need a new law now? Is it because they could be out of $450?

And BTW, they don't pay $650 to Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the phone as you, the individual consumer, may pay on the market. So, the cost, that you've mentioned here, is highly exaggerated.

And finally, you have explained why we have to worry about corporations and their profits and why someone (not me) needs a new law, that could punish consumer even further. Now tell me, where is the "copyright" infringement here and how it's related to DMCA?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

LondonOntGuy

join:2004-05-12
London, ON
reply to Cartel

Sad thing is, when they start arresting those 'evil' iPhone unlockers, they'll probably give them more jail time than if you commit a real crime. You know, like rape, robbery or assault.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200...

That is not correct at all, and not even close to the reality of ETF's.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to LondonOntGuy
said by LondonOntGuy:

Sad thing is, when they start arresting those 'evil' iPhone unlockers, they'll probably give them more jail time than if you commit a real crime. You know, like rape, robbery or assault.

Until building and maintaining jails will become unprofitable business (or better yet, be paid by taxpayers money - that will make us think about it more wisely) - we will see such laws coming...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to Juggernaut
said by Juggernaut:

said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200...

That is not correct at all, and not even close to the reality of ETF's.

Straight from TELUS' website - the maximum fee is $200. Rogers talks about a "Device Savings Recovery Fee" and uses formula's I haven't seen since Gr 12 calculus... But if I get the gist of it, they are actually charging for the remaining amount of the subsidy, plus a $50 cancellation fee. Bell charges a minimum of $100 to a max of $400 to cancel early.

I was right about TELUS policy - Roger's changed theirs in '12, and I wasn't up on the changes... my bad...


DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2
said by LazMan:

said by Juggernaut:

said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200...

That is not correct at all, and not even close to the reality of ETF's.

Straight from TELUS' website - the maximum fee is $200. Rogers talks about a "Device Savings Recovery Fee" and uses formula's I haven't seen since Gr 12 calculus... But if I get the gist of it, they are actually charging for the remaining amount of the subsidy, plus a $50 cancellation fee. Bell charges a minimum of $100 to a max of $400 to cancel early.

I was right about TELUS policy - Roger's changed theirs in '12, and I wasn't up on the changes... my bad...

That seems like a real shady Policy on the companies behalf. Lets them open to cell phone scams and the such. An early termination fee should include the total cost of the smartphone minus the subsidized price you paid.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to LazMan
Yep, it's hard to keep up these days, no foul man. Quebec has totally different rules to boot.

My point was, if the device is paid for, why should they refuse to unlock it? They have their pound of flesh.

It's just greed, and nastiness after that.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to OZO
said by OZO:

Then why they don't set ETF accordingly to the phone price? Why do they need a new law now? Is it because they could be out of $450?

And BTW, they don't pay $650 to Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the phone as you, the individual consumer, may pay on the market. So, the cost, that you've mentioned here, is highly exaggerated.

And finally, you have explained why we have to worry about corporations and their profits and why someone (not me) needs a new law, that could punish consumer even further. Now tell me, where is the "copyright" infringement here and how it's related to DMCA?

To answer your points in order:

I think they should - once the subsidy has been repaid, I think the phone should automatically be unlocked, at no charge.

The wholesale and retails cost for the handsets isn't much different - Apple and Samsung in particular, know consumers want specific handsets, more then they want a specific carrier - hell, carriers have been known to pay Apple MILLIONS to be the first to carry the iPhone in a given market... It used to be the other way 'round, that the carriers had power over the handset producers, but thanks to Apple and the iPhone, it doesn't work like that anymore.

I won't pretend to understand the DMCA, and the ever growing range of things it covers... I said I get this particualr law, strictly from an economics point of view... How does it fit under the copyright act? No eff'ing clue.


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia
reply to Cartel
As we know there are all walks of life but who is this law going to target the most.....not those that can afford to avoid it.
A minimum fine of $2500 means those that can't afford to stick to a contract for a year or two will just be penalized further.
Company's that can't recoup their losses shouldn't be sucking in on one hand and crying foul on the other.
A more reasonable solution to providing access to a cell needs to be thought up and consumer rights to such should be offered not the other way around.
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Dying to defend one's small piece of suburb...Give me something global...STAT!

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

Your handset is subsidized... To buy a iPhone 5 outright, for instance, is about $700 - not the $50 that your carrier charges you, when you sign up for a 3 year deal. They count on that 3 year period to recoup the subsidy. Once your contract is expired, some carriers automatically unlock it, some allow you to unlock it for free or a nominal ($20-25) fee.

There are some pretty assinine laws out there - this is one I kind of agree with...

Wait a sec. How the law prohibiting unlocking phones could help here?

Here is scenario that you've mentioned.

One signs a contract, gets his phone (accordingly to your example for, cost $650 for carrier) and next day he breaks the contract, pays ETF and, without unlocking the phone, sells it on eBay? Should he be sued by carrier and pay $2,500 or go to jail for that? And how the new law, prohibiting unlocking phones, could help in this case? I'm asking because I smell absurd here...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

broccoli

join:2007-11-29
Portland, OR
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

I agree with you, but I'm not aware of any carrier that won't unlock a device after it's paid off... Rogers does it for free; TELUS charges $25 - dunno about Bell or any of the new entrants...

Mobilicity and Wind phones are sold locked and unsubsidized, and they would not unlock them even if you don't mind paying for the privilege.


sivran
Seamonkey's back
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Irving, TX
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to ashrc4
Contracts suck. Prepaid all the way.


DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2
said by sivran:

Contracts suck. Prepaid all the way.

Prepaid sucks. Shitty ass 3G network, throttled down speeds. Crappy 2 year old phones no one wants to choose from. No thanks...


redxii
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI

4 edits

1 recommendation

reply to LazMan
[nm -- long post about rooting and probably isn't the same thing]


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

1 recommendation

reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

Difference is - if the carrier is subsidizing the phone, they are counting on x amount of revenue over the term of the contract to recoup the cost of the subsidy... Like I said - an iPhone 5 costs about $700 to buy outright, and $50 on a 3 year contract... the carrier is $650 in the hole on day 1. The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way... Cost of acquisition is the term, and it's one of the biggest expenses carriers face)

I understand most of what is said, but as a consumer buying an iPhone for $700, general rule of thumb, 50% mark up applies to cover the man in the middle's business and profit, so reduce that to $350 for the cost initially.
If you are a big Telco buying in bulk, $100 at least would be wiped off the initial cost at least due to bulk buying, if not half of the initial $350, which would make it $175 for the cost of the $700 iPhone.
This isn't including the cost of manufacture, where you may find a realistic figure of $100 per phone could be possible.

Just putting in perspective the dollar figure here. Off the shelf cost to the consumer is considerably different from the factual cost of the phone.
These are not factual figures, but the general public can be blinded to what real term figures of the phone they buy is.
That goes for most products give or take a few percentage points. The end user doesn't think too much about this when the "newest and greatest" is forced upon them before Xmas.

This would then theoretically put the termination charge equal to costs and a few dollars for profit. Most will not go the path of unlocking and will be sucked dry by the 2 yr/$50/mth fees for the phone.
That makes $1200 for a $200 phone over a 2 year period.
I'd love to see those profits for any company I worked for.
Down Under we are charged extra for phone contracts, from $20 to $80 for phone calls on top.
I'm not sure what you see there.

Quite differing figures to your initial theories quoted here for a handful who might consider being smart about the money they spend.
Nothing illegal in that from where I sit.

On those figures the law is for the corporations to protect very high profit margins, not take care of the end users, who spent the money and want a phone that works and a service.
Microsoft on the other hand charges extra for service outside of the US, does it not?
Beautiful example of fund raising.

There is a vastly differing cost to margin most people do not see, and an employee saying this would be sacked and or sued depending on the cost to the corporation from those words.
Laws are in place to cover the corporation here too, not the person who sees a company ripping blind the general public.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke