 Sindows 7
join:2006-09-13
Chilliwack, BC
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·Shaw
·TELUS
| 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?
 |
|
 sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Unlocking is not jailbreaking.
Another law bought by telco lobbyists. |
|
|
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 | reply to Sindows 7
Additional discussion found in news.
»Unlocking Your Phone Becomes Illegal on Sunday |
|
 LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to Sindows 7
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. |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to Sindows 7
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... |
|
OZOPremium
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... |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | Yes, indeed... |
|
| 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. |
|
 JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | 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 |
|
LazManPremium
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... |
|
LazManPremium
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. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | 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 |
|
 ashrc4Premium
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! |
|
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... |
|
OZOPremium
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... |
|
| reply to Sindows 7
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. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent 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 |
|
OZOPremium
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... |
|
LazManPremium
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... |
|
