| reply to sivran
Re: Jailbreaking cell phones to become ILLEGAL at midnight I have done that. I bought a Nokia C6 - not sold in the US, and a Galaxy Apollo 3. Also not sold here. Worked right out of the box on TMO. I had a small data plan since both phones had wifi. |
|
 LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to Lagz
said by Lagz:Here's some numbers for you that won't just fly out of an ass.... I didn't specifically see you quote crap. Here in the US things are quite different than you describe.
I recently bought an HTC one X+ from AT&T. AT&T charges 199.99 with a contract and an ETC of $325. With fees and crap, that phone ended up costing $250 out of pocket directly from AT&T. Phone $250 + ETF $325 = $575. If we use what AT&T claims as the regular price, which is $549, then you can clearly see that if you buy the phone subsidized, then pay the ETF, you will end up paying more than the regular price AT&T claims the phone costs if you were to cancel.
199.99+325 = 524.99 by my math... "Fees and crap" aren't part of the phone price; that's part of the activation of the service - and you'd end up paying those even if you bought the phone outright...
$525 $549 - it's not much of a discount, but it's still a bit of one...
We're getting bogged down in details here, though; and getting off on to a bit of a tangent - like I've said; I have no issue with the concept of the law (even though the punishments are inflated, and no doubt meant to scare people who run unlock businesses, rather then actual end users; and I have no idea where it honestly fits in to the DMCA) - but the idea behind it; that a phone is locked to the subsidizing carrier UNTIL the subsidy is paid out, I have no problem with...
But the flip side should be that when the subsidy is paid out, the phone is automatically unlocked at no charge to the end user... |
|
|
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | reply to Sindows 7
The issue here seems to be that someone contracts for a given service with known restrictions for specific advantage ("you get this phone for cheap but it will only work on our service") and then subsquently decides that they don't wish to be bound by the terms that they agreed to.
You'd think contract law could fix that: simply write words into the contract that provide for adequate penalties. Since people already willingly sign up for draconian restrictions to get new shiny toys, a little more legal teeth probably won't hurt sales.
The outcome seems like it is predictable: either there will be physical differences that prevent software jail-breaking, or the era of the subsidized phone will die. |
|
 LagzPremium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:said by Lagz:Here's some numbers for you that won't just fly out of an ass.... I didn't specifically see you quote crap. Here in the US things are quite different than you describe.
I recently bought an HTC one X+ from AT&T. AT&T charges 199.99 with a contract and an ETC of $325. With fees and crap, that phone ended up costing $250 out of pocket directly from AT&T. Phone $250 + ETF $325 = $575. If we use what AT&T claims as the regular price, which is $549, then you can clearly see that if you buy the phone subsidized, then pay the ETF, you will end up paying more than the regular price AT&T claims the phone costs if you were to cancel.
199.99+325 = 524.99 by my math... "Fees and crap" aren't part of the phone price; that's part of the activation of the service - and you'd end up paying those even if you bought the phone outright... $525 One example is the AT&T upgrade fee, which is $36. Yes you can with some hassle get that removed, but the fee is still charged to your account. This fee is to help recover the cost of the phone. I know, I used to work for AT&T when it was Cingular back when they instituted this policy. That fee is rarely ever mention at the point of sale(at least not back then, nor this time when I was the buyer). This is one of many tactics that is used in order to recover the cost of the phone. You opened this can of worms and it is not at all off topic.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football. |
|
jp16
join:2010-05-04
Pepperell, MA Reviews:
 ·Charter
| reply to Sindows 7
Years ago I had a phone with AT&T. After my contract was up I called them and requested the unlock code. They took some information and within a few days I had the code emailed to me. They had no problem doing it for me. I would suspect that the same hold true today although I have not tried recently. |
|
Reviews:
·WestNet Broadband
| reply to dave
said by dave:The issue here seems to be that someone contracts for a given service with known restrictions for specific advantage ("you get this phone for cheap but it will only work on our service") and then subsequently decides that they don't wish to be bound by the terms that they agreed to.
You'd think contract law could fix that: simply write words into the contract that provide for adequate penalties. That's what I can't understand, why is there a need to even be discussing this at all - bit late as a new law has been past.
I consider this all a non-event and a waste of funds for a new law really not required as you point out, it's a contract, which is black and white.
I could go tin foil and wonder on the long term reasons behind setting a new law in place but won't go there.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
|
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Sindows 7
Fees are one of the biggest points of robbery in business, and there is no damn need for them.
If I go into the Shop Rite and buy something not taxed(ie any normal food item.) I pay what it says on the shelf tag.
The story they need fees to cover costs is complete bullshit. Supermarket covers its costs with the shelf prices, There is no "cashier check out fee." or "Deli slicing fee" the cost of the item is what it says on the tag.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | Un-fees seem to be very popular with utility companies. They make boat loads of undeserved cash from them. |
|
gozerPremium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY | reply to Sindows 7
You guys are not understanding what this law is. A device that is unlocked is neccesary to change the sim card. Locking provents a phone thats stolen from you buying it and just changing the sim and activating it on any servive the phone supports. So its the unlocking when it involves a crime that now has teeth. this shouldnt afect paying customers at all. I know verizons policy is 60 days after a new contract you just ask to have it unlocked and a limit of one unlock every 6 months. Its free just ask |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | BS.
If I find a device that is locked, and on my carrier, I can put my sim in and away I go. Full functionality. |
|
gozerPremium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY
1 edit | That is true the lock will allow a new sim as long as the new sim is the same carrier that has the lock in thier name. You say you can change the sim and then activate it on the same carrier that sold the phone. They can do this because they have the code to the lock.
The lock just keeps us law abiding people from activating a stolen phone. The change in the lock law is so we can actualy prosicute crooks that hack the lock and use a new sim. This is a good thing I dont know if it will help. Say you get a shinny new iphone5 and it gets ripped out of your car you are pissed but feel some joy because you know the guy cant use it. its locked and can only be used on where you got it from. Wrong the guy takes it to the small shop and he hacks the lock and can then put a new working sim in it. This is what the law is about the ability for police to put the guy that broke the law in jail. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | No, it's because the sim has encoding that matches the device's network, and hence, is called a 'network lock'. |
|
gozerPremium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY | I understand what you mean but try it with a stolen phone. Lets say you have Verizon and your friend has a not reported as stolen phone and you put your current account sim in yes it will work |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | That is precisely what I'm saying. It will work. Just because it is locked to a network doesn't mean a thing. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | By the way, carriers have not implemented a blacklist for lost / stolen devices yet. |
|
gozerPremium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY | Yep they have just used the network lock. Like I said it just stops the average Joe from stealing your new phone and activating it on another network. And bad idea to take it to the network its locked to they would just call the cops on you. But I agree if the carriers would use a list and share it that would help. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | No one is going to call the police if you turn in a phone. Seriously.  |
|
LagzPremium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Juggernaut
said by Juggernaut:By the way, carriers have not implemented a blacklist for lost / stolen devices yet.
I remember when sim cards were first being discussed and implemented at AT&T, Cingular at the time. Management was literally creaming themselves from the thought of having increased sales due to stolen phones.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2 | Yep, there is no downside for them, merely more money. Until a inter-connected carrier blacklist is in place, only the dishonest win. And, they will have it unlocked, legal or not.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein |
|
