LazMan Premium Member join:2003-03-26 Beverly Hills, CA |
to Cartel
Re: Jailbreaking cell phones to become ILLEGAL at midnightThe 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 Member join:2003-01-17 |
OZO
Premium Member
2013-Jan-26 9:52 pm
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. |
|
|
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 Member join:2006-09-05 Kelowna, BC
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. |
|
LazMan Premium Member join:2003-03-26 Beverly Hills, CA |
LazMan
Premium Member
2013-Jan-26 10:50 pm
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 |
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 Member join:2006-09-05 Kelowna, BC
1 recommendation |
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. |
|
|
ashrc4 Premium Member join:2009-02-06 australia |
ashrc4
Premium Member
2013-Jan-26 11:04 pm
said by Juggernaut: I buy all my devices outright. No contracts, no mandatory data plans. I stopped playing the game years ago. +1 |
|
1 edit |
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 Member join:2003-01-17 |
OZO to LazMan
Premium Member
2013-Jan-26 11:18 pm
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? |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant? Premium Member join:2006-09-05 Kelowna, BC |
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. |
|
LazMan Premium Member join:2003-03-26 Beverly Hills, CA |
LazMan
Premium Member
2013-Jan-26 11:32 pm
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... |
|
|
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. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant? Premium Member join:2006-09-05 Kelowna, BC |
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. |
|
LazMan Premium Member join:2003-03-26 Beverly Hills, CA |
LazMan to OZO
Premium Member
2013-Jan-26 11:48 pm
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. |
|
OZO Premium Member join:2003-01-17 |
OZO to LazMan
Premium Member
2013-Jan-27 12:10 am
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... |
|
Draytek Vigor2860Vac EnGenius EAP600 Obihai OBi100
|
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. |
|
redxii Mod join:2001-02-26 Michigan 4 edits
1 recommendation |
to LazMan
[nm -- long post about rooting and probably isn't the same thing] |
|
norwegian Premium Member join:2005-02-15 Outback
1 recommendation |
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. |
|
LazMan Premium Member join:2003-03-26 Beverly Hills, CA |
LazMan
Premium Member
2013-Jan-27 8:30 am
Difference is, my numbers didn't come out of my ass... As I said earlier; the cell carriers get no great breaks in cost as compared to retail anymore; the iPhone was a game changer in that regard. You can say there's a 50% or better markup, but doesn't make it true...
Anyways... |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to Juggernaut
said by Juggernaut: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.
Not under US law. |
|
SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature. Premium Member join:2000-08-05 united state |
to LazMan
said by LazMan: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. T-mo supposedly will stop subsidizing phones. Meaning you pay full cost for the phone up front. Which gets you lower rates on service plans supposedly. I recall a discussion a while back, about how in many parts of the world, a person buys the phone, and takes it to the carrier of their choice. That the way we do it in the us isn't that common. As I am not a world traveler, I don't know how true that is. But I thought that was a nifty ability. To be able to buy what ever phone you wanted, then selecting the service provider you wanted. |
|
Lagz Premium Member join:2000-09-03 The Rock |
to LazMan
said by LazMan:Difference is, my numbers didn't come out of my ass... As I said earlier; the cell carriers get no great breaks in cost as compared to retail anymore; the iPhone was a game changer in that regard. You can say there's a 50% or better markup, but doesn't make it true...
Anyways... 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. |
|
LazMan Premium Member join:2003-03-26 Beverly Hills, CA |
LazMan
Premium Member
2013-Jan-27 6:58 pm
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... |
|
Lagz Premium Member join:2000-09-03 The Rock |
Lagz
Premium Member
2013-Jan-27 8:59 pm
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. |
|
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to 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... AT&T only recently started unlocking iPhones. iPhone users had no choice but to hack their phones if they wanted to unlock their phones for the previous 4 years, even if they were fully paid for. |
|
BloggerJedi Poster Premium Member join:2012-10-18 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to Lagz
said by Lagz: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. I've been with Verizon Wireless since their inception. I deal with them a lot online. They are all ways trying to get me to upgrade. I all most did it once about six months ago. I was going through the step by step process online---picking the phone, picking the plan, and so on. Screen after screen but...its not until the last screen the upgrade fee of $30 appears. Upgrade when I am doubling my bill with the new plan, plus forking over $250 plus bucks! Heck, it they are going to want that $30 dollars they should simply bury it somewhere the cost of the phone or some other way rather than saving it till the end and then insult me by not only charging it but hiding it until the very end of the order process. I stopped the upgrade at that time just on principle and my indignation of the upgrade fee. |
|
|
strowger to LazMan
Anon
2013-Feb-1 10:30 pm
to LazMan
Why do we need the heavy hand of the Tyrant for this problem? Customers have contracts with their wireless providers; this is sufficient. The Tyrant makes so many laws that we have all become criminals! |
|