dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6844
share rss forum feed


strowger

@sbcglobal.net
reply to LazMan

Re: Jailbreaking cell phones to become ILLEGAL at midnight

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!


avenison

join:2009-12-10
90121
reply to Kearnstd
@Kearnstd / LazMan: Yes, the cost to Apple is low, but if everyone involved was being fairly remunerated for the work being done that would not likely be the case. Personally I would be happy to pay $600 dollars for a device which is professionally manufactured by people who are not forced to work 18+ hour shifts, exposed to harmful chemicals to cut costs, and severely underpaid.


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply 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.
--
The signal is usually drowned out by the noise.


Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
reply to Cartel
Oh looky, ya better get your phone now before carriers stop subsidizing. »AT&T Hints at Possible Handset Financing
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply 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.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

1 recommendation

reply to dave
said by dave:

said by Lagz:

Management was literally creaming themselves from the thought of having increased sales due to stolen phones.

Literally? And you'd know this because you wash their underwear?

Well, it could have been my good looks.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

2 recommendations

reply to Lagz
said by Lagz:

Management was literally creaming themselves from the thought of having increased sales due to stolen phones.

Literally? And you'd know this because you wash their underwear?

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

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.

In the specific subject matter of this thread, this makes a poor analogy. This would be going into the supermarket and picking up the can opener that says "special, 1 cent for this electronic can opener that will only work on our baked beans, and you have to agree to buy our beans for a year". Then you attempt to modify the can opener to work with someone else's bean tins.

That this analogy sounds ridiculous is only due to the difference between hardware and software, and that supermarkets haven't yet figured out how to do lock-in.

I agree, however, that the general nature of "fees" is irritating as hell. I don't frigging care about how the store determines the final cost to me: I just want to know the final cost to me. It amounts to deceptive advertising to show a price that is not the price I pay.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to Kearnstd
Reported production cost on an iPhone 4s is a little over $130 usd; iPhone 5 is rumored to be in the $160-$170 range, with the bulk of the cost being the display/touch screen.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to avenison
I think it was the CBS show 60 minutes that stated an iPhone costs Apple $8 to make. Which is not impossible considering the bulk they buy the materials in. I am guessing all phones are a similar or lower production cost. So there is some serious bucks being made in the world of phones and tablets.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


avenison

join:2009-12-10
90121
reply to gozer
A few things. Since Rogers was mentioned, glad to hear they allow users to unlock now, as they previously flat-out and absolutely refused. At the same time, I feel it is obvious that ANY charge for doing so (once the device is paid off) should be just as illegal as the user unlocking it.

@gozer, I believe I've seen it stated that many overseas countries have a fairly integrated system for blacklisting individual devices, but there is no such system in place in the Americas. I have worked for a large telco here, and at that time the technical staff could not even see the IMEI of a cutomer's current device, nevermind blocking one. In most cases the number wasn't manually logged on their account either, so unless they kept the original box there was no way to know the IMEI anyway. When a call was received about a lost phone, the procedure was to place a block on their subscription to prevent fraudulent charges, and inform them that we could not magically brick their device. There is no incentive for your provider to block your phone - it could still be used on any other network, so they might as well get the new owner's business... And sell you a new phone while they're at it. Many providers now provide location services so you can see where your device is, provided you installed the software before you lost it (and pay the monthly fees...) But how this would help if it's in someone's pocket is unclear.

Finally, we should try to keep in mind the people in the factories who are making these devices, and the questionable practices there. I have no problem believing that an iPhone or other modern device is actually worth the unsubsidized price, but I don't think it's overly cynical of me to doubt whether most of that money is going where it should.
Expand your moderator at work


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

Re: Jailbreaking cell phones to become ILLEGAL at midnight

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


Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
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.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to gozer
No one is going to call the police if you turn in a phone. Seriously.

gozer
Premium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY
reply to Juggernaut
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.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to Juggernaut
By the way, carriers have not implemented a blacklist for lost / stolen devices yet.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to gozer
That is precisely what I'm saying. It will work. Just because it is locked to a network doesn't mean a thing.

gozer
Premium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY
reply to Juggernaut
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


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to gozer
No, it's because the sim has encoding that matches the device's network, and hence, is called a 'network lock'.

gozer
Premium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY

1 edit
reply to Juggernaut
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.


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

gozer
Premium
join:2010-08-09
Rochester, NY
reply to Cartel
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


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to Kearnstd
Un-fees seem to be very popular with utility companies. They make boat loads of undeserved cash from them.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to Cartel
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


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
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


jp16

join:2010-05-04
united state
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Cartel
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.


Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
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.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Cartel
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.


LazMan
Premium
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...