| |burner50Proud Union THUGPremium
Fort Worth, TX
Re: Who pays $700?
said by TAZ:...and sprint...
| || Except for the fact that you're contractually obligated to pay the ETF if you terminate early, so it isn't like the carrier is coming to take the phone back, even if you leave early. Even if they can't get the ETF out of you voluntarily, they don't want the phone back. They'll just ruin your credit and possibly sue you.|
Also, consider that most people unlock because they don't want to pay their carrier's astronomical roaming fees when they travel internationally. If I contract with Verizon, I'm agreeing to pay their monthly charges, but why should I also be locked into paying them if I go overseas if my phone is capable of using another carrier's SIM? And, as long as I'm still paying my monthly bill, I'm honoring my contract, so the carrier is getting their money. Making me roam with my carrier's SIM isn't like making sure I'm paying off my car loan; it's more akin to making me buy gas for my car with a credit card from the finance company at 25% APR.
Re: Who pays $700?
said by ISurfTooMuch: Do you think that is to keep you locked in to provider A? or to protect the balance due on the phone purchase? The second is legit, the first MAY be, ie if ALL service contracts disappear, network planning and expansion becomes extremely unpredictable, which drives up the cost, and everyone is 'competing' against the cheapest service (until it's limited investment/network/reliability drives users away.)
Except for the fact that you're contractually obligated to pay the ETF if you terminate early,
High churn rates= less investor certainty=higher capital costs.
On the otherhand the incentive to pay off the phone in advance is to get out from under the high (but sometimes hidden in the service cost/fees) interest people are paying on the hardware. if the contract remains at a higher price(still paying the phone subsidy/interest penalty) the incentive doesn't exist.
Phone service providers MUST separate the phone purchase from the service contract.
Re: Who pays $700?
said by chip89:They do, at this point. And there was a time when all Cingular quad-band phones were also sold unlocked. Not anymore.
Except Verizon sells unlocked iPhones!
Re: What does unlocking a Sprint phone get me?
said by JimThePCGuy:Hate to burst your bubble but most new phones are global and multi band thus it's going to be more and more common you can use a phone from one provider to another regardless of the GSM vs. CDMA stuff.
Besides being able to use a phone overseas what does unlocking a Sprint phone actually get me?
Sprint Phones only work on the Sprint CDMA network so does unlocking them really get me anything?
Also Sprint won't activate a phone that isn't in it's database (eg. one it sold in the first place) so having an unlocked (non Sprint) won't work in Sprint.
What am I missing?
This isn't 2001 anymore
That said, Sprint is a bit more of a pain on all this because Sprint phones actually have 2 locks on them.
For example the Galaxy S5 has one lock that restricts international sim cards and another that restricts domestic.
But yes, these newer phones can be used CDMA or GSM...
That's why unlocking matters. It might not for people wanting to switch to Sprint but it sure does for people wanting to leave.
Re: In other news...
said by shmerl:Sony had every right to go after geohot as he not only violated the PSN's tos and released his jailbreak tools to the rest of the world. This allowed the PS3 to become compromised with piracy, online cheating, etc. geohot jailbreaking the PS3 was lose lose for everyone involved! Owners of PS3 systems now have to deal with lowlife scum cheaters on games ruining the fun for everyone suffered the removal of Other OS that allowed you to install Linux, and went through the whole PSN debacle of 2011 where PSN users had their personal info compromised & the network was shut down for month because of what hackers considered as payback for going after geohot. Also remember the PSP was nearly killed because of piracy and the publishers didn't want to risk doing games on PSP, so Sony had a real fear of the same happening on the PS3. So this punk should be happy he wasn't sued into oblivion!
While the law (DMCA 1201) is often disregarded as moronic (because it is), it still has damaging effects and causes harm.
So repealing this law is an important effort, and it should not be ignored. An example more in the context of the article is software for unlocking. Under current law one can't legally sell such software. Actually one can't distribute it all (even for free). So it's not a "non issue" situation at all.