http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128772296
"Another exemption will allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers."
Apple's restrictive obsession finally bit them in the a$$...
This is fine and dandy indeed, but do you really think the wireless service providers aren't going to throw heaps of lobbyist money to thwart this effort?
All phones in the USA should come sim unlocked prior to buying the phone. Carriers should worry and concentrate on their data supplied and packages.
Not worry about "locking" down cells lure buyers to their company because they sim locked the phone to their network.
USA needs too learn a few more things from Europe.
Yes but what about the case of Verizon phones where they don't use SIM cards? would they be required to switch to an "unlockable" phone setup? I'm thinking no, in which case what you may see in the case of other carriers is that their special phones (like iphone) are going to be locked down in the same manner as Verizon, i.e. SIM cardless
monty_boy said:
This is fine and dandy indeed, but do you really think the wireless service providers aren't going to throw heaps of lobbyist money to thwart this effort?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's apparently a done deal.
The DOJ has also launched a probe into the legality of the Apple/ATT deal... Something like 90% of their cases always win. So in other words, when the DOJ launches an investigation against you, you're screwed (they basically have the case built, just not officially).
Like I said earlier, Apple shot themselves in the foot with this one.
the problem si that there still lowed to put these restrictions on in the first place. there should be an option in a menu somewhere that says hey do you want to only user the appstore or would you like to be able to sideload apps. from those ive spoken to over 90% of people don't understand what a root or jailbreak is.
Hepæstus said:
Yes but what about the case of Verizon phones where they don't use SIM cards? would they be required to switch to an "unlockable" phone setup? I'm thinking no, in which case what you may see in the case of other carriers is that their special phones (like iphone) are going to be locked down in the same manner as Verizon, i.e. SIM cardless
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon and have been switching their phones over to sim compatible
is there a reason why the MOST IMPORTANT site isnt linked...
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
GG KK THX BYE!
But... Warranty? will be void still? I don't see nothing about this.
Ummm... Maybe the NPR article took this out of context.
On EFF's request, the Librarian of Congress renewed a 2006 rule exempting cell phone unlocking so handsets can be used with other telecommunications carriers. Cell phone unlockers have been successfully sued under the DMCA, even though there is no copyright infringement involved in the unlocking. Digital locks on cell phones make it harder to resell, reuse, or recycle the handset, prompting EFF to ask for renewal of this rule on behalf of our clients, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and Flipswap. However, the 2009 rule has been modified so that it only applies to used mobile phones, not new ones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This seems to mean that the carrier can still lock them, they just can't refuse to unlock them after purchase (IE, after becoming "used").
newalopez said:
But... Warranty? will be void still? I don't see nothing about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is all about copyright... In other words, you bought the device you can do what the hell you want with it and Apple can't sue you.
This doesn't mean the App Store is going away or anything else, it basically just establishes into law that Apple can't hold someone at fault for using a device the way they want to use it.
If you do things to the device that aren't supported, you're still SOL. If you pour anti-freeze into your oil of your vehicle, for instance, Toyota or whomever isn't going to support it if you don't follow their manual.
So yes, they still have every right to void your warranty. However as usual, flashing back to stock firmware will net you warranty terms again obviously.
Hhmmm...
How will this ever be enforced? Will the carriers do in store unlocks for "used" phones? Can me and a friend buy phones, sell it to each other for $1 and get them unlocked on the spot!?
...this is gonna be CHAOS! lol
Gootah said:
How will this ever be enforced? Will the carriers do in store unlocks for "used" phones? Can me and a friend buy phones, sell it to each other for $1 and get them unlocked on the spot!?
...this is gonna be CHAOS! lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it won't be chaos... It really doesn't change much. Instead of doing it after 180 days they're required to as soon as it's "used" (I guess as soon as you buy it??). It also establishes more of a no-questions-asked policy versus having to tell them you travel internationally or something.
The main gist of this thing was aimed at Apple, this just happened to be a side affect.
Well at least here in my country (Portugal), new law was approved this month, now carriers must unlock all phones for free at the end of the contracts.
In my opinion there are two sides to it :
1) If the Service Provider (Sprint, AT&T etc.) gives a subsidy or discount as part of the contract, they should be allowed to network lock the phones since the consumer has not paid the full price of the phone and not fulfilled the contract. However, with the completion of the contract, the service provider should unlock the phone for free.(I am only talking abt the network lock here)
2) If the consumer has paid the full amount, then the phones should come unlocked.
As far as 'Jailbreaking' or installing softwares is concerned, the consumer should have the right to do so in any of the above 2 cases since he is the owner/user of the phone. The Manufacturer or Service provider has NO right to lock that portion. However, they should have the right to void warranty as there is a chance that the user may install potetially harmfull sofware on the phone thereby damaging it.
However, if the law comes that people are able to network unlock their phones legally, there is a chance that the service providers might stop subsidising the phones and ask for upfront payment.
Mikey1022 said:
All phones in the USA should come sim unlocked prior to buying the phone. Carriers should worry and concentrate on their data supplied and packages.
Not worry about "locking" down cells lure buyers to their company because they sim locked the phone to their network.
USA needs too learn a few more things from Europe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i highly agree with you! they should work on providing better network, and data coverage i.e. ATT. they do have a fairly big clientele but is there service worth me moving from tmous. i dont think so. my x girl has att and she can barely get coverage in her house and we live in a city you would think got excellent coverage. SAN FRANCISCO!
Hepæstus said:
Yes but what about the case of Verizon phones where they don't use SIM cards? would they be required to switch to an "unlockable" phone setup? I'm thinking no, in which case what you may see in the case of other carriers is that their special phones (like iphone) are going to be locked down in the same manner as Verizon, i.e. SIM cardless
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think they should just phase out with the CDMA phones little by little and start intro'ing with the GSM'. same goes for sprint
Truth be told, CDMA is a superior technology but that's a debate for a different thread.
As far as Sprint and Verizon are concerned, their phones are just as "unlockable" as GSM handsets. MVNO carriers like Revol wireless and Page Plus live off of old beat up verizon and sprint phones. They simply need to be reflashed. With a little google-ing, it can be done fairly easily.
say goodbye to phone subsidies
Great deal. Now it would be a better deal if carriers stop installing crap and bloat that you can't remove or not giving root access to the phone owner which is silly imo, lets see how many are willing to buy a computer without admin rights.
Related
Everybody says changing esn is illegal.
1. Does anybody know anybody who got in trouble for changing esn?
2. say i got two devices, if i swap esn's of both of these device. It that illegal ? If yes can anybody point me to the law that states its illegal?
3. I heard some repair centers change esns, are they licensed to do that, do they have any kind of special permit?
thanks
I'm still searching for proof for you at a federal level (I'm 100% sure this is illegal in the USA) but I found something on a state level that shows it.
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180670013.K
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1127_bill_19970703_amended_sen.html
http://www.romingerlegal.com/new_jersey/appellate/a4869-96.opn.html
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1997/sl.194.htm
So what's that now, Idaho, California, New Jersey and Colorado? I think the point's been proven, it is completely illegal to alter your ESN without the consent of the manufacturer of the device.
i read those, it doesn't look like it is illegal if you paid for phone service, and you swap the esn to another device, as long as you discontinue using the first device. it isn't as if you are adding a second line of service for no money, you're just putting it on a new phone.
ehow has a page describing how to do it, in fact. i just googled esn switching, and there it was, seems fairly simple
Black93300ZX said:
I think the point's been proven, it is completely illegal to alter your ESN without the consent of the manufacturer of the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL, only avoiding payment is against the law. some banned people nowadays
Hmm
Sorry to resurrect but was researching this myself recently.
The controlling federal law seems to be: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/1029.html
HOWever, I think the law is DEFINITELY worded vaguely and/or NOT aimed at the use the OP might have in mind (having two phones around the house instead of one--just like how people like to have have 2 landline extensions in a single dwelling).
My apologies if this kind of conversation is frowned upon/not allowed. A warning by any senior member/mod and I'll be sure to not pursue this any further on XDA.
Thanks!
Panamaniac
It's a great way to trick phone company's into giving you cheaper internet plans if you switch the esn from a dumb phone to a smart phone.
That being said don't do it its not worth the trouble you could get into
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
thenotoriouspie said:
It's a great way to trick phone company's into giving you cheaper internet plans if you switch the esn from a dumb phone to a smart phone.
That being said don't do it its not worth the trouble you could get into
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not in every case. Like maybe if you want to use the smartphone without paying for data service (because you don't want data service).
See, with GSM carriers, they can see what phone you're using IF it's in their database. And the phone will only be in their database IF and ONLY IF it is branded by them. So if I'm on T-Mobile and I pop my SIM card into an unlocked AT&T phone/totally unbranded straight-from-manufacturer phone, they don't see what phone I'm using. Want proof? Do that and log in to your account online. Normally, the website will tell you what phone you're using. Instead, this time it'll show you a generic icon/question mark. So if you want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile without a data plan, you can do that. If you want to use a Blackberry on AT&T without a data plan? Also not a problem. As long as they don't know you're using a smartphone, a data plan won't automatically be forced onto your account. GSM gives you choice and freedom.
With CDMA carriers, we have to go through great lengths just so that we can use the phone we want, or just so that we can use a phone we already paid for. If I'm on Verizon with a Blackberry Bold and I want to jump on Sprint, why should I have to pay for the same exact phone AGAIN? It's really not hard to reprovision a CDMA phone to work on another carrier. All you need to do is install the right APN and MMS settings and the carrier's PRL. Then just flash the carrier's ROM onto the phone (I'm simplifying it; it varies by phone).
CHANGING, NOT CLONING, ESNs is ok. It's the equivalent of swapping SIM cards. In the US, the only national CDMA carrier that offers less-than-unlimited plans is Verizon. So what if I want to use my Blackberry Bold with a 150MB data plan? Is that really a crime? I can STILL opt for the unlimited, even if I put a dumbphone's ESN on the Blackberry. Why am I forced to have these plan options on my account? Why can we bring our own phones with GSM carriers, but not CDMA carriers? It IS possible for GSM carriers to block phones not sold from their network from getting service. All they would have to do is block the IMEI numbers not from phones they've sold. But they don't do this. Why can't CDMA carriers just activate these phones? MetroPCS does it in some locations, officially (aka MetroFlash). They warn you that only Calls and SMS will work, but that's fixable on your own, AND you're able to use your own phone from any carrier.
CDMA carriers need to start activating off-network phones. It's just not fair, especially when many of the phones are the same on both networks.
Product F(RED) said:
CDMA carriers need to start activating off-network phones. It's just not fair, especially when many of the phones are the same on both networks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. It does not work this way over there in US? You can use whatever CDMA device here, you just tell the ESN to the carrier so that it gets activated on their network. You guys are weird there.
Money hungry politicians and corporations.
however I have yet to see a court case setting precedence. Until that day, I will consider ESN repair and or swapping a completely legitimate practice.
Well ESN swaps are one thing--but what I'd really like is to clone onto an old handset simply so I can have TWO IN THE HOUSE--nothing illicit here, it's just a pain in the ass to have to go find the thing, since I don't own a landline. In that connection, people have multiple receivers on landlines for this very purpose--because cell phones work great as cell phones, but not so great as HOUSE phones....
But given the 10-year prison sentence (though I don't think I'd be prosecuted) methinks I'll steer clear of actually trying to clone...
People tend to make the VIN comparison.
Although you CAN (and I have) apply for a new vin in certain circumstances.
It's like wanting to have multiple honda accords with the same vin.
Even if you don't want to defraud an insurance company, you technically could if you wrecked one.
Now, though I agree with you and thing you SHOULD be able to clone your own esn. The FCC is very clear about cloneing.
What they aren't clear about is swapping without cloning.
The bulk of the argument resides around the words "intent to defraud"
willpower102 said:
Money hungry politicians and corporations.
however I have yet to see a court case setting precedence. Until that day, I will consider ESN repair and or swapping a completely legitimate practice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/06/carterfone-40-years.ars
Happy reading.
(If you want the actual decision, then here you are: http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1968/13F2-420.html)
Old? You bet. Applicable? I'd argue it
Product F(RED) said:
Not in every case. Like maybe if you want to use the smartphone without paying for data service (because you don't want data service).
See, with GSM carriers, they can see what phone you're using IF it's in their database. And the phone will only be in their database IF and ONLY IF it is branded by them. So if I'm on T-Mobile and I pop my SIM card into an unlocked AT&T phone/totally unbranded straight-from-manufacturer phone, they don't see what phone I'm using. Want proof? Do that and log in to your account online. Normally, the website will tell you what phone you're using. Instead, this time it'll show you a generic icon/question mark. So if you want to use an iPhone on T-Mobile without a data plan, you can do that. If you want to use a Blackberry on AT&T without a data plan? Also not a problem. As long as they don't know you're using a smartphone, a data plan won't automatically be forced onto your account. GSM gives you choice and freedom.
With CDMA carriers, we have to go through great lengths just so that we can use the phone we want, or just so that we can use a phone we already paid for. If I'm on Verizon with a Blackberry Bold and I want to jump on Sprint, why should I have to pay for the same exact phone AGAIN? It's really not hard to reprovision a CDMA phone to work on another carrier. All you need to do is install the right APN and MMS settings and the carrier's PRL. Then just flash the carrier's ROM onto the phone (I'm simplifying it; it varies by phone).
CHANGING, NOT CLONING, ESNs is ok. It's the equivalent of swapping SIM cards. In the US, the only national CDMA carrier that offers less-than-unlimited plans is Verizon. So what if I want to use my Blackberry Bold with a 150MB data plan? Is that really a crime? I can STILL opt for the unlimited, even if I put a dumbphone's ESN on the Blackberry. Why am I forced to have these plan options on my account? Why can we bring our own phones with GSM carriers, but not CDMA carriers? It IS possible for GSM carriers to block phones not sold from their network from getting service. All they would have to do is block the IMEI numbers not from phones they've sold. But they don't do this. Why can't CDMA carriers just activate these phones? MetroPCS does it in some locations, officially (aka MetroFlash). They warn you that only Calls and SMS will work, but that's fixable on your own, AND you're able to use your own phone from any carrier.
CDMA carriers need to start activating off-network phones. It's just not fair, especially when many of the phones are the same on both networks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe with Verizon but try to do that with sprint and see what happens if you get caught.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
Haha, bad news I'm guessing!
It's ok, I just scored a free Airave anyway (which is apparently immediately eligible for a $150 discount on an "upgrade" to a phone?!? Lolz).
SoberGuy said:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/06/carterfone-40-years.ars
Happy reading.
(If you want the actual decision, then here you are: http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1968/13F2-420.html)
Old? You bet. Applicable? I'd argue it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! This is not what I was expecting... In fact this gives even more credence to the practice.
If I had enough money, I would try to indite myself just to fight it. But I don't have the sort of money to fight that legal battle.
willpower102 said:
Thanks! This is not what I was expecting... In fact this gives even more credence to the practice.
If I had enough money, I would try to indite myself just to fight it. But I don't have the sort of money to fight that legal battle.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think from that perspective it's a losing battle. Saying "Judge, the big TelCo is doing something illegal, so I had to do something the FCC deems illegal" is not exactly the best idea. Having that same TelCo refuse you service with a different phone, being forced to buy one of theirs, and then suing them to recover the costs....different story all together.
I'm really, really surprised that this hasn't been challenged at all. I came across that Carterfone decision several years ago (most likely by chance) and immediately thought of the CDMA carriers here. But, I rock GSM, so it doesn't matter too much to me
T-Mobile offers phones without data plans
I recently purchased a Samsung Vibrant on craigslist walked into a T-Mobile store bought a sim card, signed up for a month to month plan for $29.00 and have a smart phone with out paying for data or texting. I wish the other carriers were decent enough to allow this. What scares me most about the T-mobile and Att Merger talk is this consumer friendly company may be shut down.
It's interesting because the federal statutes (i.e., passed by Congress) are vague enough for wiggle room, but the FCC regulations don't seem to be. Following the Chevron decision, courts would be very likely to give the FCC reading of the federal statute deference---i.e., you'd likely lose the case and spend 10 years in jail (IF prosecution ever happened, which for the private in-home purposes of cloning I've been discussing is IMHO a big IF).
panamaniac said:
It's interesting because the federal statutes (i.e., passed by Congress) are vague enough for wiggle room, but the FCC regulations don't seem to be. Following the Chevron decision, courts would be very likely to give the FCC reading of the federal statute deference---i.e., you'd likely lose the case and spend 10 years in jail (IF prosecution ever happened, which for the private in-home purposes of cloning I've been discussing is IMHO a big IF).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chevron implements a two-step analysis. Neither, in this scenario, would allow for deference to the FCC on the SOLE issue of a CDMA carrier refusing to activate a CDMA device not purchased from said carrier. Would deference be given to changing or cloning ESNs? Quite possibly, but if the case even remotely touched on the aforementioned "ban", the court would address that matter in favor of the consumer.
For the last time, we're talking about
SWAPPING
I'm just wondering if I can prevent the RC30 update by simply putting a different (active) T-Mobile SIM in the phone. The idea is to keep it at RC28 without any possibility of bricking it right now. (It's my wife's phone...) I'd like to sit tight with RC28 to see if anyone finds a way around RC30 and later updates.
I have three SIMs available to me right now: 1) has full G1 data plan + 400 text messages 2) has only T-Zones (which permits gMail, etc.) and 3) has Unlimited Voice, MMS and SMS, but no data or T-Zones plans. The obvious questions which arise are:
- How does T-Mobile (or Google) find G1s to update? The rumor is that they will NOT update phones that do not have one of the G1 data plans. That would be nice, if true, when it comes to RC30. Is it true?
- Would the SIM with no data plan be the safest to use?
- Would I be safe with the T-Zones SIM? That would permit email when not in WiFi coverage...
I realize the modification to the bootloader is the best way to prevent the update, but I'm just thinking I might be able to safely and easily put myself into a holding pattern by just changing the SIM.
What say you?
Reg
P.S. Nice forum! Thanks for all the hard work and useful information!
Hello from Switzerland.
No that's not correct. I have an unlocked phone, living in Switzerland on the sunrise 3G network and even here I got the update (i denied it of course... but it still asks me every 5 minutes) !!!! So changing SIM card will not help !
PAO1908 said:
Hello from Switzerland.
No that's not correct. I have an unlocked phone, living in Switzerland on the sunrise 3G network and even here I got the update (i denied it of course... but it still asks me every 5 minutes) !!!! So changing SIM card will not help !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amazing! I'm surprised! Thanks!
How about the SIM without a data plan? (You said you have a 3G plan.) Since I heard the update is OTA, is it possible that they will not send it through a WiFi link?
RegGuheert said:
Amazing! I'm surprised!
How about the SIM without a data plan? (You said you have a 3G plan.) Since I heard the update is OTA, is it possible that they will not send it through a WiFi link?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know that. But I think if you don't have a data plan then you will not get it. I heard from androidcommunity people that logged in a wifi hotspot and they got the update.
Call me crazy but is anyone really gonna keep denying it every day all day? Even with their fix I'm sure someone will find a way around it again so might as well update and save yourself the headache in my opinion, this game goes on and on with alot of devices. There are other fixes in update as well including a supposed battery fix.
First thing that I will do now is to change my 29 version so it will not get update anymore (I think a howto is in this forum). And then I hope that the brains in this forum will be able to release a modified 30 version where I can still have root access.
stats555 said:
Call me crazy but is anyone really gonna keep denying it every day all day? Even with their fix I'm sure someone will find a way around it again so might as well update and save yourself the headache in my opinion, this game goes on and on with alot of devices. There are other fixes in update as well including a supposed battery fix.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thing is, it is my phone. It isn't Google's phone.
I bought the hardware, didn't sign any contract prior to purchase, and therefore am not bound by any sort of EULA.
They have no business force upgrading me, what so ever. If they aren't careful, they might get sued. Put another way, asking every 5 minutes is detrimental to the use of the device I bought, and that's just not valid.
Ok.
From all of the posts on this board, it is clear that:
- the update can indeed happen over any method you use to access the internet
- the update does not occur, if the phone has never been activated on t-mobile's network
- the update may occur, if your phone has been activated on t-mobile's network
For example, my phone won't update, and I've tried. This is because I bought it without activation, and the seller did not activate it. It was a non-contract, $399 buy at a t-mobile store.
However, others that have received the update (over wi-fi, for example) have phones that were activated on the t-mobile network prior to being sold, or are phones sold to specific accounts.
At least, that is what all of the data points to.
This being the case, it seems that t-mobile keeps a list of customer activate phones, and those are the ones being hit...
BRad Barnett said:
Ok.
From all of the posts on this board, it is clear that:
- the update can indeed happen over any method you use to access the internet
- the update does not occur, if the phone has never been activated on t-mobile's network
- the update may occur, if your phone has been activated on t-mobile's network
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what has been told the update occurs on all G1's that are TC4... It has nothing to do with T-Mobile but more what Google is doing. Remember this is not a T-Mobile phone it is a Google phone... Google runs the show on the software.
neoobs said:
From what has been told the update occurs on all G1's that are TC4... It has nothing to do with T-Mobile but more what Google is doing. Remember this is not a T-Mobile phone it is a Google phone... Google runs the show on the software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't occur on all G1s that are TC4. It did not occur on mine, for example. An unlocked phone that has never been activated on t-mobile. It was sold without a plan, and the person paid cash for it.
So, t-mobile does not have a record of the imei or what not, being active, anywhere. Further, others have indicated that groups of imeis are being targeted at certain times, so that the update servers will not be overwhelmed.
Again, proof of this is me being stuck on the original firmware for two weeks. I wasn't even able to manually update using the method with anycut. I had to use the simcard method today, to go to R30.
So, again.. there may be another reason why unlocked, unregistered, unknown phones to t-mobile don't get updated, but I'm betting on the lack of activation.
Note, I might add that this makes sense from a *legal* perspective too. Google or t-mobile have absolutely *no* business updating a phone they do not own. They don't own the OS, they don't own the phone. (copyright is not ownership). When you are a t-mobile customer, you accept an TOS, as well as signing a doc generally that grants such rights.
However, I am not, nor have ever been a t-mobile customer. In my country, my rights don't just evaporate because I click on a little button on the screen of a new piece of hardware I bought.
So, legally, it's the right thing, especially considering Google / t-mobile have presence in many countries.
BRad Barnett said:
It doesn't occur on all G1s that are TC4. It did not occur on mine, for example. An unlocked phone that has never been activated on t-mobile. It was sold without a plan, and the person paid cash for it.
So, t-mobile does not have a record of the imei or what not, being active, anywhere. Further, others have indicated that groups of imeis are being targeted at certain times, so that the update servers will not be overwhelmed.
Again, proof of this is me being stuck on the original firmware for two weeks. I wasn't even able to manually update using the method with anycut. I had to use the simcard method today, to go to R30.
So, again.. there may be another reason why unlocked, unregistered, unknown phones to t-mobile don't get updated, but I'm betting on the lack of activation.
Note, I might add that this makes sense from a *legal* perspective too. Google or t-mobile have absolutely *no* business updating a phone they do not own. They don't own the OS, they don't own the phone. (copyright is not ownership). When you are a t-mobile customer, you accept an TOS, as well as signing a doc generally that grants such rights.
However, I am not, nor have ever been a t-mobile customer. In my country, my rights don't just evaporate because I click on a little button on the screen of a new piece of hardware I bought.
So, legally, it's the right thing, especially considering Google / t-mobile have presence in many countries.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are plenty of T-Mobile customers who are on the T-Mobile network like myself who have yet to receive the update.
Your theories are a little shady... your telling me that when they sell a phone the IMEI isn't recorded? Then why do they scan the side of the box with the IMEI number? Trust me T-Mobile knows you have that phone... and your network knows it is a T-Mobile phone, that is the entire point of having IMEI numbers. It is the same with MAC addresses on a computer. You know who made the modem, who it was sold to, and what companies install it in their prebuilt systems.
On top of this you do sign a TOS when buying a phone even if it is not with a contract. And I am sure just because you are in a different country that you have to abide by the TOS... Think about it... if you buy it here and export it to your country you either follow the TOS or can be sued for unlawfully exporting from the original country or unlawfully importing to the destination country. It is different if you are visiting but if you leave there then you have just broken FTC laws for the US and International Trade laws for many other countries especially those in the UN.
neoobs said:
There are plenty of T-Mobile customers who are on the T-Mobile network like myself who have yet to receive the update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? The RC19 update??
Regardless, using the anykey method one is able to force an update, and I could not.
Your theories are a little shady... your telling me that when they sell a phone the IMEI isn't recorded? Then why do they scan the side of the box with the IMEI number? Trust me T-Mobile knows you have that phone... and your network knows it is a T-Mobile phone, that is the entire point of having IMEI numbers. It is the same with MAC addresses on a computer. You know who made the modem, who it was sold to, and what companies install it in their prebuilt systems.
On top of this you do sign a TOS when buying a phone even if it is not with a contract.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do? You don't here, I've never heard of such a thing. Why would you sign a ToS, when you aren't taking any service??
A generic contract, perhaps, but I'd never be idiotic enough to sign a contract when buying a watch, or a radio, or a CB, or anything of the sort.. why would I do so for a cell phone?
I certainly don't have to here, and in Japan you can buy cell phones out of vending machines! I know that in some places in the US, you can buy $100 pre-paid phones off the shelf, and just pay for them at the checkout counter like a bag of potato chips.
And I am sure just because you are in a different country that you have to abide by the TOS... Think about it... if you buy it here and export it to your country you either follow the TOS or can be sued for unlawfully exporting from the original country or unlawfully importing to the destination country. It is different if you are visiting but if you leave there then you have just broken FTC laws for the US and International Trade laws for many other countries especially those in the UN.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uh. I didn't sign any TOS, and therefore I am not bound by it. I am not bound by *any* document you sign to buy object A, if you then turn and sell me object A. Never. Never, ever, ever.
Further, a 'terms of service' is only contract used to stipulate by what terms the company will provide you service under. I do not have t-mobile service, and would not even be bound by a TOS, if I was not a t-mobile customer.
As for suing because someone they don't follow a TOS they didn't sign? Absurd! FCC laws have absolutely nothing to do with a TOS. Nothing. Zilch. You are domestically bound by such laws in your own country, regardless of signing anything.
I have no idea what you are talking about with respect of leaving here and leaving there, you are not exporting something that you are going to keep on your person for a vacation. As for the strange comment that the UN has laws, it isn't a country, does not have such a framework, and all UN 'resolutions' are enacted/ratified in countries individually, to make them legal in that jurdistion.
I might note, thank god for that small fact as well.
BRad Barnett said:
Really? The RC19 update??
Regardless, using the anykey method one is able to force an update, and I could not.
You do? You don't here, I've never heard of such a thing. Why would you sign a ToS, when you aren't taking any service??
A generic contract, perhaps, but I'd never be idiotic enough to sign a contract when buying a watch, or a radio, or a CB, or anything of the sort.. why would I do so for a cell phone?
I certainly don't have to here, and in Japan you can buy cell phones out of vending machines! I know that in some places in the US, you can buy $100 pre-paid phones off the shelf, and just pay for them at the checkout counter like a bag of potato chips.
Uh. I didn't sign any TOS, and therefore I am not bound by it. I am not bound by *any* document you sign to buy object A, if you then turn and sell me object A. Never. Never, ever, ever.
Further, a 'terms of service' is only contract used to stipulate by what terms the company will provide you service under. I do not have t-mobile service, and would not even be bound by a TOS, if I was not a t-mobile customer.
As for suing because someone they don't follow a TOS they didn't sign? Absurd! FCC laws have absolutely nothing to do with a TOS. Nothing. Zilch. You are domestically bound by such laws in your own country, regardless of signing anything.
I have no idea what you are talking about with respect of leaving here and leaving there, you are not exporting something that you are going to keep on your person for a vacation. As for the strange comment that the UN has laws, it isn't a country, does not have such a framework, and all UN 'resolutions' are enacted/ratified in countries individually, to make them legal in that jurdistion.
I might note, thank god for that small fact as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't have to sign anything to still be held under a TOS... Terms of Service means if you use it you abide by the rules. As you mention when buying a CB radio you have to abide by the TOS, which usually states abiding by FCC laws and of course not using it for criminal or illegal purposes. I think you are confusing a TOS with a contract. TOS's are not always signed... in fact just by going to t-mobile.com and browsing around you must abide by their TOS.
I never said anything about the FCC... I said the FTC, the guys in charge of imports and exports for the US. I made my statements plainly clear as I have dealt with them before first and second hand. Anything bought while in another country and returned to your home country is an export from where ever you bought it. And it then becomes an import to your home country or where ever you "sell" it. I never stated the UN as being a country. Stop putting words into my mouth and read what I say carefully. The UN has many laws and they do have laws about specific trade embargo's, yes an individual country can choose to not obey the laws... but the US does obey them, so in this instance the UN would have the jurisdiction to prosecute you in the US or your home country.
Either way this is far off topic and if you really want to discuss it you can PM me and I will be happy to give you a canned response over and over and over again.
neoobs said:
You don't have to sign anything to still be held under a TOS... Terms of Service means if you use it you abide by the rules.
No, TOS means if you use it with those providing a *service*, you abide by the rules. You do not *have* to abide by the rules, unless you signed something, and the only recourse the person providing that service has, is to decline further service.
(this is outside of, of course, acts of vandalism, etc, any law being broken)
As you mention when buying a CB radio you have to abide by the TOS,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you do not have to abide by any terms of service to use a CB. In my country, you need to keep transmission strength under a certain level, and abide by certain other *regulations*, but these are regulations enforced by the CRTC (same as your FCC), under a mandate provided by Federal law.
That is vastly different than a 'terms of service'.
which usually states abiding by FCC laws and of course not using it for criminal or illegal purposes. I think you are confusing a TOS with a contract. TOS's are not always signed... in fact just by going to t-mobile.com and browsing around you must abide by their TOS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I do not have to abide by their TOS. A TOS does not need to be signed, precisely because it is not binding. All that t-mobile can do, is deny you the service (access to their webpage), if they feel you have breached their TOS. Further, webpage TOSes are a grey area, and not effectively backed by any court decisions. This is because a TOS is generally provided when a service is given to someone.
A webpage, such as t-mobile.com, is more of an advertisement. Statements of copyright and such aren't TOS statements either, they're infact useless blather.
I never said anything about the FCC... I said the FTC, the guys in charge of imports and exports for the US.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, mistake on my part.
I made my statements plainly clear as I have dealt with them before first and second hand. Anything bought while in another country and returned to your home country is an export from where ever you bought it. And it then becomes an import to your home country or where ever you "sell" it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, however you started wrapping TOS up with various laws, that have nothing to do with t-mobile, or a TOS.
I never stated the UN as being a country. Stop putting words into my mouth and read what I say carefully. The UN has many laws and they do have laws about specific trade embargo's,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The UN does not have any laws. None. They pass resolutions, work collectively with national Representatives to forge treaties, and such works must be ratified in local jurisdictions in order to have any legal standing. The UN is merely a facilitator, an arm of the collective.
yes an individual country can choose to not obey the laws... but the US does obey them, so in this instance the UN would have the jurisdiction to prosecute you in the US or your home country.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, this is beyond ridiciously. The US obeys international law?! You surely must be joking. Do you want me to list the international laws that most other civilization nations respect, but the US does not?
Outside of this, the _only_ way I can be charged with anything, at home, is if my home country has pass legistlation respecting that international treaty. The laws of the US, or non-ratified international treaties, are not relevant.
Further, you seem to think that I am somehow bound by a t-mobile TOS, otherwise the UN will come after me? This is actually what you have said, and it is beyond absurd! Regardless, there is no Canadian law that states that an object purchased from party A, automatically cases me to be forced into a TOS with party B.
Either way this is far off topic and if you really want to discuss it you can PM me and I will be happy to give you a canned response over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Heh, you're the one that started getting all strange, with international trade law, strange statements about how I'm in violation of trade law for simply not agreeing to a t-mobile TOS, and so on.
My points were topical, as they are discussing the legal implications of this update proceedure, when one has no legal right to force it upon you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't I say we were off topic? Send the rest in a PM and I will give you a canned response.
neoobs said:
Just don't whine and moan when google updates your phone and you are SOL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now what are you on about?! SOL? Are you suggesting that Google is now going to purposefully brick my phone?
After all, if you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I have already updated from RC19, I had to manually. That's what we were initially discussing, after all.
Frankly, I think you've missed the point.
However, lastly, I really don't understand your attitude. First, it is not up to you to specify whether I 'whine and moan' about anything. I'll do what I damned well please, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Second, 'whining and moaning', or legal action against Google, as I was suggesting, is very important when just. Our legal system has many checks and bounds, but they are not useful if those breaching them are not taken to task.
Frankly, if you have any sort of open source bent, you should be irate about the concept of forced updates.
RegGuheert said:
The rumor is that they will NOT update phones that do not have one of the G1 data plans.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a sim card withoud G1 data plan. It started to ask about RC30 update yesterday anyway. So, you got your update no matter who you are or where you are...
What I did today - I just removed the signed-RC30-bla-bla.zip file from the /cache/ folder and it stopped asking me. Not sure how I can get this update now, actually
Dimath said:
I have a sim card withoud G1 data plan. It started to ask about RC30 update yesterday anyway. So, you got your update no matter who you are or where you are...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you buy it from t-mobile, as a t-mobile customer? Did you buy it from someone that activated it as a t-mobile customer?
What I did today - I just removed the signed-RC30-bla-bla.zip file from the /cache/ folder and it stopped asking me. Not sure how I can get this update now, actually
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can download it and install it using the SD card method. You can also install anycut, and install it by forcing an update via that method as well.
BRad Barnett said:
Did you buy it from t-mobile, as a t-mobile customer? Did you buy it from someone that activated it as a t-mobile customer?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, just preorder it from T-mobile. Wait, I didn't say I am not a T-mobile customer. I just have no G1 data plan, but my carrier is T-mobile USA.
Is this really what government should be focusing on? I mean really? I always get my phones unlocked. Some I buy unlocked like my current phone and some I get unlocked. Prior to April of last year I was with TMOUS for 13 years. I think I'm a loyal kind of guy but when I go overseas to Europe, etc I object to paying $15 per MB for data and $1.00-1.99 per minute and so I use my unlocked phone with a TMOUK SIM. Funny thing here is I was using TMO both sides even though the UK SIM still required and unlock.
Anyway, I just think this is bulls$it! Will this make all those unlocking sites in the USA illegal? Guess so.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105...king-of-smartphones-becomes-illegal-saturday/
Not the unlock you are talking about. The illegal part refering to is often called jail break, not SIM unlock.
foxbat121 said:
Not the unlock you are talking about. The illegal part refering to is often called jail break, not SIM unlock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not so.
Unlocking your cell phone disables the SIM lock that limits your phone to operating on a specific network provider. With few exceptions, most cell phones come locked so that they can only operate with a single service provider. Unlocking your phone allows you to take it to a new provider.
This is the unlock that becomes illegal.
Soon unlocking will become legal in the united states. Google ulocking legal and you will get the whitehouse response for the petition to make unlocking legal (I'm a new member can't post links don't wanna get banned )
abhishek1234321 said:
Soon unlocking will become legal in the united states. Google ulocking legal and you will get the whitehouse response for the petition to make unlocking legal (I'm a new member can't post links don't wanna get banned )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except White House has no power to do that. It needs congress to pass new law. And a bill like that is in the works. But with so many budget fights upcoming. This new bill is certainly not on anyone's top list.
foxbat121 said:
Except White House has no power to do that. It needs congress to pass new law. And a bill like that is in the works. But with so many budget fights upcoming. This new bill is certainly not on anyone's top list.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is it a bill that's needed or an FCC rule? An FCC rule/opinion would be much easier to to manifest than a congressional bill. Either way, the current status is a load of crap!
mobi said:
Is it a bill that's needed or an FCC rule? An FCC rule/opinion would be much easier to to manifest than a congressional bill. Either way, the current status is a load of crap!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The unlock currently falls under DMCA law. Not sure how much FCC can do to bypass that law.
foxbat121 said:
The unlock currently falls under DMCA law. Not sure how much FCC can do to bypass that law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right. Enforcement may be a bit of a problem though... Can you really imagine the government using all it's resources to stop little old me taking my AT&T phone to use on T-Mo? Any way you look at it, it's a load of crap and I'm sure that this is an unintended consequence.
There will always be unintended consequence of any law.
As for enforcement, all it takes is someone rat you out Like your ex.
Hello everyone!
I'm planning to buy a Note 4 from a guy who is coming from Germany with a phone bougth from vodafone germany. He is telling me that vodafone sells samsung devices unlocked. Is there any sim lock and bootloader?
Btw here is the reciept he sent me. It's looks tike it has a contract: https://www.dropbox.com/s/66hqg2zr3nwbd1g/IMG-20141224-WA0000.jpg?dl=0
Should I buy this or not? Thank you.
In the EU it is legally forbidden to SIMlock devices to a specific provider. Even on a contract.
However Samsung has a Region Lock on their devices. You can't use an EU device with a non-EU SIM without first unlocking it with a local SIM by calling, internetting and texting for 5 minutes each.
Sewrizer said:
I don't know about Germany, but I live in the EU and all carriers here give you SIM Locked phones if you buy them on contract. In point of fact, I have seen a lot of iPhones locked by carriers from France and England. The fact that there are so many "companies" that Sim unlock them via IMEI is proof that there is demand for such services.
The problem with them is that they are significantly more expensive to unlock than devices that run Android. The only way (that I am aware of ) of getting a SIM Unlocked phone from a carrier is to buy it without contract.
Edit: I must add that I am not aware of the law you mention, but in practice the situation is different. I would like to read that law, if you could quote it.
Blog: http://applesndroids.wordpress.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would appear those laws on SIMlocking were not actually enforced, just guidelines to which new local laws must adhere. Until countries review their laws, they need not change. (And there we have the explanation why local laws are all so outdated..)
Those 'companies' are money sucking leeches praying on ignorant customers. Here's why:
"The Directorate-General for Competition (DG IV) has written to GSM/DCS1800
handset manufacturers and network operators in the EEA limiting the use of
the "SIM Lock" feature in mobile phone handsets: the feature effectively
ties the customer to one GSM operator or service provider. The handset must
be able to be unlocked upon demand by the consumer. This will prevent the
anti-competitive effects of the feature vis-à-vis existing or new operators,
and avoid a reinforcement of the division of the mobile phone market along
national lines.
[...]
The practical effect of this will be that consumers will no longer be
charged what were often significant amounts of money for the privilege of
linking their own handset to the services of another operator / service
provider."
They must be unlocked upon request by the service provider, free of charge. Going to a paid 3rd party is sheer stupidity.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-96-791_en.htm
Sadly, many customers are not aware of these laws, and in many countries the courts rule in favour of the mobile operators for less than honest reasons (which they ofcourse always deny, because it has nothing to do with the ungodly amount of ex-politicians in the boards of directors..)
The only thing providers are allowed to do is put a timestamps on how long it takes for you to be allowed to unlock it, usually the time your contract lasts. By doing this, they can charge fees if you want it unlocked earlier.
The problem with Apple is that Apple itself locks the firmware to a carrier, and requires an update from Apple itself to unlock. (Like they also do with 4G for every separate provider.) The bastards have never cared for laws: The EU has laws that every charging port must be a MicroUSB since 2011. Apple ignored that, and with Obama backing Apple and holding the chains on the trade agreements, the EU can't do much more than impose petty fines that are small change to Apple.
I'm currently on an S9+ through AT&T; I'm considering upgrading to a Pixel 7 Pro for my next phone
I have always relied heavily on hotspot data, and have never paid for a specific hotspot plan. This was the case on my LG G3, and on my S9+ – until a recent firmware update I installed pushed a carrier-check into the device when I'd try to enable it
So, a factor for me in choosing a new phone is whether I will be able to use it for unlimited hotspot data without having to get authorization from my carrier / without it counting against hotspot-data-allotments / etc.
Is this doable on a Pixel 7 Pro?
Does it require rooting the device? Does it require a custom ROM?
Are these things I can do on a phone I get through my carrier – AT&T in the US – or will I need a non-carrier-branded version?
Will doing so break other functionality – like Google Wallet / Google Pay?
Super down for rooting / custom roms / etc., but don't feel a huge need for it other than if it's what I need to do to get my unlimited hotspot data going
(Side-note: I know there are VPN Hotspot apps I could use, but I would prefer it to be able to create a hotspot & work in ways I can connect any wifi-device to without special configuration, like with the regular stock hotspot)
Instead of trying to break the law why not just get a plan that allows unlimited hotspot?
jaseman said:
Instead of trying to break the law why not just get a plan that allows unlimited hotspot?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is definitely not breaking any laws, terms of service though, yes.
ATT phone plans are just not the greatest nowadays... Consider TMB when you switch.
My guess is that any ROM without the google carrier services app pre installed (i.e. LOS, probably.) Will do just fine with stock configuration. Will it count towards hotspot data Idk. Also it depends on if your carrier needs it for activation.
I'm on Google Fi unlimited and have (up to) 4 dedicated data SIM that shares my main plan data (speed cap at 50G) for free
yurishouse said:
ATT phone plans are just not the greatest nowadays... Consider TMB when you switch.
My guess is that any ROM without the google carrier services app pre installed (i.e. LOS, probably.) Will do just fine with stock configuration. Will it count towards hotspot data Idk. Also it depends on if your carrier needs it for activation.
I'm on Google Fi unlimited and have (up to) 4 dedicated data SIM that shares my main plan data (speed cap at 50G) for free
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After doing more research, it seems as though if I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from AT&T, I would not be able to unlock the bootloader until the phone was fully paid off – and thus wouldn't be able to install a custom ROM
Is that correct?
phnord said:
After doing more research, it seems as though if I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from AT&T, I would not be able to unlock the bootloader until the phone was fully paid off – and thus wouldn't be able to install a custom ROM
Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is correct.
phnord said:
After doing more research, it seems as though if I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from AT&T, I would not be able to unlock the bootloader until the phone was fully paid off – and thus wouldn't be able to install a custom ROM
Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you purchased an unlocked global version (from Google Store, Amazon has been known to sell some, some brick and mortar stores had offered in the past [but that was when the phone was newly released so I'm unsure about now], def can find 2nd hand on Swappa), you can still use the device on AT&T's network (and your plan), but you wouldn't have to wait on AT&T to unlock the bootloader.
If you have good enough credit, you could possibly finance the phone on Google Store and pay it off monthly for 2 years (more or less what carriers do [although I just found out recently that Verizon is 3 years...])...
Just some additional information and some thoughts...
simplepinoi177 said:
[although I just found out recently that Verizon is 3 years...]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So is AT&T. T-Mobile is the only one left with 24 months.
Tomadock said:
This is definitely not breaking any laws, terms of service though, yes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Breaking a contract is not breaking the law.
jaseman said:
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol wat
jaseman said:
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the contract holder - the cell service provider - wanted to take you to court because you broke the contract you signed who do you think the judge would side with?
ANY TIME you sign a contract there are LAWS governing how that contract if fulfilled by BOTH parties. You also have LEGAL rights under the contract. It is the LAW!
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
jaseman said:
If the contract holder - the cell service provider - wanted to take you to court because you broke the contract you signed who do you think the judge would side with?
ANY TIME you sign a contract there are LAWS governing how that contract if fulfilled by BOTH parties. You also have LEGAL rights under the contract. It is the LAW!
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sir, this is XDA. XDA was created by people looking to test the limits , unlock (or add) features, give new life to their devices. Whether that person breaks a law or not, its not like you are paying their legal bills
That said, I AM LOOKING TO ACHIEVE THE SAME AS OP!
simplepinoi177 said:
If you purchased an unlocked global version (from Google Store, Amazon has been known to sell some, some brick and mortar stores had offered in the past [but that was when the phone was newly released so I'm unsure about now], def can find 2nd hand on Swappa), you can still use the device on AT&T's network (and your plan), but you wouldn't have to wait on AT&T to unlock the bootloader.
If you have good enough credit, you could possibly finance the phone on Google Store and pay it off monthly for 2 years (more or less what carriers do [although I just found out recently that Verizon is 3 years...])...
Just some additional information and some thoughts...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hear you on that. Main reason I want to go with AT&T is they currently have a trade-in special where my ancient, cracked-screen, S9+ will count as $800 against the price of the phone, which is very, very tempting...
jaseman said:
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it could easily be argued that it's theft of service, nobody ever gets prosecuted for it and the carriers hardly ever will even disconnect you for it unless you're moving terabytes of data so it's not that big of a deal.
Also, the carriers can sit and spin for all I care, they're massively ripping us off in the states.
EtherealRemnant said:
While it could easily be argued that it's theft of service, nobody ever gets prosecuted for it and the carriers hardly ever will even disconnect you for it unless you're moving terabytes of data so it's not that big of a deal.
Also, the carriers can sit and spin for all I care, they're massively ripping us off in the states.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that the providers are or may be ripping us off, but that doesn't change the fact the when you sign a contract you are LEGALLY agreeing to abide by the terms of that contract.
I am not saying that the carriers are above contempt, but two wrongs do not make a right.
It is a breach of contract, a civil matter, and they could take you to court to try to recoup their losses. It would be dangerous though as they could be forced to actually admit how little a customer using a hotspot actually costs them. The main thing though, the time wasted pursuing one user would outweigh the benefit of getting their money.
jaseman said:
If the contract holder - the cell service provider - wanted to take you to court because you broke the contract you signed who do you think the judge would side with?
ANY TIME you sign a contract there are LAWS governing how that contract if fulfilled by BOTH parties. You also have LEGAL rights under the contract. It is the LAW!
Why is this so hard for supposedly educated people to understand?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not illegal to breach a contract. You will not be thrown in jail for breaching a contract. The government will not bring a case against you for breaching a contract. A contract just means the other party may be able to successfully take you to court and get a legally-enforceable judgment. But it's not illegal to breach a contract.
I have used a magisk module to activate the native hotspot without carrier protections. But to get the unlimited hotspot, you're going to need a VPN and VPN tether. I don't know any other way around that unless you pull a higher price for unlimited hotspot
NetShare, PDAnet, Easy Tether, VPN Tether, PairVPN... Lots of apps exist for this purpose. Just beware that your provider isn't dumb and knows you're doing it. Might be best to get a second SIM that you only use for data that way you don't risk your number.