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.
I know cloning and changing ESN or IMEI numbers on stolen phones is ilegal, but what if I buy a sprint phone and a verizon phone, then I change the ESNs between the two and keep using the verizon phone on sprint and sell the sprint phone as a "verison" phone, would changing the esn that way be legal? if so could you pm me with a way to do so.
i think it's not very legal...
annoyingly enough, its probably illegal. Which is unfortunate for me, because i'd love to allow my gf to activate my old alltel blackberry phone on verizon (merger put me with att)
I see the words think and probably which gives me hope, where could I look for these laws? do they change from state to state?
jorge89 said:
I know cloning and changing ESN or IMEI numbers on stolen phones is ilegal, but what if I buy a sprint phone and a verizon phone, then I change the ESNs between the two and keep using the verizon phone on sprint and sell the sprint phone as a "verison" phone, would changing the esn that way be legal? if so could you pm me with a way to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A few threads from other websites for you to read.
http://cellphone-gurus.com
http://forum.ppcgeeks.com
In may 2002 the FCC retraced its statement on ESN cloning or cellular fraud (section 22.919) because public law number 105-172, the communications act also had section 301 removed because of this law. Both removed sections were considered no longer needed and redundant because of this public law.
According to this law it is a federal crime to "knowingly uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses hardware or software, knowing it has been configured to insert or modify telecommunication identifying information associated with or contained in a telecommunications instrument so that such instrument may be used to obtain telecommunications service without authorization." This is a broad enough description to pertain to any service a telecommunication companies offers, as well as any hardware or software you used to achieve this is considered illegal and in breach of this law. An example of other services are, internet services like an air card and voice mail, but not limited to these examples.
Without authorization, means any device the carrier did not directly and knowingly assign to your account. Even if you have a valid account and are a paying customer, cloning a device to that account is unauthorized, because the device being authenticated and authorized on the network is the donor device not the device you cloned. An example of this but not limited to this example is cloning a Motorola flip phone to a Samsung Epic smart phone, The Samsung epic would authenticate as a Motorola flip phone, not a Samsung Epic Smart phone. The carrier did not explicitly authorize this smart phone device, and it is accessing the network in an unauthorized and illegal manner.
If a user was unlucky enough to be found breaching this law and proven guilty of the offense, the punishments are; “A first offense is now punishable by 15 years in prison, and a second or subsequent offense carries a possible 20 year sentence. Besides additional fines and penalties, the Act also authorizes the government to seize any and all personal property used or intended to be used in the crime. “
http://www.howardforums.com
anything of this nature is prohibited by law. any alteration of a cell phones ESN is illegal.. pretty much in any manner you do it.
But in all honesty, changing the ESN is illegal no matter how you try to justify it.
ESN is like fingerpirnts on the phone. You can't change it unless you're running from the laws.
Simple answer: It is illegal for you as a customer/purchaser/consumer to clone/change/swap/etc ESNs/IMEIs.
I'm not trying to run away from any laws or break them, all I really want is to be able to use Virgin mobile with a decent Android phone the a Nexus S or maybe wait for the Nexus 3 to come out to Sprint, but I guess that won't be possible now
jorge89 said:
I'm not trying to run away from any laws or break them, all I really want is to be able to use Virgin mobile with a decent Android phone the a Nexus S or maybe wait for the Nexus 3 to come out to Sprint, but I guess that won't be possible now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Call Virgin Mobile and ask them to add the ESN to their database.
Hello everyone.
i just got my s3 and i am in love with it. the only thing i hate is paying 100 a month for sprint service. i have the s2 also from sprint but its flashed to verizon and want to do the same with my s3. can someone please give me sum info or a place that has step by step instruction for noobs plus what software to use and where to get it.
please im broke and i want to do this b4 my next sprint bill comes in. ty all
First of all, I'm not sure if what you're asking is legal since you're likely going to be cheating Verizon out of money on their plan for the S3. Besides that, AFAIK QPST for the US GS3 isn't working yet, and that is a necessity for flashing to other carriers.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
I have the Samsung s3 t-mobile and Im able to connect and read the phone using cdma workshop .... I'm sure this phone is possible
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app
OP is referring to esn cloning, which is illegal and barred from discussion here on these boards.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
rdwing said:
OP is referring to esn cloning, which is illegal and barred from discussion here on these boards.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Flashing is not illegal ... he means over to pageplus
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app
rdwing said:
OP is referring to esn cloning, which is illegal and barred from discussion here on these boards.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are so lame.
To be honest, I don't quite understand why a person cannot use his/her phone, which they bought for $600 outright, on a network of their choice.
You can do that with GSM phones. Why not with CDMA?
rdwing is right. Although the FCC law is vague when it comes to what exactly “ESN cloning" is and what sort of flashing is illegal, it IS illegal to flash to Verizon and not pay for the plan you should be paying for; for example, paying for a non-data plan but using the GS3 on that plan. That is absolutely fraud and is prohibited from discussion here.
IMHO I don't believe flashing to a carrier such as Virgin Mobile, which allows you to use any plan for any phone, is wrong or illegal. However, Verizon's large number of plans for specific types of phones makes it impossible for us to know whether or not you'll be using the phone on the proper plan.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
elfhater said:
rdwing is right. Although the FCC law is vague when it comes to what exactly “ESN cloning" is and what sort of flashing is illegal, it IS illegal to flash to Verizon and not pay for the plan you should be paying for; for example, paying for a non-data plan but using the GS3 on that plan. That is absolutely fraud and is prohibited from discussion here.
IMHO I don't believe flashing to a carrier such as Virgin Mobile, which allows you to use any plan for any phone, is wrong or illegal. However, Verizon's large number of plans for specific types of phones makes it impossible for us to know whether or not you'll be using the phone on the proper plan.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
O'RLY? because here is a thread explicitly coaching members on how to misrepresent their smartphones as dumbphones and rape the ATT data plan that is specifically meant for non-smartphones, even though the ATT ToS calls out SIM swapping specifically. It has been allowed to prosper despite being brought to their attention because "if ATT didn't want people using the loophole they would close it" I was told. I suppose it's a fine line they have to walk, to allow or not, what's technically legal or illegal.....but I get the feeling that the admins turn a blind eye to activities as long as they are crimes against a large corporation, but if you were to do the same thing to an individual developer they would be all over it.
Hey, I'm all for getting the most for my money, but I try not to condone intentionally screwing them over even if they are a huge corporation. Admittedly it's not always easy to ride that line.....but I personally think there is something about taking advantage and being opportunistic that lends itself to expose the real moral compass of people. Most people who would make good life decisions won't intentionally go out of their way to screw anyone, company or not. Not all, but most I think. It just reflects poorly on people that do such things. We all struggle with easy opportunities.
jamesnmandy said:
O'RLY? because here is a thread explicitly coaching members on how to misrepresent their smartphones as dumbphones and rape the ATT data plan that is specifically meant for non-smartphones, even though the ATT ToS calls out SIM swapping specifically. It has been allowed to prosper despite being brought to their attention because "if ATT didn't want people using the loophole they would close it" I was told. I suppose it's a fine line they have to walk, to allow or not, what's technically legal or illegal.....but I get the feeling that the admins turn a blind eye to activities as long as they are crimes against a large corporation, but if you were to do the same thing to an individual developer they would be all over it.
Hey, I'm all for getting the most for my money, but I try not to condone intentionally screwing them over even if they are a huge corporation. Admittedly it's not always easy to ride that line.....but I personally think there is something about taking advantage and being opportunistic that lends itself to expose the real moral compass of people. Most people who would make good life decisions won't intentionally go out of their way to screw anyone, company or not. Not all, but most I think. It just reflects poorly on people that do such things. We all struggle with easy opportunities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what I'm saying, the smartphone plans for companies like Virgin Mobile or Boost Mobile are universal across all smartphones, making it impossible (AFAIK) to actually “cheat" the carrier out of money. I am also aware that Virgin Mobile DOES prohibit other carriers' phones in their ToS, however breaching a non-contact ToS is not illegal, it's only a way for a company to deny you service if you beach it. I'm not so sure about contact carriers like Verizon or AT&T, though...
I don't believe any of these companies deserve to be cheated out of money, I was just pointing out the fact that it is wrong to pay for a cheaper plan than what you should actually be paying for on that carrier and I was saying that the issue is non-existent on VM.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Only way it will happen is the phone IMEI has to be activated on Verizons network. You can call them and ask them to activate the phone on the network. They may say yes but will most likely say no.
As for the rest of the talks. Using an international version of a phone will come across on the US networks as unknown. This has been the case for a while but soon will be stopping as the carriers are starting to work together to prevent non network phones on their plans.
IMEI changing is illegal and will not be talked about.
Sent for a corner cell in Arkham
zelendel said:
Only way it will happen is the phone IMEI has to be activated on Verizons network. You can call them and ask them to activate the phone on the network. They may say yes but will most likely say no.
As for the rest of the talks. Using an international version of a phone will come across on the US networks as unknown. This has been the case for a while but soon will be stopping as the carriers are starting to work together to prevent non network phones on their plans.
IMEI changing is illegal and will not be talked about.
Sent for a corner cell in Arkham
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CDMA providers don't use IMEI; Verizon and Sprint only use it for LTE (a GSM technology), and considering that the OP would not be able to use the LTE anyway because Sprint and Verizon use different LTE bands, this seems a non-issue (as he would not need to change his IMEI).
He would, however, need to change his ESN, and as I stated earlier, the legality of it is questionable but unlikely if he is switching his phone to Verizon.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
elfhater said:
CDMA providers don't use IMEI; Verizon and Sprint only use it for LTE (a GSM technology), and considering that the OP would not be able to use the LTE anyway because Sprint and Verizon use different LTE bands, this seems a non-issue (as he would not need to change his IMEI).
He would, however, need to change his ESN, and as I stated earlier, the legality of it is questionable but unlikely if he is switching his phone to Verizon.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
right, how is this any different than changing the SIM card and activating it on a network that is explicitly excluded from that use per the ToS? IMEI, ESN, or SIM......it's all semantics......if misrepresenting one is not ok, the others cannot be either as the end product is the same
Originally Posted by elfhater
CDMA providers don't use IMEI; Verizon and Sprint only use it for LTE (a GSM technology), and considering that the OP would not be able to use the LTE anyway because Sprint and Verizon use different LTE bands, this seems a non-issue (as he would not need to change his IMEI).
He would, however, need to change his ESN, and as I stated earlier, the legality of it is questionable but unlikely if he is switching his phone to Verizon.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
right, how is this any different than changing the SIM card and activating it on a network that is explicitly excluded from that use per the ToS? IMEI, ESN, or SIM......it's all semantics......if misrepresenting one is not ok, the others cannot be either as the end product is the same
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, but I'm saying that if the OP would like to change his phone to Verizon then that's his choice; he takes on the risk of being caught, the knowledge that what he's doing is potentially illegal, and knowing that he is acting immorally. I don't agree with what the OP is doing and I won't provide help.
And the point about the ToS that I was saying was that it's one thing to breach a ToS, but it's a very different thing to breach a contact. Breaching a non-contact ToS is not necessarily immoral because the only agreement you make with the carrier is that you understand that they can deny you service if you breach their ToS.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
elfhater said:
I agree, but I'm saying that if the OP would like to change his phone to Verizon then that's his choice; he takes on the risk of being caught, the knowledge that what he's doing is potentially illegal, and knowing that he is acting immorally. I don't agree with what the OP is doing and I won't provide help.
And the point about the ToS that I was saying was that it's one thing to breach a ToS, but it's a very different thing to breach a contact. Breaching a non-contact ToS is not necessarily immoral because the only agreement you make with the carrier is that you understand that they can deny you service if you breach their ToS.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
elfhater said:
I agree, but I'm saying that if the OP would like to change his phone to Verizon then that's his choice; he takes on the risk of being caught, the knowledge that what he's doing is potentially illegal, and knowing that he is acting immorally. I don't agree with what the OP is doing and I won't provide help.
And the point about the ToS that I was saying was that it's one thing to breach a ToS, but it's a very different thing to breach a contact. Breaching a non-contact ToS is not necessarily immoral because the only agreement you make with the carrier is that you understand that they can deny you service if you breach their ToS.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
see i disagree on that last part....it's their network, not your's or anyone else's, it belongs to ATT for instance, and access to that network is not an entitlement in which one can choose to follow the rules or not at a whim......by using the network you accept the ToS by default...so accessing that network by misrepresenting and explicitly breaking the ToS is pretty cut and dry.......it's just wrong. Choosing to do the wrong thing is immoral if you will. Not that it's fair to equate cell service with morality and life.....but at the root of it, people who choose to be opportunistic will many times choose to do the same in other aspects of life......
this thread isn't about morality so i digress........but there is really no way to justify the breaking of the ToS when one is on their network to begin with in my opinion
jamesnmandy said:
see i disagree on that last part....it's their network, not your's or anyone else's, it belongs to ATT for instance, and access to that network is not an entitlement in which one can choose to follow the rules or not at a whim......by using the network you accept the ToS by default...so accessing that network by misrepresenting and explicitly breaking the ToS is pretty cut and dry.......it's just wrong. Choosing to do the wrong thing is immoral if you will. Not that it's fair to equate cell service with morality and life.....but at the root of it, people who choose to be opportunistic will many times choose to do the same in other aspects of life......
this thread isn't about morality so i digress........but there is really no way to justify the breaking of the ToS when one is on their network to begin with in my opinion
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, but by agreeing to only a ToS (VM, Boost, etc) you are allowed to use their network with the knowledge that you can be denied service if you choose to breach those terms and the carrier decides to terminate your service.
A contact on the other hand (Verizon, etc) is a binding agreement in which you basically promise that you will abide by the terms set forth in the contact and therefore MUST abide.
I can see we're getting off topic but I can agree to disagree lol.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
elfhater said:
I know, but by agreeing to only a ToS (VM, Boost, etc) you are allowed to use their network with the knowledge that you can be denied service if you choose to breach those terms and the carrier decides to terminate your service.
A contact on the other hand (Verizon, etc) is a binding agreement in which you basically promise that you will abide by the terms set forth in the contact and therefore MUST abide.
I can see we're getting off topic but I can agree to disagree lol.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no this is good stuff...
you do agree that they can boot you off, but before that you agree to use the service per the ToS in the first place, by simply connecting you agree to use it as they say......it doesn't say "go ahead and connect any way you like but we can disconnect you". It says in order to connect you have to agree to connect per the ToS.
So the first transgression is the act of connecting in a mischievous or by way of misrepresentation. At least from what I can see. Contract or not. The contract really has no bearing other than cost and features for the cost. You pay for a set of features for a price, they agree to give you those features for that length of time per the contract. This can exist separately from the actual act of connecting to the service.
nabbed said:
To be honest, I don't quite understand why a person cannot use his/her phone, which they bought for $600 outright, on a network of their choice.
You can do that with GSM phones. Why not with CDMA?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
because american companies are generally greedy just look at apple.
jamesnmandy said:
no this is good stuff...
you do agree that they can boot you off, but before that you agree to use the service per the ToS in the first place, by simply connecting you agree to use it as they say......it doesn't say "go ahead and connect any way you like but we can disconnect you". It says in order to connect you have to agree to connect per the ToS.
So the first transgression is the act of connecting in a mischievous or by way of misrepresentation. At least from what I can see. Contract or not. The contract really has no bearing other than cost and features for the cost. You pay for a set of features for a price, they agree to give you those features for that length of time per the contract. This can exist separately from the actual act of connecting to the service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see what you're saying, TBH I didn't consider that you were agreeing to abide by the terms in order to connect, as opposed to agreeing to the terms with the knowledge that you can be denied service once you breach those terms. Also I haven't read (for example's sake) VM's ToS in full, just the parts pertaining to using a phone from another carrier.
And with the contact, you are legally bound to abide by the terms set forth (I think that usually includes an agreement that you will abide by the ToS), whereas there is no legal agreement if you are only agreeing to a ToS. Whether it's morally wrong to break a ToS alone I can't really say, but if the carrier is not adversely affected in any way, shape, or form and the consumer can use a phone that he or she wants that that carrier may not offer, I don't really see a problem (as long as the consumer didn't sign a contract which involved promising to abide by the ToS).
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app
Hi,
I am considering buying one of two used Galaxy Notes off craigslist for use with a T-Mobile SIM. One is AT&T and one is an international one.
From some of the research I've done, if buying the ATT one, I should run the IMEI by ATT to make sure it's clean, then make the seller sign a document stating that he's transferring ownership of the phone and IMEI to me to prevent him from reporting it stolen in the future, resulting in the blacklisting my IMEI, right? Also, how do I confirm he's the original owner? Will running the IMEI by ATT tell me that info?
Is it safer to pay more and go with a used international one? In other words do carriers tend to ever blacklist IMEIs of phones not sold by them?
Thanks
Good luck getting some random person from Craigslist to sign that kind of thing (which would have tenuous legal bearing, anyway).
I prefer to buy on eBay so that instead of having to deal with the police / legal system, eBay will handle it if they state something false about what they're selling.
Even if you run the IMEI by ATT, it can take some time for it to have entered their database - and that's assuming the seller already reported it stolen or defaulted on it. Most people trying to do that are smart enough to wait until you have the working phone, then report it - that way your phone works for a while and by the time it doesn't - what... you have a piece of paper they signed ? That's great, but then you have to either get the phone company to believe you or enter a legal dispute with this seller - with a document that's likely not notarized, from a person you probably have no idea where they can even be found - who might have given you a fake name and ID.
Plenty of people take the chance and it turns out okay. Some get burned - taking the chance is up to you. I prefer to go through eBay or a friend - because I know where friends live and generally they're actually friends and don't want to screw me over.
Hi Pennycake,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. The signed document was a suggestion I received from an ATT rep, who said it would show I was the owner and she would unblacklist it for me, and worst case scenario I have something instead of nothing if police are involved. Also both sellers have agreed to sign the documents, but thanks for the good luck
So again, my original questions: how do I identify the original owner of a phone sold by ATT, and secondly, do carriers ever blacklist IMEIs of international phones not sold by them?
Thanks in advance
I'm not sure if ATT and T-Mobile use the same company to manage blacklisting - that it's actually the same list (ie - if you're removed from the ATT list, will you be removed from T-Mobile's list or would they need to do it separately) . So you might have to convince T-Mobile reps - who by and large aren't that well (or at all) trained about the blacklist. I've never dealt with ATT reps, but they sound a whole lot better than the ones at T-Mobile when it comes to the IMEI blacklist (I've had great customer service from T-Mobile, but their training concerning the IMEI blacklist was sub-par, at least when I was on the market a few months ago).
I don't think T-Mobile will personally blacklist international phones. I know that USA carriers are starting to work together more and more - but I don't know about international.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app
The largest GSM carriers in America, T-Mobile and AT&T, are collaborating on efforts in maintaining a national IMEI blacklist for GSM phones to help stop thefts, and began implementing policy beginning last month. This is why I am extra cautious as I have never been over the purchase of a used GSM phone. Which led me to a new question I would never have thought to ask, which was, again, "Do US carriers blacklist IMEIs of international phones not sold by them?"
So an example is if an ATT customer activated an int'l phone sold by Samsung, not ATT, and defaulted on payments. The relevancy of this, if the IMEI was blacklisted, would be that T-Mobile would not activate the phone. Carriers have had incentive to blacklist phones sold by themselves to protect against their investment in subsidizing the phones, but I am unclear on phones not sold by them. Anyone with little or great information would be very helpful in posting.
Thanks
Edit: I feel I may have been unclear, but this is the question I'm mainly trying to get answered: "Do US carriers blacklist IMEIs of international phones not sold by them?" I'm not seeking advice on how to be unblacklisted if my phone is reported stolen or where I should buy my phones from, I am seeking those with experience buying international phones, such as an unlocked iPhone from an Apple Store, for instance, and have defaulted on payments. These phones would never be blacklisted for being reported stolen as they weren't sold by carriers, but have the potential to be blacklisted for a bad account. If the potential is not there then this would be the path I would choose from here into the future when purchasing used GSM phones. If the potential is there then there would be no added benefit of choosing int'l over carrier-sold used phones. Thanks again and I apologize for any ambiguity
I know that, the problem is that if ATT and T-Mobile aren't using the same IMEI blacklist, they would have to each remove the number individually. They could maintain a national list, but still input those values into separate systems.
I'm not really sure where you're going with the example of, "So an example is if an ATT customer activated an int'l phone sold by Samsung, not ATT, and defaulted on payments. The relevancy of this, if the IMEI was blacklisted, would be that T-Mobile would not activate the phone."
Why would they blacklist that phone ? That phone must have already been paid for, to Samsung. If you buy an international phone outright, there shouldn't be any "payments" to default on - sure, maybe you bought it with a credit card, but in that case it was still fully paid for - and if you stop paying the card, they're going to send you to collections and trash your credit score. The phone is your property even if you stop paying for the service it's connected to. If they ARE doing this, it strikes me a slightly illegal unless you sign away property rights under contract or something.
I'd be more worried about the hypothetical international phone's IMEI being reported stolen - since it looks like the FCC efforts are concerned primarily with theft, not with where the phone was purchased - like if you report a car stolen. Their efforts are motivated by preventing phone theft and related crimes - not on carrier subsidies or carriers making money (because, really, carriers stand to lose money by blocking stolen phones).
"T-Mobile USA prevents use of stolen devices internal to its network, and has established connectivity to the GSMA Global IMEI database that is ready for use by other carriers as recommended in the GSMA-NA Report (entitled “Analysis and Recommendations for Stolen Mobile Device Issue in the United States”), and as set forth in the Industry/FCC Agreement"
So I imagine that in the future, if not already, T-Mobile will have the capacity to block stolen international phones.
So, I agree - there's probably no added benefit since IMEI blacklists are on the path to converge with the focus on theft as the goal, not subsidy.
They are using the same blacklist. When they run the IMEI and it's on the list shared by both companies, they don't activate the phone.
Can anyone else please chime in with knowledge and experience with international phones? Thank you much.