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.
If you guys don't know T-Mobile has started blacklisting IMEIs of devices with unpaid accounts, stolen devices etc
I've seen a few threads with people saying their phone randomly stopped working one day, the SIM wouldn't pick up signal. There is a few things that could have happened, since SIM cards do go bad. But if it's a phone you bought on Craigslist/eBay/BST forum etc beware you can get screwed down the road. If someone gets a phone on one of the new value plans and decides to cancel service after selling the device and it goes unpaid you will have a brick. If they don't cancel service and sell the phone, then report it stolen, you will have a brick. There is MANY scenarios, people things oh hey this phone is $200, I can sell it for $450 and cancel the line and I've made $250...well the end user will now have a no longer working phone. that's just the start of it.
Just beware when buying phones online, this has always been the case for Sprint/Verizon...but now T-Mobile has started doing the same. not sure about AT&T since I don't have personal experience with them about blacklisting IMEI.
I don't see how this would affect say an att user. They can just sim unlocked the phone and use it
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
I might be wrong here, but isn't the signal sent to the SIM? If the IMEI is never actually attached to your line (in the system) theoretically it still wouldn't matter. i.e. I found a Blackberry and decided I would try the $50 TMO prepaid deal. I stopped by the store and bought a SIM but didn't have the phone with me. He said no problem, activated the SIM and sent me on my way and the BB worked.
is this even legal? aren't the phones on contract technically provided as a 'free gift' and therefore property of the buyer from day one?
lawrence750 said:
is this even legal? aren't the phones on contract technically provided as a 'free gift' and therefore property of the buyer from day one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe it is legal. You first have to realize there is no such thing as a 'free' or 'subsidized' phone. You either pay full price upfront or in payments via the monthly service charge. One way or another, providers are gonna get the phone paid for. T-Mobile is the only major US provider that offers cheaper rates if you own your phone.
But...if you get a phone 'free' or 'subsidized' you have to think of it as similar to financing a car. You get to use the car but the bank has a financial interest in it - actually contractually owns it - until you pay it off. That's why they can legally repossess it if you fail to pay. Similarly, until you fulfill your service contract or pay the exit fee the provider has a financial interest in the phone, and by contract, certain legal rights.
Not a perfect analogy but I hope it makes things clearer.
Registered Linux user #266531. Android user since v1.0.
chibixzero said:
I don't see how this would affect say an att user. They can just sim unlocked the phone and use it
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think the SIM will work if the imei is blocked. sIm lock Is totally dIfferent to ImeI block. Imei is how the phone gets it signal. It identifies the handset(not the SIM).
If an imei is blocked in UK then it will not work on any network in UK, but it will work on networks in other countries as there is not an international imei data base there are only national one at the minute. It is not 100% certain to work in another country but it would more than likely work. But for instance O2 in UK is owned by Spanish company Telefonica so an o2 phone blocked by imei may not work in Spain and vice versa.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
It is possible to change the imei number of a phone, but I know in the UK it IS ILLEGAL to do this.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Very informative
It's unfortunate that sometimes people are dishonest or unethical even more so when selling anonymously through the internet.
As always in purchasing toys, do your homework and if a deal seems to good to be true..... it probably is.
Thebeast715 said:
It's unfortunate that sometimes people are dishonest or unethical even more so when selling anonymously through the internet.
As always in purchasing toys, do your homework and if a deal seems to good to be true..... it probably is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very very true:thumbup:
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
gavmac said:
It is possible to change the imei number of a phone, but I know in the UK it IS ILLEGAL to do this.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is in the states as well
Sent from my Inspire 4G using Tapatalk 2
Wow,so att the one company that doesnt practice this
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium