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.
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
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128772296
"Another exemption will allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers."
Apple's restrictive obsession finally bit them in the a$$...
This is fine and dandy indeed, but do you really think the wireless service providers aren't going to throw heaps of lobbyist money to thwart this effort?
All phones in the USA should come sim unlocked prior to buying the phone. Carriers should worry and concentrate on their data supplied and packages.
Not worry about "locking" down cells lure buyers to their company because they sim locked the phone to their network.
USA needs too learn a few more things from Europe.
Yes but what about the case of Verizon phones where they don't use SIM cards? would they be required to switch to an "unlockable" phone setup? I'm thinking no, in which case what you may see in the case of other carriers is that their special phones (like iphone) are going to be locked down in the same manner as Verizon, i.e. SIM cardless
monty_boy said:
This is fine and dandy indeed, but do you really think the wireless service providers aren't going to throw heaps of lobbyist money to thwart this effort?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's apparently a done deal.
The DOJ has also launched a probe into the legality of the Apple/ATT deal... Something like 90% of their cases always win. So in other words, when the DOJ launches an investigation against you, you're screwed (they basically have the case built, just not officially).
Like I said earlier, Apple shot themselves in the foot with this one.
the problem si that there still lowed to put these restrictions on in the first place. there should be an option in a menu somewhere that says hey do you want to only user the appstore or would you like to be able to sideload apps. from those ive spoken to over 90% of people don't understand what a root or jailbreak is.
Hepæstus said:
Yes but what about the case of Verizon phones where they don't use SIM cards? would they be required to switch to an "unlockable" phone setup? I'm thinking no, in which case what you may see in the case of other carriers is that their special phones (like iphone) are going to be locked down in the same manner as Verizon, i.e. SIM cardless
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon and have been switching their phones over to sim compatible
is there a reason why the MOST IMPORTANT site isnt linked...
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
GG KK THX BYE!
But... Warranty? will be void still? I don't see nothing about this.
Ummm... Maybe the NPR article took this out of context.
On EFF's request, the Librarian of Congress renewed a 2006 rule exempting cell phone unlocking so handsets can be used with other telecommunications carriers. Cell phone unlockers have been successfully sued under the DMCA, even though there is no copyright infringement involved in the unlocking. Digital locks on cell phones make it harder to resell, reuse, or recycle the handset, prompting EFF to ask for renewal of this rule on behalf of our clients, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and Flipswap. However, the 2009 rule has been modified so that it only applies to used mobile phones, not new ones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This seems to mean that the carrier can still lock them, they just can't refuse to unlock them after purchase (IE, after becoming "used").
newalopez said:
But... Warranty? will be void still? I don't see nothing about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is all about copyright... In other words, you bought the device you can do what the hell you want with it and Apple can't sue you.
This doesn't mean the App Store is going away or anything else, it basically just establishes into law that Apple can't hold someone at fault for using a device the way they want to use it.
If you do things to the device that aren't supported, you're still SOL. If you pour anti-freeze into your oil of your vehicle, for instance, Toyota or whomever isn't going to support it if you don't follow their manual.
So yes, they still have every right to void your warranty. However as usual, flashing back to stock firmware will net you warranty terms again obviously.
Hhmmm...
How will this ever be enforced? Will the carriers do in store unlocks for "used" phones? Can me and a friend buy phones, sell it to each other for $1 and get them unlocked on the spot!?
...this is gonna be CHAOS! lol
Gootah said:
How will this ever be enforced? Will the carriers do in store unlocks for "used" phones? Can me and a friend buy phones, sell it to each other for $1 and get them unlocked on the spot!?
...this is gonna be CHAOS! lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it won't be chaos... It really doesn't change much. Instead of doing it after 180 days they're required to as soon as it's "used" (I guess as soon as you buy it??). It also establishes more of a no-questions-asked policy versus having to tell them you travel internationally or something.
The main gist of this thing was aimed at Apple, this just happened to be a side affect.
Well at least here in my country (Portugal), new law was approved this month, now carriers must unlock all phones for free at the end of the contracts.
In my opinion there are two sides to it :
1) If the Service Provider (Sprint, AT&T etc.) gives a subsidy or discount as part of the contract, they should be allowed to network lock the phones since the consumer has not paid the full price of the phone and not fulfilled the contract. However, with the completion of the contract, the service provider should unlock the phone for free.(I am only talking abt the network lock here)
2) If the consumer has paid the full amount, then the phones should come unlocked.
As far as 'Jailbreaking' or installing softwares is concerned, the consumer should have the right to do so in any of the above 2 cases since he is the owner/user of the phone. The Manufacturer or Service provider has NO right to lock that portion. However, they should have the right to void warranty as there is a chance that the user may install potetially harmfull sofware on the phone thereby damaging it.
However, if the law comes that people are able to network unlock their phones legally, there is a chance that the service providers might stop subsidising the phones and ask for upfront payment.
Mikey1022 said:
All phones in the USA should come sim unlocked prior to buying the phone. Carriers should worry and concentrate on their data supplied and packages.
Not worry about "locking" down cells lure buyers to their company because they sim locked the phone to their network.
USA needs too learn a few more things from Europe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i highly agree with you! they should work on providing better network, and data coverage i.e. ATT. they do have a fairly big clientele but is there service worth me moving from tmous. i dont think so. my x girl has att and she can barely get coverage in her house and we live in a city you would think got excellent coverage. SAN FRANCISCO!
Hepæstus said:
Yes but what about the case of Verizon phones where they don't use SIM cards? would they be required to switch to an "unlockable" phone setup? I'm thinking no, in which case what you may see in the case of other carriers is that their special phones (like iphone) are going to be locked down in the same manner as Verizon, i.e. SIM cardless
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think they should just phase out with the CDMA phones little by little and start intro'ing with the GSM'. same goes for sprint
Truth be told, CDMA is a superior technology but that's a debate for a different thread.
As far as Sprint and Verizon are concerned, their phones are just as "unlockable" as GSM handsets. MVNO carriers like Revol wireless and Page Plus live off of old beat up verizon and sprint phones. They simply need to be reflashed. With a little google-ing, it can be done fairly easily.
say goodbye to phone subsidies
Great deal. Now it would be a better deal if carriers stop installing crap and bloat that you can't remove or not giving root access to the phone owner which is silly imo, lets see how many are willing to buy a computer without admin rights.
Say you own two phones, one with a good IMEI one with a bad IMEI. Both are from different manufacturers. Would it be possible to swap out the good IMEI from one phone over to the phone with the bad one, despite the phones having been made by different manufacturers?
Maybe? But IMEI changing is illegal so I wouldn't recommend it
Sent from my DROID2 using xda premium
gagdude said:
Maybe? But IMEI changing is illegal so I wouldn't recommend it
Sent from my DROID2 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(Caps for emphasis on a word, not yelling)
Hmmm, Now I am left with questionable practices of a service provider. So let me ask a question, an IMEI should not be nerfed unless a customer reports their phone as having been lost or stolen. However, it seems like some service providers are Lying to the reporting agency that they report the phone IMEI to in order to block a persons phone due to not having been able to continue with a service contract.
There are stark differences here. Namely, a promotion would state get this phone for x dollars if you sign up for a two year contract, you pay the x dollars, the phone is now YOUR property, not theirs to do whatever they want to, to it. So that being said, you find you can't continue the service contract. So what should happen now? Simple, you can no longer receive the service plan you contracted to have , BUT....that does not give a service provider a right to nerf your paid for phones' IMEI, as you did not report the phone lost or stolen. It basically should end up that since you can't pay for a certain type of plan anymore then thats the end of it you won't get that particular type of service included in that plan. HOWEVER....that shouldn't mean that if you can pay for a prepaid service, that you CAN'T use that different type of service on your paid for phone.
So now we arrive at illegal? I think not, being that if a service provider falsely reports your IMEI on the blacklist based on you not being able to continue a plan, it does not make the phone reported stolen or lost by YOU, but rather it makes that IMEI reported as lost or stolen by THEM. So now that would be illegal for the service provider to do because from the moment you pay for that phone it is your property to do as you please with since its your property not theirs. So what other recourse would the owner of a phone have if a service provider is illegally reporting your phone on a blacklist that is used for reporting lost or stolen phone by a customer, when the fact remains that YOU did not report it as such?
read the contract
MenderOne said:
(Caps for emphasis on a word, not yelling)
Hmmm, Now I am left with questionable practices of a service provider. So let me ask a question, an IMEI should not be nerfed unless a customer reports their phone as having been lost or stolen. However, it seems like some service providers are Lying to the reporting agency that they report the phone IMEI to in order to block a persons phone due to not having been able to continue with a service contract.
There are stark differences here. Namely, a promotion would state get this phone for x dollars if you sign up for a two year contract, you pay the x dollars, the phone is now YOUR property, not theirs to do whatever they want to, to it. So that being said, you find you can't continue the service contract. So what should happen now? Simple, you can no longer receive the service plan you contracted to have , BUT....that does not give a service provider a right to nerf your paid for phones' IMEI, as you did not report the phone lost or stolen. It basically should end up that since you can't pay for a certain type of plan anymore then thats the end of it you won't get that particular type of service included in that plan. HOWEVER....that shouldn't mean that if you can pay for a prepaid service, that you CAN'T use that different type of service on your paid for phone.
So now we arrive at illegal? I think not, being that if a service provider falsely reports your IMEI on the blacklist based on you not being able to continue a plan, it does not make the phone reported stolen or lost by YOU, but rather it makes that IMEI reported as lost or stolen by THEM. So now that would be illegal for the service provider to do because from the moment you pay for that phone it is your property to do as you please with since its your property not theirs. So what other recourse would the owner of a phone have if a service provider is illegally reporting your phone on a blacklist that is used for reporting lost or stolen phone by a customer, when the fact remains that YOU did not report it as such?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi there, it usually is the case that the network subsides the device for you in exchange for your commitment to use them -you'll pay up the rest of the cost in monthly instalments -hence the contract period. My GS3 was £29 instead of hundreds of pounds, but I had to sign up for two years. My £29 contribution is far from the real cost of the device and I would not expect to get away from being tied in without paying up for the phone and then some. It might be the case your IMEI was blacklisted so the network can get the outstanding amount from insurance once you decided to try and outsmart them.
Cheers.
Technically, that phone is cheap because you agree that you'll pay them a set fee for two years most of the time. Its pretty low to blacklist the IMEI but legally, you're bound to a contract.
Sent from my JellyBeaned Infuse, unofficial cm10
In terms of technology, yes it's very possible and actually very easy to do on most Samsung devices. BUT, it's is illegal in most jurisdictions.
ooldgregg said:
Hi there, it usually is the case that the network subsides the device for you in exchange for your commitment to use them -you'll pay up the rest of the cost in monthly instalments -hence the contract period. My GS3 was £29 instead of hundreds of pounds, but I had to sign up for two years. My £29 contribution is far from the real cost of the device and I would not expect to get away from being tied in without paying up for the phone and then some. It might be the case your IMEI was blacklisted so the network can get the outstanding amount from insurance once you decided to try and outsmart them.
Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not trying to outsmart them. I have fallen on financial difficulty,and if they reported MY phone as lost or stolen to get insurance money then that would constitute Insurance fraud on their part. The fact remains that I met my obligation on signing up. We all know when a new model is set to come out they have to dump their stock of phones so that is the main reason they offer the phone at reduced prices. You need a phone that will work with their network otherwise the service is null.
I paid on my contract for one year at the rate of $130.00 per month so they more than covered their costs and then some. Many don't understand the legalese involved in contract. So thats where they get their bulk of duped customers. Because people don't educate themselves with respect to contract language. Basically I can get you to believe that since I sold you a phone in exchange for signing a contract for service, that the fact that you already paid for the phone is diminished in that I got you to believe that just because I offered you the phone at a reduced price, IF you sign a contract for SERVICE, that the phone is TIED to that contract. But nothing is further from the truth. You purchased the phone, AND a contract for service, there is a big difference between the two, one being the purchase of a phone, the other being the purchase of a contract for network usage ON that phone. Think about it.
Product F(RED) said:
In terms of technology, yes it's very possible and actually very easy to do on most Samsung devices. BUT, it's is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks F(RED) much appreciated :highfive: Hit me up in email please.
Irrespective, IMEI changing is illegal. End of thread.
Normally when you buy the phone from a carrier, and if you loose your phone, call in and get it blacklisted and people can check the database to see if it blacklisted and all that good stuff...
I bought my N5 from Google Play and can use it on any carrier, so if its lost/stolen, do I call the current carrier and have them blacklist it?
What if someone got a hold of my IMEI and called to get it blacklisted.. how would I go about getting it unblacklisted if I wasnt the one who called it in???
Does google have their own blacklisting database?
I'm pretty sure your carrier will not blacklist the phone till the caller can confirm that they are the owner of the phone (maybe by carrier's records, or by proof of purchase etc).
But since the N5 can be used on other carriers, a carrier blacklist is really not sufficient (if the phone is stolen). I would certainly hope that Google has their own blacklist that will prevent the device from accessing any google services.
I found a story on somewere else of an user whose Google play. N5 got blacklisted by Spring
These are 2 quotes fro the same person:
AIO's website says my Google Nexus 5 is on the lost and stolen list?
Device Reported Lost or Stolen
Our records show that this device is on the national lost and stolen list. Please contact the company that previously provided wireless service for this device for help.
Aio Wireless cannot activate a device that another wireless company added to this list.
This phone was purchased from the Google Play Store. It's been on RingPlus, and StraightTalk (which it's currently on). Is it possible that someone marked it lost or stolen, but it's still working without any problems on ST? It might have been on Net10, I did have the SIM card in it, but I don't think it was active.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just got off the phone with Google support. That took around an hour of my time. The Google rep was quite lost on to why in the world Sprint would EVER blacklist phones that were not lost or stolen and have no contracts with them. I was put on hold a couple of times, and I explained what happened. After talking to him, I was transferred to the shipping dept (which apparently takes care of all returns for any reason).
The rep in the shipping dept was very nice, but he kept wanting to give me a refurbished phone for something I never did anything wrong with to begin with. My battery is charged at 50% all the time and I don't want to get stuck with a used phone or a bad battery. I kept telling the rep that I even have an email from RingPlus explaining the situation and that my phone was activated before they knew of this secret blacklist that included Google Play store purchases. He told me he would talk to his lead, came back, and claims that they will be sending me a new device. I don't know if I'm actually getting a used or new device, but at least when it comes it will hopefully not be blacklisted.
I was hoping to switch over to another carrier to save a few dollars each month. So after a $431 dollar hold was put onto my credit card, I guess I wait 3-5 business days and see what I end up receiving in the mail. I'll have to reorder one of the glass screen protectors for my device.
I guess this was a learning experience. Be very careful what CDMA carriers can do to your devices, because they need to have the numbers for it as they can't just pop in a SIM card and go. I'm not sure I will ever be using a Sprint or Verizon MVNO again, or at least for quite a while, and wouldn't ever do it with any devices less then a few months old.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Original article. http://www.howardforums.com/showthr...Google-Nexus-5-is-on-the-lost-and-stolen-list
Not sure about the US, but in europe some countries/carriers have joint IMEI databases. If one carrier marks the IMEI as stolen the phone won't work on any carrier in that country.
Sent from my Nexus 5
liud said:
Not sure about the US, but in europe some countries/carriers have joint IMEI databases. If one carrier marks the IMEI as stolen the phone won't work on any carrier in that country.
Sent from my Nexus 5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know this.. thats the situation with in Canada, US and so on... that wasnt my question...
Could somebody point me to an actual law that says it is illegal in the USA and and that it could be, for example, up to 20 years imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, if I changed my IMEI from my broken Verizon device to my unbroken Straighttalk device?
This is a debate that a friend of mine have been going through, and well I can't seem to find the correct answer, not even on here. Everybody is saying it is illegal on XDA, but nobody has actually posted a link to an actual law, just this bill that was submitted into congress, which is not really the answer, it's a bill, where is it shown that it has been already passed along with the penalty?
Here is an example of my isue, just recently bought a phone from Irulu, Chinese phone. It has no IMEI number but when I dial #66# says to write IMEI number. Now everybody is saying it is ilegal to change your IMEI number, but how do you get an IMEI munber if you don't have one? Do I call, for example, T-Mobile and they will give me one? SOme companies even want the serial number along with the IMEI number, well my serial number is something like "0123456789ABCDEF", now how does that fly with a company?
Also, everybody is saying it is illegal to change the IMEI number according to this bill, which is a bill introduced by to congress that, unless somebody point me in the right direction, has not been submitted into a actual law yet.
Also the bill says "This Act may be cited as the `Mobile Device Theft Deterrence Act of 2012". Okay, well my phone is not stolen and if you look closely at this part of the "Bill":
`(1) the term `manufacturer' means a person who has lawfully obtained the right to assign a mobile device identification number to a mobile device before the initial sale of the mobile device;
and then here:
`(d) Exception- Subsection (b) shall not apply to the manufacturer of a mobile device or a person who repairs or refurbishes a mobile device unless the manufacturer or person knows that the mobile device or part involved is stolen.'.
Okay now, I have two verizon phones and two AT&T phones, that I own, that are not stolen, all are broken, then I have a a ZTE merit phone that works just fine, but I do not want to go with straight talk because I live hour away from walmart, which is the only place to purchase minutes, unless you have a credit card, which I do not and I am not going to pay an extra $5 a month for a reloadable card just to put minutes on my phone.
So my question is, according to those two lines, I am refurbishing my phone, it is not stolen and I just want to transfer one IMEI number to another phone so that I can keep using the same service without going through the hassle of ordering another sim card or buying another phone when I have two here that work and four that do not.
I have seen a few closed threads with people getting really upset about this being brought up, pointing to this bill and assuming the person is asking because, if you read that bill, they want to do this with a stolen phone.
Well, as long as you realize that changing the IMEI of a cellphone is "Patriot Act" material (and you are fine with it), I doubt you will find any law (anywhere) where it will clearly state IMEI.
Maybe the 18 U.S. Code § 1028 may apply (do remember the FCC is an authority and that an identification registered by that authority), or the 18 U.S. Code § 1029 if intent can be proven, but then again... if any trouble arises firstly you wont be charged with any of that, you'll get the "Patriot Act" treatment from the get-go.
enapah said:
Well, as long as you realize that changing the IMEI of a cellphone is "Patriot Act" material (and you are fine with it), I doubt you will find any law (anywhere) where it will clearly state IMEI.
Maybe the 18 U.S. Code § 1028 may apply (do remember the FCC is an authority and that an identification registered by that authority), or the 18 U.S. Code § 1029 if intent can be proven, but then again... if any trouble arises firstly you wont be charged with any of that, you'll get the "Patriot Act" treatment from the get-go.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is just it, stolen, the term stolen is loosely used in this bill, which as far as I can see, hasn't even been passed.
Schumer Introduces Bill to Make Cell Phone ID Tampering a Crime
By Damon Poeter
May 24, 2013 02:03pm EST
3 Comments
The NY Democrat aims to criminalize tampering with mobile device identification numbers as part of an ongoing effort to crack down on the black market for stolen cell phones.
Like I stated in my question, it is my phone, I paid for the phone, went to Walmart, bought the phone and activated it under my name. Discontinued the service, still have the phone. Bought a cheap AT&T phone, used it for a month, ran out of minutes, never got around to buying more minutes, was just a cheap pay as you go phone for emergency, now the number is gone and AT&T has some annoying thing where you have to buy a new sim card. Now using the AT&T phone to charge the battery from the Verizon phone because the Verizon phone's charger port broke, and the battery works in the Verizon phone but the Verizon battery doesn't work in the AT&T phone.
When the term "stolen" comes up, makes me think it means, somebody stole my cell phone or I stole somebody else's cellphone. Not the case, these are my broken or inactive phones, paid for through a manufacturer, not off the street.
As for the patriot act, well lets just say, if that made sense and the US congress did fully understand it, wouldn't rooting or installing new ROM from one service provider to another service provider's phone be an issue as well?
It just seems pretty lame that people are coming in and saying that you will go to jail, then post a bill that isn't even in law that is so vague, without a reasonable explanation or knowledge about what the bill or law actually is, then just closes the thread.
I'm in the US, not the UK.