Here's some bad news for us. Unlocking new phones now banned under DMCA, but carriers are in the clear. I wonder what all this actually means for us.
More government restrictions that just bites.
It applies only to carrier lock circumvention. It has nothing to do with rooting or bootloader unlocks. Those are specifically protected.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
Well that's good to know. I wouldn't want to change carriers. Even though I don't like Verizon much it's still better than the others.
Update: It still sucks that the government wants to stick their nose in. The more control you try to exert the more criminals you have to deal with.
Sent from my SCH - I510 on Tweaked 3.2 + Lazarus + dSlice Tweaks
I don't know the full repercussions of the DCMA exemption expiration, but Verizon seems to be moving towards SIM-unlocked phones anyway.
xdadevnube said:
I don't know the full repercussions of the DCMA exemption expiration, but Verizon seems to be moving towards SIM-unlocked phones anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless that's just Apple's power over Verizon
It basically only affects GSM carriers. CDMA is pretty carrier locked just by the nature of the tech. Both major GSM carriers now have ways you can get the phones unlocked through official means as long as the phone supports it and you are no longer under contract. AT&T is even unlocking the iPhone by default now if you pay full (unsubsidized) price for it, and they are unlocked straight from Apple when you buy it unsubsidized through them. None of that is illegal. The illegal part is circumventing it yourself to get around the sanctioned ways.
You gotta remember, the carriers are selling phones at a loss when you commit to a contract, knowing they're going to make it up over the life of the contract. The lock is another way they enforce that. You are legally contracted to be with them for the life of the contract to get the discount, and doing anything to circumvent that could be considered breach of contract. In my view this is more a case of the DMCA not invalidating contract law.
shrike1978 said:
It basically only affects GSM carriers. CDMA is pretty carrier locked just by the nature of the tech. Both major GSM carriers now have ways you can get the phones unlocked through official means as long as the phone supports it and you are no longer under contract. AT&T is even unlocking the iPhone by default now if you pay full (unsubsidized) price for it, and they are unlocked straight from Apple when you buy it unsubsidized through them. None of that is illegal. The illegal part is circumventing it yourself to get around the sanctioned ways.
You gotta remember, the carriers are selling phones at a loss when you commit to a contract, knowing they're going to make it up over the life of the contract. The lock is another way they enforce that. You are legally contracted to be with them for the life of the contract to get the discount, and doing anything to circumvent that could be considered breach of contract. In my view this is more a case of the DMCA not invalidating contract law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see a problem, as you have to still pay for the service or pay ETF.
The DMCA has actually helped in more ways than it's restricted.
Not too many people unlock their phones by 3rd party means, anyways.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda premium
look Canada is making them unlock their phones
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/01/28/tech-wireless-code-of-conduct-draft-crtc.html
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda premium
Related
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.
Just FYI for anyone who will buy a cell phone or tablet from a wireless company in the US, regardless of brand. Tmonews .com has an article about a new law that takes effect on the 26th making it illegal to unlock your devices and then use them on other networks.
I don't know if the Transformer line have cellular models in the US yet. It may also depend if Asus sells them directly to customers carrier unlocked (like Apple or Google does) and you just pop a simcard or through cell companies. I can see how it would be nice to have 3g/4g signal on a tablet instead of turning on hotspot from the phone.
I hope this gets turned down fast as yet again they are telling us what we can and can't do with a product we buy in this law.
This is a SIM unlock matter with US carrier branded devices.
It was announced last year. So this is not really "news" at this point.
IF you buy a carrier branded device that is SIM locked for a specific carrier network, "legally" you'll only be able to get the SIM unlock code from the carrier. And given how carriers have rules for giving up the unlock code, that favors them.
Anyone who buys an unlocked device has nothing to worry about. Our Infinities are not locked to any carrier and no US carrier has a branded Infinity. So this is not a concern for us.
Personally I'm with a pre-pay carrier and intend to buy unlocked devices going forward anyway.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
AW: Possbile sad time for unlockers with the DMCA law.
And that's why I'm happy to be able to buy unlocked phones and tablets and choose my carrier later.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using xda premium
Haha the US made a law forbidding users to do whatever they want with a device they paid good money for?
Can anyone say dictatorship?
Glad I'm Australian.
stevles said:
Haha the US made a law forbidding users to do whatever they want with a device they paid good money for?
Can anyone say dictatorship?
Glad I'm Australian.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The rational for the most recent decision is this. Someone signs up for a 2 year carrier contract and gets a phone free. (Or they get it at a price much lower than the actual cost of the device.) They then unlock that phone via 3rd party means and then leave the carrier. The EFT fee they may pay ends up being less than the cost of the device they obtained for free. So the carrier ends up losing a customer and losing money overall. The ruling is to thwart that kind of thing, or at least that's the position being taken.
People who pay full price for a device should still be able to get the unlock code and people who obtain a subsidized device should be able to get the unlock code after they've either paid off the device or meet other obligations as determined by their contract. They will need to get that code from the carrier, but they should be granted it. (I must say, I asked T-Mobile USA for unlock codes before I left them and they didn't send them to me in the timeframe they promised. I waited a week and got nothing. I ended up SIM unlocking on my own via a utility on this site.)
Anyone who buys an unlocked (International) device can do as they please and its already SIM unlocked anyway with no carrier ties.
Bottom line, don't buy things with the carrier's brand on them. Things with their brand are subject to their rules.
I've left the full service carriers and I'm not looking back.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
They should just adjust the contracts. In Switzerland you have to pay a lot if you want to buy out of a contract.
Or you quit it but you can't do that before the end of the period written in the contract. This way I can unlock my phone as I want but the carrier still gets his money.
I don't understand why America needs a law for that.
Darnell_Chat_TN said:
The rational for the most recent decision is this. Someone signs up for a 2 year carrier contract and gets a phone free. (Or they get it at a price much lower than the actual cost of the device.) They then unlock that phone via 3rd party means and then leave the carrier. The EFT fee they may pay ends up being less than the cost of the device they obtained for free. So the carrier ends up losing a customer and losing money overall. The ruling is to thwart that kind of thing, or at least that's the position being taken.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here in Quebec (Canada), they passed Bill 60 not far from three years ago, they basically take the rebate they gave you, divided by 36 months (3 year contracts). It repays slowly each month, if you wanna break the contract you pay what's left to pay. Let's say a 600$ phone you got free (so 600$ rebate), you pay 300$ to cancel after a year and a half. Carriers still are the winners in this, but it's not too bad if you got a good plan and you're a bit lucky. Before, we had to pay 20$ per month remaining on contract + variable cancellation fee (depending on the carrier), minimum 100$ and pretty much no maximum (I think it was 600$). Back then, I had to pay over 250$ to break a 1 year remaining contract with Rogers with a crappy Samsung sliding-keyboard phone).
How are early cancellation fees calculated in US? I'd love to see how in hell can someone pay his phone cheaper by going with a plan and cancelling out immediately.
I got a free AT&T GS-4 recently. I paid the $325 termination fee and switched to Walmart in the first month. hence I saved about $300 compared with buying a Google Play phone. AT&T unlocked my phone but obviously not my bootloader.
I am toying with the idea of suing AT&T to FULLY unlock my phone including the bootloader. I am not a professional lawyer, but sometimes suing people is fun and educational. I suppose I like to sue the way other people like to hack phones.
Would any other AT&T GS4 phone owners who have paid termination fees like to join in? I cant represent you or accept money from you since I have no law license, but I can be the lead plaintiff, pay the filing fee, serve the summons on AT&T, and write all the legal papers.
Would anyone be interested in supplying technical data on the MF3 bootloader? Remember in order to carry my burden of proof I would have to prove what we all know about MF3 to a jury that cannot program a VCR. In reality a case like this would never make it to a jury. AT&T would bust my balls with motions and then settle, but it would be so much fun making them remove MF3 from my phone!
randyguthrie said:
sometimes suing people is fun and educational. I suppose I like to sue the way other people like to hack phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Before you even purchased the phone a simple search would of brought up the information that it is unable to be unlocked. Even so after you purchased it you still had a return window if you were not satisfied with the phone. Mod Edit- UN comments removed
And this http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2469411
thread closed
hey id be interested to know if this is true or not and is verizon not doing contracts anymore? so well have to buy the phone at the say 6 or 700 dollar price tag?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s7/how-to/finally-single-hardware-variant-carriers-t3308040
I can't imagine Verizon will ever stop using contracts. That's how they make all of their money, by locking in two-year contracts, and locking in contract extensions. What did change is the subsidizing model for the phones themselves. I didn't think it was possible, but they figured out a way to **** people over a little more. I'm pretty sure the new system is a straight monthly payment plan for the now-unsubsidized phones, in addition to your monthly service charges. You were always paying a lot for the phone over the course of your two-year contract, but now I think you'll end up paying more for it over the longterm.
I'm not very familiar anymore, as I jumped ship to PagePlus. I still use Verizon's network and get their coverage, but I have no contract and don't pay anything to Verizon (directly, anyway), which is how I prefer it.
painiac said:
I can't imagine Verizon will ever stop using contracts. That's how they make all of their money, by locking in two-year contracts, and locking in contract extensions. What did change is the subsidizing model for the phones themselves. I didn't think it was possible, but they figured out a way to **** people over a little more. I'm pretty sure the new system is a straight monthly payment plan for the now-unsubsidized phones, in addition to your monthly service charges. You were always paying a lot for the phone over the course of your two-year contract, but now I think you'll end up paying more for it over the longterm.
I'm not very familiar anymore, as I jumped ship to PagePlus. I still use Verizon's network and get their coverage, but I have no contract and don't pay anything to Verizon (directly, anyway), which is how I prefer it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's page plus? And how are you on verizons network without actually being under them?
Veid71 said:
What's page plus? And how are you on verizons network without actually being under them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PagePlus is a mobile carrier that, in contract, has use to part of their network tower. Which i believe it's a tier portion and you're able to (since late 2014) get 4G network coverage. Before then you were able to get 3G coverage on 4G devices by flashing your device. Look for the thread by Viper32 on flashing devices to work with PagePlus and other carriers. He's well known in the XDA community for his accomplishments.
The thread has been closed but here's the link http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=41195565#post41195565
al50 said:
PagePlus is a mobile carrier that, in contract, has use to part of their network tower. Which i believe it's a tier portion and you're able to (since late 2014) get 4G network coverage. Before then you were able to get 3G coverage on 4G devices by flashing your device. Look for the thread by Viper32 on flashing devices to work with PagePlus and other carriers. He's well known in the XDA community for his accomplishments.
The thread has been closed but here's the link http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=41195565#post41195565
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you get all the advantages of being on Verizon minus the costly amount of each bill? Are the BLs still locked on their network?
Veid71 said:
So you get all the advantages of being on Verizon minus the costly amount of each bill? Are the BLs still locked on their network?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all of the advantages as you get with Verizon with their incentives. Such as HD calling and their other perks. Other than that it's pretty much worth it being that you can pay monthly without a contract. As far as bootloader goes, if it's a Verizon or AT&T device, the bootloader is still locked no matter who you have for a carrier if it's one of their devices. Google PagePlus and read up on them. Last I knew they had unlimited 7GB of data a month for 69.99. After 7GB you're throttled to 2-3G...
al50 pretty much laid it out.
To break up monopolies, the major carriers were required to open up their networks for use by their competitors. PagePlus is one that uses Verizon's network. The advantage is you get Verizon's 4g coverage, with no contract, for less money each month (it cut my bill in half), and you don't have to pay Verizon. Downsides are less tech support (but we have the xda forum!), it's prepaid (but you can set it up to auto-pay monthly), and you need to bring or buy your own Verizon-compatible phone. I think they offer leasing and possibly payment plans to buy a phone from them, but I'm not certain about the latter.
You just walk in with your phone, buy a SIM card for about $5, pick your plan, and pay up front for the month. Mine is set up for autopay, so I don't have to do anything else.
I'm currently on an S9+ through AT&T; I'm considering upgrading to a Pixel 7 Pro for my next phone
I have always relied heavily on hotspot data, and have never paid for a specific hotspot plan. This was the case on my LG G3, and on my S9+ – until a recent firmware update I installed pushed a carrier-check into the device when I'd try to enable it
So, a factor for me in choosing a new phone is whether I will be able to use it for unlimited hotspot data without having to get authorization from my carrier / without it counting against hotspot-data-allotments / etc.
Is this doable on a Pixel 7 Pro?
Does it require rooting the device? Does it require a custom ROM?
Are these things I can do on a phone I get through my carrier – AT&T in the US – or will I need a non-carrier-branded version?
Will doing so break other functionality – like Google Wallet / Google Pay?
Super down for rooting / custom roms / etc., but don't feel a huge need for it other than if it's what I need to do to get my unlimited hotspot data going
(Side-note: I know there are VPN Hotspot apps I could use, but I would prefer it to be able to create a hotspot & work in ways I can connect any wifi-device to without special configuration, like with the regular stock hotspot)
Instead of trying to break the law why not just get a plan that allows unlimited hotspot?
jaseman said:
Instead of trying to break the law why not just get a plan that allows unlimited hotspot?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is definitely not breaking any laws, terms of service though, yes.
ATT phone plans are just not the greatest nowadays... Consider TMB when you switch.
My guess is that any ROM without the google carrier services app pre installed (i.e. LOS, probably.) Will do just fine with stock configuration. Will it count towards hotspot data Idk. Also it depends on if your carrier needs it for activation.
I'm on Google Fi unlimited and have (up to) 4 dedicated data SIM that shares my main plan data (speed cap at 50G) for free
yurishouse said:
ATT phone plans are just not the greatest nowadays... Consider TMB when you switch.
My guess is that any ROM without the google carrier services app pre installed (i.e. LOS, probably.) Will do just fine with stock configuration. Will it count towards hotspot data Idk. Also it depends on if your carrier needs it for activation.
I'm on Google Fi unlimited and have (up to) 4 dedicated data SIM that shares my main plan data (speed cap at 50G) for free
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After doing more research, it seems as though if I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from AT&T, I would not be able to unlock the bootloader until the phone was fully paid off – and thus wouldn't be able to install a custom ROM
Is that correct?
phnord said:
After doing more research, it seems as though if I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from AT&T, I would not be able to unlock the bootloader until the phone was fully paid off – and thus wouldn't be able to install a custom ROM
Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is correct.
phnord said:
After doing more research, it seems as though if I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from AT&T, I would not be able to unlock the bootloader until the phone was fully paid off – and thus wouldn't be able to install a custom ROM
Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you purchased an unlocked global version (from Google Store, Amazon has been known to sell some, some brick and mortar stores had offered in the past [but that was when the phone was newly released so I'm unsure about now], def can find 2nd hand on Swappa), you can still use the device on AT&T's network (and your plan), but you wouldn't have to wait on AT&T to unlock the bootloader.
If you have good enough credit, you could possibly finance the phone on Google Store and pay it off monthly for 2 years (more or less what carriers do [although I just found out recently that Verizon is 3 years...])...
Just some additional information and some thoughts...
simplepinoi177 said:
[although I just found out recently that Verizon is 3 years...]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So is AT&T. T-Mobile is the only one left with 24 months.
Tomadock said:
This is definitely not breaking any laws, terms of service though, yes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Breaking a contract is not breaking the law.
jaseman said:
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol wat
jaseman said:
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the contract holder - the cell service provider - wanted to take you to court because you broke the contract you signed who do you think the judge would side with?
ANY TIME you sign a contract there are LAWS governing how that contract if fulfilled by BOTH parties. You also have LEGAL rights under the contract. It is the LAW!
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
jaseman said:
If the contract holder - the cell service provider - wanted to take you to court because you broke the contract you signed who do you think the judge would side with?
ANY TIME you sign a contract there are LAWS governing how that contract if fulfilled by BOTH parties. You also have LEGAL rights under the contract. It is the LAW!
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sir, this is XDA. XDA was created by people looking to test the limits , unlock (or add) features, give new life to their devices. Whether that person breaks a law or not, its not like you are paying their legal bills
That said, I AM LOOKING TO ACHIEVE THE SAME AS OP!
simplepinoi177 said:
If you purchased an unlocked global version (from Google Store, Amazon has been known to sell some, some brick and mortar stores had offered in the past [but that was when the phone was newly released so I'm unsure about now], def can find 2nd hand on Swappa), you can still use the device on AT&T's network (and your plan), but you wouldn't have to wait on AT&T to unlock the bootloader.
If you have good enough credit, you could possibly finance the phone on Google Store and pay it off monthly for 2 years (more or less what carriers do [although I just found out recently that Verizon is 3 years...])...
Just some additional information and some thoughts...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hear you on that. Main reason I want to go with AT&T is they currently have a trade-in special where my ancient, cracked-screen, S9+ will count as $800 against the price of the phone, which is very, very tempting...
jaseman said:
Hmmmm...you signed your name to a LEGAL agreement/contract. When you break that agreement/contract you are ...wait for it...BREAKING THE LAW! SMH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it could easily be argued that it's theft of service, nobody ever gets prosecuted for it and the carriers hardly ever will even disconnect you for it unless you're moving terabytes of data so it's not that big of a deal.
Also, the carriers can sit and spin for all I care, they're massively ripping us off in the states.
EtherealRemnant said:
While it could easily be argued that it's theft of service, nobody ever gets prosecuted for it and the carriers hardly ever will even disconnect you for it unless you're moving terabytes of data so it's not that big of a deal.
Also, the carriers can sit and spin for all I care, they're massively ripping us off in the states.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that the providers are or may be ripping us off, but that doesn't change the fact the when you sign a contract you are LEGALLY agreeing to abide by the terms of that contract.
I am not saying that the carriers are above contempt, but two wrongs do not make a right.
It is a breach of contract, a civil matter, and they could take you to court to try to recoup their losses. It would be dangerous though as they could be forced to actually admit how little a customer using a hotspot actually costs them. The main thing though, the time wasted pursuing one user would outweigh the benefit of getting their money.
jaseman said:
If the contract holder - the cell service provider - wanted to take you to court because you broke the contract you signed who do you think the judge would side with?
ANY TIME you sign a contract there are LAWS governing how that contract if fulfilled by BOTH parties. You also have LEGAL rights under the contract. It is the LAW!
Why is this so hard for supposedly educated people to understand?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not illegal to breach a contract. You will not be thrown in jail for breaching a contract. The government will not bring a case against you for breaching a contract. A contract just means the other party may be able to successfully take you to court and get a legally-enforceable judgment. But it's not illegal to breach a contract.
I have used a magisk module to activate the native hotspot without carrier protections. But to get the unlimited hotspot, you're going to need a VPN and VPN tether. I don't know any other way around that unless you pull a higher price for unlimited hotspot
NetShare, PDAnet, Easy Tether, VPN Tether, PairVPN... Lots of apps exist for this purpose. Just beware that your provider isn't dumb and knows you're doing it. Might be best to get a second SIM that you only use for data that way you don't risk your number.