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.
PLEASE DON"T BASH ME FOR MY CAPITALIST THOUGHTS, HELPFUL CRITICISM WELCOME
Hello Everyone. I've been doing research for the past couple of days and I've noticed that on ebay, a brand new unlocked iPhone 4 is selling for upwards of $1,000 while a brand new Captivate can be had for about $300-400.
I am still within the 30 day return period for my phone. I am thinking about returning my phone, getting the iPhone 4, unlocking it and selling it on ebay, then buying my dearly beloved Captivate for non-contract price on ebay or somewhere else.
By doing this I could make a profit of minimum $200 and max about $500. Are there any laws forbidding this? If not, then it's definitely in a legal grey area. Has anyone out there ever done this before? Thanks for the help
Update 1: Ok, purchased my second Captivate on Ebay for $380
Update 2: Traded in my first Captivate for an iPhone 4. They had to activate the iPhone in store, thus rendering my original SIM unusable and leaving me with a microSIM. I was bummed out. I thought I had to go to an AT&T store for them to transfer me back to a regular SIM. It turns out that microSIMs work in the Captivate! All you have to do is position it right Took me 3 tries to get it to work.
Phase 3: Sell iPhone 4 on ebay for a profit
What laws would prevent you from selling your property? You get the phone subsidized because you pay the 2 year contract. If you are still in your window feel free to do that, if you think it is your best option and you will actually make that amount of money on the phone.
You're not breaking any laws at all, you're maneuvering within your rights. Knock yourself out.
Thank you for the positive feedback, I feel this plan is coming to fruition
Er, I'm not sure why consulting Jesus is necessary. There is nothing morally incorrect about this.
As for legality: In some cases, eBay will prevent you from doing this (they did so with the Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3, I believe), but it is usually due to the companies contacting them and asking them to do so. In other words, it is usually something voluntarily enforced by certain companies for whatever reasons. In most cases, however, they will not do this, and I don't believe they're doing so for the iPhone 4.
I understand there are also some out there who find the concept of buying something then selling it higher elsewhere due to shortages is morally objectionable, but frankly, I haven't heard a good argument for why it is yet.
To get to the point, if you so desire to get an iPhone 4 and sell it on eBay for profit, it is entirely up to you.
good luck being able to unlock the iphone.
the jailbreak is broken on 4.02 and you need to jailbreak to unlock
all phones are shiping at least with 4.02 and soon 4.1
Yea, unlocking it is your main issue.
The only reason the phones that exist sell so high is because they're unlocked... An ATT user won't buy a locked phone for $1000 when they can buy it for $200 from ATT...
WWJD?
Seems o.k. to me...thanks for asking.
Jack
I live by WWZ(Zilch)D. So far I've gotten 2 STD's, bricked my captivate 37 times and it's caught fire (twice). This isn't working out so good for me.
I don't see any reason why this would be morally objectionable or against any laws.
Morally speaking, cell phones are not a necessity, they are luxury, so it is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it; its not like you are overcharging for medicine, food, or shelter.
Legally speaking, you purchased the phone and I am pretty sure it does not say anywhere in the contract that you must keep the phone until your contract is up; or else they wouldn't offer early upgrades since that would endorse contract violations.
And as far as WWJD, he would probably give the phone away for free and buy a new one, and I don't think you want to do that...
Lets get this straight, I'm pretty sure Jesus would use his magic to turn a huge profit and blow it on drugs and hookers. Isn't that what revelations was about? It's been a while since sunday school.
I did this back when I had an iPhone 3g. I sold it when My contract ended to get a backflip for $100 on a new 2 year, then turned around and sold it for $300+, so I had around $550 to play around with, and at&t didn't care.
Also, installed clockworkmod and quickboot on a captivate at at&t today, but didn't have time to root it
I'd say go ahead with it. I mean, $1000 for an okay phone is stupid, but if people are buying it, then it makes them stupid (or ignorant, as they apparently aren't aware of the Galaxy S series). In fact, this sounds like a good idea...I might want to do it!
IMO, the iPhone 4 should sell for around $500 unlocked on eBay...
So you do have a backup phone right?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Hydrocharged said:
I'd say go ahead with it. I mean, $1000 for an okay phone is stupid, but if people are buying it, then it makes them stupid (or ignorant, as they apparently aren't aware of the Galaxy S series). In fact, this sounds like a good idea...I might want to do it!
IMO, the iPhone 4 should sell for around $500 unlocked on eBay...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah my projected value of $1000 may seem a bit high, they average around $600-$800 for unlocked 16GB brand new iPhone 4
sevenvt said:
So you do have a backup phone right?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah I foresaw this as a problem as well, I figured I would just purchase a captivate at non-contract price now, and wipe and exchange the original Cappy for the iPhone 4 so I won't go through any withdrawal symptoms while the iphone is selling on ebay. Yeah I'll have to front some money but I should double my investment. Plus, I got $250 for selling my 1 yr old unlocked iphone 3G so I already have some spending money. Man people will pay lots of money for iCrap
Ryukeima said:
Legally speaking, you purchased the phone and I am pretty sure it does not say anywhere in the contract that you must keep the phone until your contract is up; or else they wouldn't offer early upgrades since that would endorse contract violations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, fairly certain the terms of service for buying a SUBSIDIZED phone (which, if you buy as an upgrade is subsidized) requires you to activate and use it on your line. they claim if you don't use it on one of your lines, they will charge you the difference or equivalent early termination fee.
now for how they enforce that or how often is probably extremely low. for instance, my sister used my mother's upgrade option to buy an iPhone 4 and the AT&T corporate store even did the process for us in the store. clearly they don't genuinely care, but I believe it's within their right to charge you for breaking the terms of the contract.
And then if the iphone doesnt sell and ask those people on ebay are just waiting for rubes? I would be careful of using ebay as a measuring stick for the actual selling prices on the iphone, considering its off contract price.. Edit: nevermind there is none, all contract. I wish you luck with your iphone... Personally if I was going to buy a 1000 dollar phone I just get an ipad, hope no one is that smart
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
If I were to buy a $1000 phone, it'd be a Samsung Galaxy S with a bug-free Froyo and without any trace of Touchwiz
I'd definitely do that. I actually did it once with the iPhone 3GS, made a really nice profit. I usually find ways to get my phones for decent prices and save my contract for an iPhone to do what you're thinking of doing.
Hydrocharged said:
If I were to buy a $1000 phone, it'd be a Samsung Galaxy S with a bug-free Froyo and without any trace of Touchwiz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No no a galaxy tab
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
As I'm a new member I can't post this in the developer forum.
This may be old news or no news but I thought it was interesting since the source is somewhat unusual.
I had contact with Verizon support three days ago. They followed up with an email request for a satisfaction survey.
I completed the survey and for the question "would you recommend Verizon to a friend" on a 1 to 10 scale I responded "3".
It then asked me to explain why. Too much effort so I left the text box empty.
Next day I get a phone call. "You scored us a three and didn't say why. Can I ask why?"
She sounded young and I wasn't expecting a phone/telemarketer/survey to be all that technical but when I said that my first reason was that the recent FCC settlement to allow free hotspots on capable phones for new plans only and those of us that upgraded to the SIII during the Unlimited Data grace period are SOL. She knew what I was talking about and said the reason is that in exchange for being grandfathered I was still bound by the terms of my original agreement i.e. the $30/mo tethering fee.
A second issue was the lack of switches in the setup to disable the 4G radios for battery management. She said that was done because they want to migrate their base to LTE as soon as possible and too many users opting for 3G would slow their plans. She even volunteered that in the settings under Access Point Names switching between EHRPD and LTE did not turn off the 4G radios.
Sorry to take a long time to get to the point but her responses included technical elements that changed my mind about her level of knowledge.
She then asked if there where other concerns and I said that T-mobile, Sprint, AT&T all sold the SIII with the Boot loader unlocked. She immediately responded "So you can experiment with other kernels and modify the OS and such", I said "exactly".
Then she said "Unfortunately I can't change the terms on hotspotting but I have good news about the Boot Loader. An update will be released shortly that will unlock your phone."
I probed her a bit and she convinced me she knew what she was talking about although she did not know if the update would come stand alone or be bundled with jelly bean or the date. She hinted that it might not be a universal OTA update but one that interested owners could download if they desired.
That's all I got. Just hope she is correct.
She was probably referring to it being unlocked to use on international networks. This is basically the same story many other users have gotten, and sadly it probably will not be happening. Even the unlocked bootloader version that samsung is going to sell has yet to be obtainable and that was announced weeks ago.
Well considering she mentioned about kernels an what not, I'd say there is a good possibility she knew what he meant by bootloader. We can only hope!
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
Let me check my spam folder for that survey
VERIZON GALAXY S 3
Neverendingxsin said:
She was probably referring to it being unlocked to use on international networks. This is basically the same story many other users have gotten, and sadly it probably will not be happening. Even the unlocked bootloader version that samsung is going to sell has yet to be obtainable and that was announced weeks ago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If she knew about different kernels and modifiying the OS I'm pretty sure she knows the difference between unlocked for international networks and bootloader unlock.
personally I would not believe a rep. People have been told this before, and verzion came out to say there are no plans to do such things. Hope is good, but until I hear a press release from VZW directly about it, dont get to excited. Im used to letdowns like this from the Bionic, Razr, and before with the GS3. (also, wheres that dev razr that was promised 1 year ago? we will probably never see the dev GS3, or it will be a year out)
ddggttff3 said:
personally I would not believe a rep. People have been told this before, and verzion came out to say there are no plans to do such things. Hope is good, but until I hear a press release from VZW directly about it, dont get to excited. Im used to letdowns like this from the Bionic, Razr, and before with the GS3. (also, wheres that dev razr that was promised 1 year ago? we will probably never see the dev GS3, or it will be a year out)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, I only posted this because it was a different kind of source. At first I assumed she was just some person in a call center asking stock questions but after the call I'm leaning toward someone in middle management was making the call. In a past career I worked for a company called Forum Corporation that conducted management training courses including one on Customer Focus that taught managers to do personal outreach to customers. This call had all the earmarks of that type of program. The conversation was not following a script, it was wide ranging with a back and forth give and take. This wasn't someone checking boxes on a survey form. She wanted to personally understand what the issues where.
But bottom line you are right that this is just one more rumor until something concrete happens. I hope I wasn't trying to sound like I know the definitive answer.
Ill believe it when I see it. These companies lie or sometimes people dont know what they are taking about. Even if she knows about kernels and such, she still could be lying. Remember when verizon said samsung made the bootloader locked, and samsung said verizon had it locked? One is obviously flat out lying and its obviously verizon since other carriers are unlocked. Big companies lie to their customers all the time to save face or protect the knowledge of their pure desire for profit. So I'll believe verizon will unlock the bootloader only a short time after releasing the phone locked when I see it. The only thing I can legitimately see is verizon offering it with a way that directly lets verizon know so your warrenty is voided in their system and no return to stock methods changing that.
I think thats what they should do if they are worried about people borking their phones from modding and cashing in their warrenty because of it. You contact verizon and say I want bootloader, unlocked. They make you agree to void your warranty in order to provide this, and now they have it on file you requested this. Then they provide you with unlock with your warrenty removed from account.
sfetaz said:
Ill believe it when I see it. These companies lie or sometimes people dont know what they are taking about. Even if she knows about kernels and such, she still could be lying. Remember when verizon said samsung made the bootloader locked, and samsung said verizon had it locked? One is obviously flat out lying and its obviously verizon since other carriers are unlocked. Big companies lie to their customers all the time to save face or protect the knowledge of their pure desire for profit. So I'll believe verizon will unlock the bootloader only a short time after releasing the phone locked when I see it. The only thing I can legitimately see is verizon offering it with a way that directly lets verizon know so your warrenty is voided in their system and no return to stock methods changing that.
I think thats what they should do if they are worried about people borking their phones from modding and cashing in their warrenty because of it. You contact verizon and say I want bootloader, unlocked. They make you agree to void your warranty in order to provide this, and now they have it on file you requested this. Then they provide you with unlock with your warrenty removed from account.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why should removing the encryption on the bootloader void the warranty? For some, removing the encryption will mean they can take their device to a different network (uscc) and have the new provider flash their software on the device. Should that void it's warranty? **** no!
Removing the encrytion and unlocking the bootloader should only alleviate VZW from offering you tech support. One doesn't void the warranty of your laptop when you swap from Windows 7 to Linux, does it? Offering you warranty in exchange for an unlocked bootloader is a terrible deal to the end user. I've never understood it.
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
This just popped up in my news feed. androidcommunity.com/psa-unlocking-your-phone-is-illegal-starting-today-20130126/ WTF?!? What gives them the right to say what I can, or can not do with my own property? They get money for the purchase, regardless of which carrier I wish to use. I know this won't affect much, but just the notion alone grinds my gears. Please weigh in your opinion, I'd like to see what others think/feel about this.
This is not a surprise. Itbis not locking down the OS just the SIM lock and nice you pay off the contract you will be able to unlock it. Or if you pay full retail price for it. Either way they have the right until you pay for it in full. Most Americans think they own the device when they get a new contract but this is not true. They don't own it till the contract is up.
Sent from Batcom-SIII
zelendel said:
This is not a surprise. Itbis not locking down the OS just the SIM lock and nice you pay off the contract you will be able to unlock it. Or if you pay full retail price for it. Either way they have the right until you pay for it in full. Most Americans think they own the device when they get a new contract but this is not true. They don't own it till the contract is up.
Sent from Batcom-SIII
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This I do understand, but whenever I upgrade through T-Mobile, I never actually use the phone I upgrade to. IE: I upgraded to a HTC Marvel I never took out of the box and currently use a SGS2 T989 which I rooted and unlocked. I only unlocked it for resale value. Anyone who thinks they 'bought' a phone for $1 with a two year service agreement is a fool, yet just the prospect of criminal charges for someone who bought an unlocked phone from Ebay worth $400+ for only $150 aggravates me to no end...
Just another reason I should consider going contract free. Unless you are grandfathered into some unlimited plan, you can get Straight Talk (GSM on At&t/T-Mobile) with unlimited text calls and ~2GB data for $45 a month. I am currently with Verizon but am growing tired of how carriers think they own your device and lock it down. Hopefully the Nexus 4 will set a trend of making more phones available without a contract at an affordable price.