Unlocking cellphones without carrier permission will be illegal come Saturday
As per U.S. federal stipulation, the unauthorized unlocking of certain cellphones will be considered illegal, and enforcement is set to start with new phones purchases made from Saturday onward.
The new rule is a result of the Librarian of Congress' decision to dissolve an exemption to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which previously allowed mobile phones to be unlocked by users. While the determination came in October of 2012, Tech News Daily pointed out that the librarian provided a 90-day buffer in which wireless customers could purchase and unlock their phones. That period ends on Saturday.
Cellular providers "lock" the phones they sell to their proprietary network bands to stop people from using a competing carrier's service. The practice is meant in part to ensure subscription revenues from customers who purchased subsidized hardware, like the iPhone. By unlocking a phone, owners can use their handsets on other compatible networks, a plus for frequent travelers and those wanting to switch carriers.
Users can readily purchase unlocked handsets like the iPhone 5 directly from Apple, while AT&T offers an unlocking service for out of contract phones. It was also reported in September that the Verizon version of Apple's latest iPhone comes unlocked out of the box.
The new rule is a result of the Librarian of Congress' decision to dissolve an exemption to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which previously allowed mobile phones to be unlocked by users. While the determination came in October of 2012, Tech News Daily pointed out that the librarian provided a 90-day buffer in which wireless customers could purchase and unlock their phones. That period ends on Saturday.
Cellular providers "lock" the phones they sell to their proprietary network bands to stop people from using a competing carrier's service. The practice is meant in part to ensure subscription revenues from customers who purchased subsidized hardware, like the iPhone. By unlocking a phone, owners can use their handsets on other compatible networks, a plus for frequent travelers and those wanting to switch carriers.
Users can readily purchase unlocked handsets like the iPhone 5 directly from Apple, while AT&T offers an unlocking service for out of contract phones. It was also reported in September that the Verizon version of Apple's latest iPhone comes unlocked out of the box.
Comments
My device, my rules.
Is there operationally any difference between a user unlocked device and a carrier unlocked one? Aside from needing to redo it each software update, that is. If not, it doesn't matter, as the telecoms won't be able to tell.
To make it clear again, it's just phones sold after that date, correct? All phones purchased prior to it are still legally user-unlockable, right?
The difference is $450.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The difference is $450.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
…operationally…
Good to know, though.
If you brought your phone from the carriers, they'll have your IMEI, and if the telcoms colluded to do so, they could theoretically blacklist any IMEI that was sold on another carrier.
Doubtful anything like that will happen, but still makes me wish the European system was more prevalent here.
Telecoms throwing money at the lawmakers to get what they want.
Only in the U.S.A.... the "land of the free" ... NOT...
What a load of rubbish. Other jurisdictions *require* carriers to allow unlocking... Truly, the US is captured by corporate interests...
Originally Posted by majjo
If you brought your phone from the carriers, they'll have your IMEI, and if the telcoms colluded to do so, they could theoretically blacklist any IMEI that was sold on another carrier.
Oh, they couldn't do that. What of the legally unlocked phones? There'd be no way of tracking.
Everything's a bit goofy.
For example, under the new rules, you can jailbreak a phone, but not a tablet. If that's not a good argument for tablet-sized phones, I don't know what is - grin. Heck, maybe Samsung saw this coming.
Of course, everyone remembers (or should) that three years ago, Apple argued against allowing jailbreaking. They claimed their reputation would be hurt by jailbroken phones that are "more prone to bugs" (not like Apple has none of their own).
Originally Posted by KDarling
They claimed their reputation would be hurt by jailbroken phones that are "more prone to bugs"…
They are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They are.
Obvious next question: have jailbroken phones hurt their reputation? Or do people understand that it's not stock software.
(I'd think that jailbroken iPhones have HELPED their product's reputation, since it's often a way that their users can claim to have at least the availability of equal functionality to some of their competition.)
Originally Posted by KDarling
(I'd think that jailbroken iPhones have HELPED their product's reputation, since it's often a way that their users can claim to have at least the availability of equal functionality to some of their competition.)
HA, subtle. Sad, but subtle.
I can't imagine many people actually care. Kind of like they care about ripping DVD's. Sure a few might, but the majority will go about their unlocking business as usual. Unless they get tracked...
The Verizon iPhone 5 comes unlocked. Just sayin'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Of course, everyone remembers (or should) that three years ago, Apple argued against allowing jailbreaking. They claimed their reputation would be hurt by jailbroken phones that are "more prone to bugs" (not like Apple has none of their own).
3rd party jailbreaks require an exploitable security vulnerability, the availability of which hurts their reputation more than anything. IMO.
Originally Posted by John.B
The Verizon iPhone 5 comes unlocked. Just sayin'...
Unlocked for GSM, and sans LTE bands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
HA, subtle. Sad, but subtle.
It wasn't a dig, if that's what you think. Heck, a dig would've been really easy to do, yes?
I was trying to be as polite as possible in pointing out that jailbroken phones offer a way of saying, "Hey, this phone can do it all, too."
Make better sense?
subtle dig at iOS, but there might be a grain of truth to it.
Generally it is the tech enthusiast that would go to the trouble of jailbreaking their phones; and these same people are the ones that make recommendations on what devices to buy to their immediate family / circle of friends. If the enthusiast is happy with their the hackability of their devices, they are more likely to recommend said device to their friends.
On the android side, there's a feeling that a factor in Samsung's rise to fame (as well as HTC's fall from grace) is that the former embraced the rooting/rom community while the latter took steps to lock down their devices.
Agreed. I also agree with the post below yours. I've never understood how locked phones actually benefit carriers. If I unlock my ATT iphone and use it on T-mobile for example, I'm still in my ATT contract unless i pay the ETF. Either way ATT gets their money.
Perhaps they claim that because customers are paying subsidy, that until the phone is fully paid for it is not fully theirs, therefore they are not free to do with it what they want. Well that's what a contract is for. It guarantees the full amount for the plan and hardware.
The only fair options then, are 1. treat devices sold under contract as 'fully owned' by the customer and give them their rights to do with the device WHATEVER they want. or 2. have no contract with the option to return the phone at any time with a prorated refund.
Carriers would never go for #2 because phones can get damaged, etc. This 'unlocking is illegal thing' is totally stacked in favor of the carriers. They don't have to be responsible for the devices they sell, while they limit our freedom with the devices we buy.
Originally Posted by KDarling
I was trying to be as polite as possible in pointing out that jailbroken phones offer a way of saying, "Hey, this phone can do it all, too."
I just love your definition of "it all", is all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I just love your definition of "it all", is all.
Oh, good grief.
Change it to "the same things" or whatever doesn't offend you.
Cheers!