Well, that certainly is a reasonable price! With the keyword being unlimited it is actually cheaper than my subscription.

I don't actually know what they offer here; people just move to the next telco, getting a new phone and porting their number over.

Over here they are required by law to do that (free) after one year, upon customers' request.

http://www.ben.nl/abonnementen

That's what I now have since I'm still using my iPhone 4 (Ben doesn't yet run the iPhone 5-compatible sims).

What a load of crap, sure feels good to be a European right now. I thought america was the land of the free?!

When you buy your phone from carrier 'x' for $199 (or free) - the carrier is counting on you to fulfill your end of the contract. Once you have fulfilled your end of the contract - the carrier will (upon request) unlock your phone. I did this with my iPhone 4 and AT&T. The process took about 2 weeks to complete (for reasons I can't begin to fathom) - but, the process did UNLOCK my AT&T iPhone.

All the phone companies are requesting, is that they be allowed to get the payments that they are CONTRACTUALLY entitled to. If you don't want the contract, then don't buy your phone under the reduced price that goes along with a contract.

Wow, that is cheap! Strange that prepaid carriers don't support the nano SIM


AI ran that story
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/06/att_will_allow_out_of_contract_customers_to_unlock_their_iphone.html

Sounds more illegal that this ruling got passed.

Why is it that consumers now rarely own anything they purchase?

 

It doesn't. It's all phones. The telecoms have zero additional obligation to unlock for you afterward if they already don't.

 

Oh, no, that's not what I meant.

 

You've never been able to get that in the past, so why would they do it now?

 

Now you're learning something about the state of cell phones for the past… ten years or so! It's terrible.

 

Because some people in this country think communism actually works. Either they weren't alive for or have idiotically chosen to ignore the events prior to 22 years ago.

These subsidies are the grounds on which the carriers argue this legislation is justified. Since they subsidize the phones they actually own them, is the argument. The ETF is charged to prevent one from taking the phone to another carrier, suggesting that the individual owns the phone, not the carrier. However, if the law is based on the carrier essentially owning the device, then an ETF is not necessary. Further, the ETF was supposed to cover the cost of the subsidy. Paying this ETF would in essence allow the user to fully "own" their equipment. If the law asserts the carriers' rights above those of the owners by preventing unlocking of the equipment, it would be unethical to charge this fee, as the end user does not have true ownership rights.

This discussion is way off track.

 

Understand that there's a difference between "unlocking" and "jailbreaking".  Unlocking generally means SIM unlocking, which makes it so that the phone can work on any carrier which uses the same communication spectrum and protocol.  Jailbreaking means unlocking the phone's operating system so that you can access all parts of the filesystem, install your own apps, and generally mess around with parts of the installation which you can't on a standard install.  Two very different things.

 

What's illegal here is "SIM unlocking".  One big problem with SIM unlocking is that it's part of the bigger problem of phone cloning.  Something which phone thieves use to make a stolen phone look identical to one which hasn't been stolen.  This makes it so that the phone can't be blacklisted/banned and can be used for other nefarious purposes without being easily traceable.

 

So the idea here is to give law enforcement officers a tool to clamp down on phone theft by organized crime.  Because, if you have a law which you can use to put pressure on SIM unlocking companies, it will allow you to go after the people using the SIM unlocking companies to aid in the resale of stolen phones.

 

Honestly, I doubt anyone is going to go after someone who personally SIM unlocks their phone (using online tools and whatnot).  Similar to how it's very rare for someone who pirates movies/software/TV shows for personal use to be prosecuted.  The idea is to go after the large scale (profitable) side of it, which is typically a division of organized crime.

Edited by auxio - 1/25/13 at 7:48am

But you clearly were not misled. So either the headline is really not that misleading. But you are one really sharp dude. Hmmm, which is it?

Wait! If it is a copyright issue shouldn't the permission be from the phone manufacturer not the carrier?! You know since the manufacturer is the one who own the software.

 

Maybe LTE won't work in the US and Canada. Verizon iPhone 5 LTE is compatible with most LTE networks around the world.

 

The unlocking pertains to the telecoms more than it does to the software being unlocked.

Excellent point! There are two separate CPU's in the iPhone. Each with their own firmware. The one no one ever talks about is the baseband software. I guess the (c) applies to the baseband software???

It is all about the phone software being a copyright material. This is why the Copyright Office requested the review and why it is related to the DMCA. Even the text of the ruling says so:

 

"The Register concluded after a review of the statutory factors that an exemption to the prohibition on circumvention of mobile phone computer programs to permit users to unlock “legacy” phones is both warranted and unlikely to harm the market for such programs. At the same time, in light of carriers’ current unlocking policies and the ready availability of new unlocked phones in the marketplace, the record did not support an exemption for newly purchased phones. Looking to precedents in copyright law, the Register recommended that the class designated by the Librarian include a 90-day transitional period to allow unlocking by those who may acquire phones shortly after the new exemption goes into effect."

The articles reads "the unauthorized unlocking of certain cellphones will be considered illegal" that's not all phones.

The whole thing just doesn't make sense. Is the rule against unlocking or is it against modifying the software to achieve unlocking?! Does unlocking the phone by inputing a code considered modifying the phone software?! I doubt that the few digits used to unlock a phone install any software. In my opinion, this rule does not apply to all unlocking methods.

 

Yes, and those 'certain' ones are all phones sold after the date.

 

Any phone bought prior to that date can be legally unlocked by YOU, the owner.

What a rubbish post.

 

And Apple is exactly right about that. If the company had even tacitly agreed with it (which is how silence on the issue would have been interpreted), next thing you know, there'll be a bunch of low-lifes clogging up Apple helplines/Genius Bar lines/US court system lines whining and moaning about why/how it is incumbent upon Apple and its resources to fix their bugs.

 

Also, to compare Apple's software bugs to those arising from jailbreaking is exaggerated nonsense, and you know it.

Perhaps there were some issues with your account? I have unlocked two post-contract iPhones with ATT, and in both instances, it took less than a few hours after my request, before ATT said 'yes'.

How is it that having a phone guarantees a payment to a carrier?? If your phone fell in the toilet and broke, you'd still be obligated to complete your two year contract, because the CUSTOMER is under contractual obligation, not the phone.

So to a carrier it doesn't matter financially if the phone is at the bottom of a lake, on Tmobile, or on Jupiter. The user has to complete their two year obligation or pay the early term. fee.

It really is foolish to think US carriers have even a shred of decent business practices. They've proved the opposite way too many times.

 

If you fill out the online form at AT&T website it will take up to 2 weeks. If you call it take will less than 24 hours.

 

Some (many? I have no data, purely anecdotes) with jailbroken don't know they've got hacked phones, or don't really understand or appreciate any of the risks or know how to deal with them.

 

Some are done by friends being 'helpful' ("You'll be able to install apps for free" or "Hey, let me set that up for you like mine."), and others by the local 'phone-shop' in order for them to be unlocked to use them on another network (especially second-hand/hand-me-downs). [There's a further category I'm aware of, of iPhone users on non-official networks. Turns out there's a few settings that you just can't override, or set easily, if you're not on a network that officially sells the phone: some are 'trivial' things like what number the Voicemail dials, and of course we all know about enabling tethering. They advice such users get from others, who probably don't understand the risks either, is "Just jailbreak it. It's really easy!"]

 

There was a big problem a few years back in NL (also in Australia?), where there were a lot of jailbroken iPhones (they weren't yet being sold there officially) with SSH access enabled and default root passwords: a worm was able to spread itself around within KPN's mobile network to those phones. Now, even if the owners knew that it was "jail broken" (and knew what that meant) clearly many didn't have enough technical ability to even protect the phone in that state because they were left wide open.

 

But.. I do think carriers should just let phones be carrier-unlocked if you are "in good standing" with your account payments. The mechanism, at least for the iPhone, is really easy when followed officially. The carrier sends the ok to Apple, you just plug it, and iTunes tells you it's unlocked. (Why not just leave them unlocked to start with? Because the carrier has fronted the money for the phone, and wants to make sure they at least get a contract attached to it.)

And you know this how?

IIRC, pre-iPhone, US carriers would usually unlock a GSM phone after your contract was up, or even right away if you were a customer in good standing with them.

 

Then Apple came in.  Their original revenue scheme, used for the first year, was to profit on each phone sale, plus take a cut of the monthly bill (in effect, taking the user's monthly subsidy stipend).   AT&T didn't care... it was the same amount either way to them.

 

The only trouble was, if the phone wasn't on AT&T, then Apple didn't get that monthly contract kickback.

 

At first, Jobs seemed secretly delighted with jailbreakers.  Their interest meant the iPhone was a hit.   He would mention jailbreaking with pride and a little smile.

 

Then Apple's revenue stream started to be affected by a lot of unlocked phones being used on carriers other than AT&T, especially devices resold overseas  By some counts, it was as much as 20% of all iPhones.    You could see the change almost overnight in Jobs' attitude towards jailbreaking.   Suddenly, it was not fun anymore.  Jailbreaking became evil in his eyes, and Apple has fought against it ever since.

 

It also led to Apple dumping the monthly scheme, and going with the usual upfront subsidy model, starting with the 3G.

Edited by KDarling - 1/25/13 at 11:27am

 

Because it says so in just about every article about this change in the law. AI decided to omit that, which is why I asked for confirmation earlier. I just went ahead and found it.

In Mexico things are moving the other way around. Sort of. Carriers are now required to inform buyers if their device is locked. If it is, they must provide a way to unlock it without incurring in additional fees to the customer... IF the customer pays the full price for the device (not subsidized) or if the customer completes the mandatory term for his/her wireless bill plan, therefore rendering the device 'paid for'.

Depends on where you go to get service.  The place I went give you $1000 back (as monthly bill discounts) if you bring your own phone and sign a 2yr contract.

This is just another way to stop hacking your devices which I think is illegal by now.

	Jailbreaking	Unlocking
Smartphones	Legal	Illegal for all future phones
Tablets	Illegal	Has always been illegal

I am confused still to this. I had an old iPhone 3G, friend took it after my 2 year contract, put a new sim in, and the phone worked. Had an iPhone 4 then after 2 years, took out the sim and sold it on eBay, and they used the phone without any "Unlocking" for either...

 

He unlocked it, or you bought it unlocked by buying it from a non-US country.

 

You bought it unlocked by buying it from a non-US country, or they unlocked it.

That's standard AT&T policy. They will unlock a phone after the contract expires at your request. 2 weeks is pretty long (mine took 2 days) and you're right that it shouldn't take that long, but at least they do it (and I think other US carriers will do it on request, too).

The issue is whether they should HAVE to do it. Or whether they should lower the monthly bill after recovering the full subsidy.

That's a red herring raised by the phone companies. You sign a contract saying that you agree to pay $xxx per month when you buy a subsidized phone. That contract would be enforceable whether you unlock the phone or not.

In fact, if you unlock the phone and give it away, it would be even better for the phone company since they could still legally collect your monthly bill, but would no longer incur the expense of supporting your handset. If the new owner also uses the same carrier, then they'd be collecting twice the revenue for that handset.

I doubt that too. I believe only hardware hacking the IMEI is illegal. (up to 15 years of jail time, or something bazurk like that)

That 15 years was probably reserved for the rampant phone cloners way back when.

In France carriers are requested to unlock your phone after six months, free of charge.

Bragging time. I pay 19.99 euro/m (<$27/m) for unlimited calls (incl. international calls over 41 countries), text and data (latter throttled down a bit after 3Gb/m). :P

"We have the best government money can buy."
- Mark Twain

The rich require an abundant supply of the poor.
- Voltaire

these two go hand in hand!

If you terminate your contract early and pay the ETF, the carrier can still require return of the phone. I understood this when I was trying to get an iPhone cheap. Sign up with AT&T and after a couple of months cancel the service and pay the $350 ETF, but they will ask for the phone back. So this is not a way to get an iPhone for $350. Wish it was.

I use an AT&T iPhone that is not unlocked. I have never done business with AT&T. I use a different provider. If people are willing to look there are ways to legally use an iPhone and not spend a ton of money or be locked into contracts for the privilege.

 

Only within the first month.