True indeed. They US rates are simply exorbitant. I'm on (KPN) subscription, paying € 32.50/m which includes, gee, don't even know what it includes as I never go over it. But take a peek at that site, even though it's in Dutch you will understand MB / SMS / € ...and 500 means 500 lol
When you buy your phone from carrier 'x' for $199 (or free) - the carrier is counting on you to fulfill your end of the contract. Once you have fulfilled your end of the contract - the carrier will (upon request) unlock your phone. I did this with my iPhone 4 and AT&T. The process took about 2 weeks to complete (for reasons I can't begin to fathom) - but, the process did UNLOCK my AT&T iPhone.
All the phone companies are requesting, is that they be allowed to get the payments that they are CONTRACTUALLY entitled to. If you don't want the contract, then don't buy your phone under the reduced price that goes along with a contract.
I'm waiting to read whether this only refers to phones under contract.
It doesn't. It's all phones. The telecoms have zero additional obligation to unlock for you afterward if they already don't.
There are good reasons to jailbreak. It doesn't mean you want to pirate software.
Oh, no, that's not what I meant.
Originally Posted by lightknight
The question is "if you buy an off-the-shelf-model-from-apple", can you get a subscription with those 450$ off, or do you get ripped off?
You've never been able to get that in the past, so why would they do it now?
…it's designed to protect an immoral market lockdown.
Now you're learning something about the state of cell phones for the past… ten years or so! It's terrible.
Originally Posted by walletinspector
Why is it that consumers now rarely own anything they purchase?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The unlocking pertains to the telecoms more than it does to the software being unlocked.
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.
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???
The unlocking pertains to the telecoms more than it does to the software being unlocked.
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."
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???
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.
[Apple] claimed their reputation would be hurt by jailbroken phones that are "more prone to bugs" (not like Apple has none of their own).
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.
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).
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'.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
True indeed. They US rates are simply exorbitant. I'm on (KPN) subscription, paying € 32.50/m which includes, gee, don't even know what it includes as I never go over it. But take a peek at that site, even though it's in Dutch you will understand MB / SMS / € ...and 500 means 500 lol
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).
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
Why is it that consumers now rarely own anything they purchase?
Originally Posted by hmm
I'm waiting to read whether this only refers to phones under contract.
It doesn't. It's all phones. The telecoms have zero additional obligation to unlock for you afterward if they already don't.
There are good reasons to jailbreak. It doesn't mean you want to pirate software.
Oh, no, that's not what I meant.
Originally Posted by lightknight
The question is "if you buy an off-the-shelf-model-from-apple", can you get a subscription with those 450$ off, or do you get ripped off?
You've never been able to get that in the past, so why would they do it now?
…it's designed to protect an immoral market lockdown.
Now you're learning something about the state of cell phones for the past… ten years or so! It's terrible.
Originally Posted by walletinspector
Why is it that consumers now rarely own anything they purchase?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000
when are the fucktard writers of this site going to realise it's a global website?
how about '
Unlocking cellphones in the US without carrier permission will be illegal come Saturday'
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Unlocked for GSM, and sans LTE bands.
Maybe LTE won't work in the US and Canada. Verizon iPhone 5 LTE is compatible with most LTE networks around the world.
Originally Posted by NasserAE
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.
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???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The unlocking pertains to the telecoms more than it does to the software being unlocked.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
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???
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.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The articles reads "the unauthorized unlocking of certain cellphones will be considered illegal" that's not all phones.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
[Apple] claimed their reputation would be hurt by jailbroken phones that are "more prone to bugs" (not like Apple has none of their own).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
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).
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.