President Obama signs bill making it once again legal to unlock cell phones

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    christophb wrote: »
    What tripe since it passed the US House - hell, I think it was even started in the US House. He signed an "Bill" that began as an Act! Did School House Rock miss you as a child or are you trying to start trouble? The last 3 iPhones I bought were unlocked. My carrier has a website that you can online submit a request and the phone is unlocked. Pretty damned hard, right?
    Im going by my own experience. Clearly even republicans in congress felt the need to pass this completely unnecessary bill because you were able to get your phone unlocked.
  • Reply 22 of 45
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    adonissmu wrote: »
    Im going by my own experience. Clearly even republicans in congress felt the need to pass this completely unnecessary bill because you were able to get your phone unlocked.

    If something doesn't need doing, rest assured a politician will do it.
  • Reply 23 of 45
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    If something doesn't need doing, rest assured a politician will do it.
    I had to beg ATT to unlock my phone even though I bought my phone outright. I dont really buy into those blanket platitudes about politicians and parties. You could say the same things about anyone doing things they dont need to. Some here dont get my humor. Apple shouldve made the phones unlocked by default. Dont even give carriers the option to lock it since they are no longer exclusive to ATT. Why should ATT be able to tell you how many times you can unlock your phones in a year?
  • Reply 24 of 45
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    popinfresh wrote: »

    You realize this law does nothing to remedy your complaint? We also didn't need legislation for the carriers to address your complaint, All of the major carriers will unlock your phone once you have fulfilled the contract. This law is as close to pointless as a law can get and primarily undoes part of the DMCA that removes your personal liability for using something like SIMfree (which for legitimate purposes is a moot point as the carriers will unlock your out of contract phone already).

     
    Also, currently this law does nothing about the lip service quoted from the White House.
    "This commonsense legislation ensured that consumers could transfer their phones between carriers, and that second-hand phones could be put to good use by new owners connecting to a network of their choice,"

    There is nothing the law stipulates or requires that will magically change the different technology and frequencies the carriers use on their networks that will ensure consumers can transfer their phones between carriers. Apple is one of the very few device makers that goes to the trouble of designing their phones to support as many bands as possible, but they still have 8 different versions of the iPhone5s to handle the various networks around the world (See the table below from everymac.com) The models in the US (A1533 GSM, A1533 CDMA, and A1453 CDMA) have some slight differences in cellular networks. For example you can not take an AT&T (or the unlocked T-Mobile) iPhone5s and use it on Verizon or Sprint other than for LTE which is a GSM standard. In another 5 - 10 years all of the networks will be mostly LTE or later GSM and we may finally see Apple (and other device makers) drop legacy support for CDMA.

    source:
    http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/iphone/iphone-faq/differences-between-iphone-5s-models.html



    Sadly most people in America are too lazy, too apathetic, or too caught up in what is #trending to have a clue about how our government is to function according to the Constitution.


    I'm not familiar with Canadian contract law, however I would speculate that if you purchase a subsidized phone under contract the phone is not your property until the contract is fulfilled. I do agree with you about the out of contract devices and that they charge you to unlock them.

    Regards,
    -PopinFRESH
    You do realize that the different bands allow companies to differentiate the technology they are using to service their customers. Based on your suggestion if a carrier wants to make improvements in their tech they cant because what you proposed is every company to be on one band by law. Please stay out of the business of making laws because your proposal is worse than what is already been done.
  • Reply 25 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

     

     

    I didn't mention anything about the carriers being required to use one band, by law or otherwise. I simply pointed out that the law that was passed does nothing to make devices of different network technology portable to other carriers.

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 26 of 45
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    popinfresh wrote: »

    Have you read it? because I have, I have a copy of it in my back pocket most of the time. Glad to see you dispute anything I said rather than try to imply the tea party is the kkk. Nothing in my post mentioned anything about the tea party.

    PopinFRESH
    Ive read the constitution and I don't need to keep it in my back pocket to remember whats in it most of the time. ;) I dispute what you said about the constitution. I said people complaining about others not knowing it are usually projecting when they should in fact be reading.
  • Reply 27 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post





    Ive read the constitution and I don't need to keep it in my back pocket to remember whats in it most of the time. image I dispute what you said about the constitution. I said people complaining about others not knowing it are usually projecting when they should in fact be reading.



    What exactly did you dispute about what I said about the Constitution?

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 28 of 45
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,482member
    adonissmu wrote: »
    You do realize that the different bands allow companies to differentiate the technology they are using to service their customers.

    Please elaborate because I had thought the bands were sold at auction by governments to prevent overlap between carriers (regulate), generate revenue to said government for the cost of regulation and so carriers can transition older tech to less desirable bands as new tech comes in.
    adonissmu wrote: »
    I had to beg ATT to unlock my phone even though I bought my phone outright. I dont really buy into those blanket platitudes about politicians and parties. You could say the same things about anyone doing things they dont need to. Some here dont get my humor. Apple shouldve made the phones unlocked by default. Dont even give carriers the option to lock it since they are no longer exclusive to ATT. Why should ATT be able to tell you how many times you can unlock your phones in a year?

    By "beg" you meant click this website and be done with the contract you entered into freely?

    https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/
  • Reply 29 of 45
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

     

    Locking exists solely to remove competition, but locking is not the only block to competition.

  • Reply 30 of 45
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Let there be no doubt that this president and this Congress are as corrupt as any criminals. The evidence: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3100115/
  • Reply 31 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Well, I dispute its relevance to the conversation at all. Nowhere does it stipulate even the foundation of what is being discussed here.

     

    Locking exists solely to remove competition, but locking is not the only block to competition.




    Tallest Skil, I agree the Constitution doesn't stipulate anything about the law being discussed here. I never mentioned it did, I simply stated my opinion that most Americans sadly don't have a clue as to how our government is to be run according to it. I was replying to ChristophB's mention of School House Rock's attempt to explain how congress creates legislation.



    As for locking, I wouldn't say it solely exists to remove competition. I would attribute a portion of their motivation to retaining some control over their product. One wouldn't purchase a car using a loan and expect the bank to not place a lean on the title. This isn't to say that the carriers didn't also view this as a barrier to exit, nor is it the only barrier (as I've already mentioned the incompatible proprietary networks). I do believe (as stated previously) that over the next 5 - 10 years, we will see all of the major carriers operating compatible GSM networks which will enable device makers like Apple to create a single device that operates on each of their bands. This law does nothing to address the differing technologies (nor do I think it should) that inhibit device portability to move from carrier to carrier.

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 32 of 45
    ziadjkziadjk Posts: 55member
    ANY charge for an out-of-contract phone is indefensible.

    Wait, wait, they made me pay $75 because I was still within my 36month contract. It would have been free had I asked them to unlock it after the 36months were up.
  • Reply 33 of 45
    ziadjkziadjk Posts: 55member
    Locking exists solely to remove competition, but locking is not the only block to competition.

    You mean the signed contract itself being the other block to competition? Yes, I totally agree.

    X-year contract AND a lock on the phone seems quite redundant.
  • Reply 34 of 45
    So sad. Phones have been unlocked in Europe for years and years. Welcome to the 21 century.
  • Reply 35 of 45
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ziadjk View Post



    Wait, wait, they made me pay $75 because I was still within my 36month contract. It would have been free had I asked them to unlock it after the 36months were up.

     

    Nope. Ask them. I just called my carrier to confirm, and they charge for unlocking regardless of circumstance. I'll bet my left nut that every Canadian carrier has the same policy.

  • Reply 36 of 45
    ziadjkziadjk Posts: 55member
    Nope. Ask them. I just called my carrier to confirm, and they charge for unlocking regardless of circumstance. I'll bet my left nut that every Canadian carrier has the same policy.

    Really?! So they're thieves and blatant liars.. What a way to find out..
  • Reply 37 of 45
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ziadjk View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post



    Nope. Ask them. I just called my carrier to confirm, and they charge for unlocking regardless of circumstance. I'll bet my left nut that every Canadian carrier has the same policy.




    Really?! So they're thieves and blatant liars.. What a way to find out..

     

    Just checked around a little. Out of contract unlock from Fido is $50. Bell, $50. Telus, $35.

  • Reply 38 of 45
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ziadjk View Post



    Bell Canada allowed me to unlock my phone for $75, no questions asked. They said anyone could do it as long as 12months have passed after signing the contract (out of 36months in my case). 

     

    The carrier that locked it has always been able to unlock it, if they choose to. 

     

    What this has really done is to decriminalize if a third party does it. Like your current carrier or an outside company that has gotten access to the system somehow. Just like how they decriminalized jailbreaking. 

     

    But the real issue still isn't solved. And that is that there is no law etc requiring carriers to unlock, or better yet, no locking at all. In many countries phones haven't been locked in ages. 

  • Reply 39 of 45
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

     

    As for locking, I wouldn't say it solely exists to remove competition. 




    Locking is less about competition and more about making sure they get back their money. These companies are paying in as much as $500 on devices costs to get you to sign that two year contract. the idea is that X amount of your monthly bill is paying off the device. If you don't fulfill your two years then you haven't paid it off and the carrier is out money if you just walk. There was a time when enforcing that was a lot harder so locking you to one carrier was a way to make sure you were screwed until you paid up. 

     

    Which is all well and good, if they are required to unlock it once the device is paid off. AND they should also be required to stop charging you for that device pay back if you don't leave. These are the laws we really need. Not some law that decriminalizes unlocking a device on your own (although it does nothing for the warranty voiding aspects or that the service you use might be doing so via unauthorized access to a computer system etc)

  • Reply 40 of 45
    geojohngeojohn Posts: 11member
    Halleluja. America, land of the Free. Stalwart of free enterprise- for whom?
    It is illegal to lock a phone to a carrier in New Zealand, and has been for years.
    iPhones can only be sold unlocked, and Apple has been happy to do so.
Sign In or Register to comment.