Unlocked Phone? Jail Time!

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-28-13, 05:51 PM

Off-topic, but is the US the only one to use 2 different radio technologies? I thought I looked at a list one time that had most of the countries either one or the other, so curious if others do it as well (and one is just dominate) or if others just stick to one, instead of having two competing ones?

(Also, why can't there be some international decision or something to just have everyone on one of them instead of "well x works in these countries but is a useless P.O.S in these)

**Kanati** · 01-28-13, 05:59 PM

If we are talking about going and getting a 2 year contract and a subsidized phone... And you immediately turn around and break the contract, unlock the phone, and take it to another carrier... then yeah that should probably be illegal. But that can be EASILY mitigated by changing the terms of the contract. The phone doesn't belong to YOU... it's a lease, and breaking the contract, you have to return the phone or pay full retail price for it.

Trouble is, either way, if someone wants to do that they probably don't intend to pay the exit fees of the contract in the first place. They plan to stiff the provider and walk away from it. Some people don't give a SHIT about their credit rating believe it or not and this is a valid plan to them.

BUT... If I go and I buy a phone at full price (Verizon is planning on ditching subsidized phones in the near future I hear), I own that phone. Let me repeat that. I OWN that phone. That's my property. I'll do with it what I want, up to, and including taking it to another carrier if I so choose. That's my philosophy on anything I *BUY*. My property is mine to do with as I please and there isn't anyone going to tell me otherwise. So in the case of someone buying a phone at full price... Hell no. That's their phone.

Same goes for after the contract is up. That phone now belongs to THEM. They should be able to do whatever they want with it.

**Xavsnipe** · 01-28-13, 06:02 PM

If you buy your phone factory unlocked (full price) then you can take that phone to any carrier you want. Nobody, not even the manufacturers or the carriers are arguing that, I think.

**CivilWars** · 01-28-13, 06:07 PM

T-Mobile is planning to go away from subsidized phones as soon as this year. They will offer the option to pay out the price over the phone if you don't want to pay $500 today, but your plan price and your installment fees will be separate. Yes, they will be on the same bill, but different line items, and you can cancel service any time, but you would have to pay the remaining balance on the phone price.

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-28-13, 06:09 PM

Are they going to lower their charges then?

Thats a joke, I know they won't, they'll charge full for the phone then fuck you with their fees on top of it.

**Morningfrost** · 01-28-13, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

If you buy your phone factory unlocked (full price) then you can take that phone to any carrier you want. Nobody, not even the manufacturers or the carriers are arguing that, I think.

Right, but you can also buy locked phones from carriers at full price, since the discounts are typically given to those who also sign up for the contracts. Don't sign up for the long-term contract that has the special price, then pay full price.

Kanati's point is that if you pay full price for a phone, locked or unlocked, then you should legally be allowed to do whatever the fuck you want with it. And if you pay the discounted amount, but stick through the entire length of the contract, then that phone is now yours and you should also be able to do whatever the fuck you want with it. His point is that the only time it should be illegal is when you do it and break the terms of the contract, because you're breaking the "lease" of the phone and aren't going to pay the fees involved in legally breaking the contract (termination fees, full value of the phone, etc.).

~Morningfrost

**CivilWars** · 01-28-13, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Are they going to lower their charges then?

Thats a joke, I know they won't, they'll charge full for the phone then fuck you with their fees on top of it.

That is the theory, but I have not seen any of the new pricing yet.

**Warflagon** · 01-28-13, 07:09 PM

Read the article, and in addition to not citing any real sources I would consider valid (I like live science web site, but do not consider it a valid source of undisputed investigation.), the title stating "The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013" goes on to say that it is not a law of 2013, but rather a law from the 90's with an expiring clause.

So, the title is untrue (according to it's own "reporting") and the sources are questionable.

I have to truly wonder if we really believe anything someone somewhere says, or do we just like to be outraged about anything?

I know we'll argue about anything, but shouldn't that something be based on something real and or accurate?

Edit - also of note, illegal does not automatically mean jail time. I don't see any indication of legal repercussions regarding this claim. Also of a more comical note, the footnotes listed at the bottom of the page do not link to the supposed sources.

**Alundil** · 01-28-13, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Warflagon

Read the article, and in addition to not citing any real sources I would consider valid (I like live science web site, but do not consider it a valid source of undisputed investigation.), the title stating "The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013" goes on to say that it is not a law of 2013, but rather a law from the 90's with an expiring clause.

So, the title is untrue (according to it's own "reporting") and the sources are questionable.

I have to truly wonder if we really believe anything someone somewhere says, or do we just like to be outraged about anything?

I know we'll argue about anything, but shouldn't that something be based on something real and or accurate?

Edit - also of note, illegal does not automatically mean jail time. I don't see any indication of legal repercussions regarding this claim. Also of a more comical note, the footnotes listed at the bottom of the page do not link to the supposed sources.

Just pointing out that simply because the article HERE might be poor, AND have a poor title...doesn't mean that people (I for one) may have read about this in far more places that "Live Science" and have a better understanding of what it is and isn't. Simply because this is one of the places where this discussion is taking place doesn't make this the sole place and that article is certainly not the authority on the matter.

But I know that you know this......

Just saying

As for Xav and the question of why this a bad decision....it's an expiration of an exemption the DMCA. I think that the DMCA is pretty nearly complete shit written by people who haven't a fucks clue about technology. As such, I think that this should never have been in the first place based on that alone. However, the EFF also has a pretty good stance on this as well and hopefully it'll go to court and someone (potentially) who's not being lobbied can decide whether this makes sense or not.

Advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) questions whether the DMCA has the right to determine who can unlock a phone. In an email to TechNewsDaily, EFF attorney Mitch Stoltz said, "Arguably, locking phone users into one carrier is not at all what the DMCA was meant to do. It's up to the courts to decide."

I don't think that this is what the DMCA was about at all in the first place.

New Rules Let You Jailbreak Phones, but Not Tablets | TechNewsDaily.com
I am of the opinion that we, the consumer, should be able to unlock our devices without threat of financial penalty (aside, perhaps, from voiding of warranties etc etc). I am equally of a mind that the whole "Software is simply licensed - and not purchased" is very bogus imo and I would love to see that overturned.

But perhaps the largest complaint I have with these thrice annual reviews is the completely arbitrary (to my mind) and nonsensical rulings.

Rooting Cell - A-OK
Unlocking Cell/Tablet - Nope
Rooting Game Device/Console/eReader - Nope
Unless that particular device/console/reader is categorized differently then it's A-OK again.....dafuq?
Ripping DVD for disability accessibility - A-OK (cool with that)
Ripping DVD for playback on a device w/out a DVD - Nope (seriously wtf)
Who is this protecting? The consumer? Or the Studios who also own a sizable portion on the DVD/BR hardware market? Are the concerned that viewing an owned but ripped copy of MegaShark vs Giant Squid on a device without a DVD player (e.g. tablet/ipad/nexus7/10/ultrabook laptop etc etc etc) might degrade that...ahem.....performance?

It's arbitrary, bogus, bullshit and anti-comsumer (and horridly inconsistent to boot)

**Warflagon** · 01-28-13, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

But I know that you know this......

Not at all.
I know nothing of this subject and I have learned nothing from the article posted.
If you say you have read it elsewhere, I will have to take your word for it. You, also, have not provided any credible source or evidence for, such claims as represented by the article. The source you do link cites itself for half it's sources and other websites, including amazon.com for the others.

My argument is with the title of this thread (sure to bring outrage) and the article cited (pure garbage) upon which this entire thread seems to be concerned with.
I double checked and I only find this article cited (and now, yours as well.) for the usual gadfly's to gather round.

I don't have a dog in the hunt, I really don't care, just trying to point out the silly contrivances that some folks will argue over.