Its now illegal to "unlock" your cell phone...

[NY4Q]

Yep...

http://news.yahoo.com/now-illegal-unlock-cellphone-005604572--abc-news-tech.html

[w0aew]

Now how am I gonna steal services?

[PA5COR]

It is allowed by law after one year you cn unlock your phone here without any problem.
Seems a bit stupid law you guy's have there...

[N2CHX]

Seems a bit stupid law you guy's have there...

Only one?

[X-Rated]

Now how am I gonna steal services?

I somehow missed that part.

[W4GPL]

Now how am I gonna steal services?Uh.. are you trolling? Unlocking a phone has nothing to do with stealing services.

[N1LAF]

All phones purchased before Jan 26, is still legal to unlock.

[n2ize]

If you purchased the phone you should be allowed to unlock it. As a mass protest everyone should unlock their phones.

[XE1/N5AL]

Just trolling along (to yet another stupid law) -- When it becomes criminal to unlock cellphones, only criminals will be unlocking them. If we can save just one child from suffering through the emotional distress of a dropped cellphone call, then the law is worth it. Just say No! to unlocked cellphones.

[n2ize]

This whole new "law" is based on the decision of an 83 year old fogey Librarian named James Billington who probably doesn't even know what a cell phone is.
If the public had any sense and guts they would boycott these phones for a week. When the greedy carriers notice that phone sales and new contracts are down this law will be rescinded pronto. But of course Americans can't live without their daily dose of consumerism so it will never happen.

http://www.techhive.com/article/2026236/phone-unlocking-ban-could-hit-you-in-the-wallet.html

[AE1PT]

To whatever end, I 'signed' the White House site petition. Frankly, I have no issue with a carrier dictating whether a phone that they have subsidized in unlocked or not until such time as I have paid the costs during the contract period and become the legal owner of the device. If someone wants an unlocked phone for legitimate reasons, they should buy one outright--as there are plenty available and sold by the carriers. If someone wants to unlock a phone to switch carriers before they have reimbursed the original carrier the agreed upon costs, then that is simple theft. I suppose that someone can find some weasely way to justify that.

My objection is that control of a hardware device has been lumped in a copyright protection law intended for media and software. Wrong place, wrong oversight agency. That is what needs to be fixed.

[KG4CGC]

The average American laborer does not need an unlocked phone. We should shut up and allow our corporate masters to tell us what we do and do not need.
I can't believe this is even a discussion.

[AE1PT]

The average American laborer does not need an unlocked phone. We should shut up and allow our corporate masters to tell us what we do and do not need.
I can't believe this is even a discussion.

Tell me this, Charles. Let's say that I am a utility company. I install for you a new $2000 gas furnace for $1000 under the condition that you buy the LP gas to run it from me for a two year period. Then you are free to do whatever you want. You agree to this and sign the contract. A year later you decide to buy your LP gas from Joe's Gas Service. You hook his tanks up, and essentially tell me to go screw myself for the remainder of the $1000 I have spent to subsidize the cost of your furnace when it was installed.

Once we pluck all of the red herrings out and send the straw man back to Oz, what remains of your 'corporate master' argument?

Are you saying it's OK to screw the utility company out of its money as in my analogy, or the cellular carrier as in the case of a cell phone--under the rubric because they are a big corporate concern they have it coming. Maybe the underlying philosophy that some 'freedom' is being abrogated?

Whewsers... :irked:

[N2CHX]

Tell me this, Charles. Let's say that I am a utility company. I install for you a new $2000 gas furnace for $1000 under the condition that you buy the LP gas to run it from me for a two year period. Then you are free to do whatever you want. You agree to this and sign the contract. A year later you decide to buy your LP gas from Joe's Gas Service. You hook his tanks up, and essentially tell me to go screw myself for the remainder of the $1000 I have spent to subsidize the cost of your furnace when it was installed.

Once we pluck all of the red herrings out and send the straw man back to Oz, what remains of your 'corporate master' argument?

Are you saying it's OK to screw the utility company out of its money as in my analogy, or the cellular carrier as in the case of a cell phone--under the rubric because they are a big corporate concern they have it coming. Maybe the underlying philosophy that some 'freedom' is being abrogated?

Whewsers... :irked:

And we need a new law for this... why? If you jailbreak your phone before your contract is up and stop paying on that contract, you're in breach of contract. How this is anything more than a matter of credit reporting and small claims court is beyond me. Stupid. But hey, let's pass some more stupid laws. Laws! Laws for everyone! Yaaaaay!

While we're at it, let's criminalize farting. Seems reasonable.

[AE1PT]

And we need a new law for this... why? If you jailbreak your phone before your contract is up and stop paying on that contract, you're in breach of contract. How this is anything more than a matter of credit reporting and small claims court is beyond me. Stupid. But hey, let's pass some more stupid laws. Laws! Laws for everyone! Yaaaaay!

While we're at it, let's criminalize farting. Seems reasonable.

Absolutely! This is a matter of civil tort, and where the regulatory concern belongs. Contract and credit law. Placing it under the copyright laws was just a mechanism to put it under the radar in an expeditious manner.

BTW, farting in some circumstances and jurisdictions is an infractionable offense. A full time legislative body has too much time on its hands. Which is why they should never be allowed to assemble more than 3 months out of a year--and the remainder of the time listening to and attending constituent needs.

[wa6mhz]

One of the reasons for blocking locking is theft. I had a Verizon Droid X stolen when I was at Wings restaurant. The thief was quickly shut down as I went the next day and had that phone number blocked and the ID of the phone entered into the Verizon system so that if anyone tried to re-energize it, it would show up as stolen. I suppose he could still use it on WIFI since it was a smartphone, but no more phone calls from it. If the phone was unlocked, he could take it to AT&T or some other service and re-enable it. He suddenly had a working $500 phone. So preventing it from being unlocked would have kept the thief from making good on his theft.

I hate these cellphone companies more than anyone, but I hate cellphone thieves even more.

[KG4CGC]

Tell me this, Charles. Let's say that I am a utility company. I install for you a new $2000 gas furnace for $1000 under the condition that you buy the LP gas to run it from me for a two year period. Then you are free to do whatever you want. You agree to this and sign the contract. A year later you decide to buy your LP gas from Joe's Gas Service. You hook his tanks up, and essentially tell me to go screw myself for the remainder of the $1000 I have spent to subsidize the cost of your furnace when it was installed.

Once we pluck all of the red herrings out and send the straw man back to Oz, what remains of your 'corporate master' argument?

Are you saying it's OK to screw the utility company out of its money as in my analogy, or the cellular carrier as in the case of a cell phone--under the rubric because they are a big corporate concern they have it coming. Maybe the underlying philosophy that some 'freedom' is being abrogated?

Whewsers... :irked:

I was throwing down the facetiousness card. While I don't think we need a law for this situation, if I traveled a lot, worldwide, I would probably be able to afford whatever phone or plan I wanted. Keep in mind, I also don't believe that AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are hurting for money. As I recall, Sprint was dumping customers that they deemed, too difficult to deal with.

[kb2vxa]

You overlooked something, if you unlock your phone it will run off to the Island Of Misfit Phones never to be seen nor heard from again. If you try to retrieve it, it will self destruct rather than return to QRCarrier after experiencing that little bit of hell.

[AE1PT]

I was throwing down the facetiousness card. While I don't think we need a law for this situation, if I traveled a lot, worldwide, I would probably be able to afford whatever phone or plan I wanted. Keep in mind, I also don't believe that AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are hurting for money. As I recall, Sprint was dumping customers that they deemed, too difficult to deal with.

Sorry Charles for misreading. Subtlety escapes me, as I spend my days dealing with government programs, bureaucrats, and regulations...

[KG4CGC]

Sorry Charles for misreading. Subtlety escapes me, as I spend my days dealing with government programs, bureaucrats, and regulations...

It's OK. I understand that a business needs to make a profit to continue to survive. You will see a lot of jaded responses in today's culture of anything goes and unfair/unethical leveraging of the playing field.

[KC2UGV]

One of the reasons for blocking locking is theft. I had a Verizon Droid X stolen when I was at Wings restaurant. The thief was quickly shut down as I went the next day and had that phone number blocked and the ID of the phone entered into the Verizon system so that if anyone tried to re-energize it, it would show up as stolen. I suppose he could still use it on WIFI since it was a smartphone, but no more phone calls from it. If the phone was unlocked, he could take it to AT&T or some other service and re-enable it. He suddenly had a working $500 phone. So preventing it from being unlocked would have kept the thief from making good on his theft.

I hate these cellphone companies more than anyone, but I hate cellphone thieves even more.

Locking phones has nothing to do with preventing theft, and everything to do with vendor lock in. The IMEI is what prevents stolen phones from being used.

[KB3LAZ]

Sorry Charles for misreading. Subtlety escapes me, as I spend my days dealing with government programs, bureaucrats, and regulations...

Im sorry. I have had to deal with regulations and bureaucracy on a near daily basis for around 18 months now and that is only the beginning. Where one paperwork nightmare ends another begins. Things have, for the most part, slowed down but they will reach peak again soon for about another year or so. They will settle down for two years and then pick up again. Etc...this will likely continue for about 5 years before it comes to an end.

So, again, I am sorry. I hate bureaucracy. I remember when I hated American bureaucracy. That was until I discovered what it was like in Spain. They American system is a blessing in comparison. Much stricter but has much more rhythm and order.

[X-Rated]

LOINK (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57572738-94/lawmakers-join-effort-to-legalize-cell-phone-unlocking/)


A day after the White House endorsed cell phone unlocking, several lawmakers voiced support today for legislation to legalize the process.

The Obama administration threw its support behind an Internet petition yesterday that asks the Library of Congress to change its stance on the legality of smartphone unlocking. The process became illegal earlier this year when the Library of Congress, which has the responsibility of reviewing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act every three years, opted not to renew the exemption for unlocking phones.

The change, which prevents prevent cell phones from being used on other carrier networks, caused quite a stir in the wireless community, leading to an online petition that garnered some 114,322 signatures before winning the president's support.

In response, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill today called the Wireless Device Independence Act (see below), which would "allow consumers to unlock cell phones for interoperability purposes."

[K7SGJ]

I guess I don't get it. My wife had to "buy" out the balance of the contracts when she shut down the business and didn't need several of the phones and wireless USB cards. I'm sure if she told Verizen to FO, it would have ended up on her credit report at some point in time, or otherwise have had some negative effect on her/us. It was the same way with the two year DEX contract where she got a special monthly rate for two years, with a penalty for early termination. I think just about any company that subsidizes equipment/services in some way with a contract, does have legal remedies available.

Personally, I really don't care one way or the other about the unlocking debate, but I'll tell you this much. I wish the damn things had never been invented. They seem to have caused more trouble than they are worth, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Which reminds me, I miss Barbara Eden in the skimpy clothes. I'd give her a call, but I don't have her cell number.