21 ms·

Unlocking Cellphones Becomes Illegal Saturday in the U.S.

• Diamons 14y ago
  DMCA, as in the Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act? I can't believe what the fuck I'm reading here. I paid for the phone. I own it. I can do whatever I bloody please with it. I'm furious right now.
  • rayiner 14y ago
    I agree it's total abuse of the DMCA, and a stupid idea. But note, from TFA: "You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go. Apple sells an unlocked iPhone 5 starting at $649, and Google sells its Nexus 4 unlocked for $300." You didn't buy the phone outright. You agreed to a massively subsidized price in exchange for a quid pro quo. At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back. But I think that's exactly what they should have to do, not have the government use the DMCA to enforce their contractual provisions for them.
    • jmj42 14y ago
      > At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back. That's exactly what they do, except that a lawsuit isn't necessary. It's already part of the contract. Specifically, AT&T charges $350 - ($10 * <number of months used>). And, I agree, that's actually quite fair. http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/early-term-fees.jsp http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/early-t... Edit: Added link to AT&T termination fees
      • cbr 14y ago
        $350 - ($10 * <number of months used>) Weird; that would make more sense for a three year contract.
        • brodney 14y ago
          Seems like it's weighted to be more beneficial earlier in the contract, and later on makes more sense as the user to see the contract through to the end.
    • freehunter 14y ago
      If you're unlocking your subsidized phone and moving to another carrier, you either have to keep paying your original contract or pay the early termination fee, both of which balance out the subsidy. If you're off-contract or have already completed your contract term, you've already bought the phone outright. As far as I am aware, there is literally no point of time where you can unlock your phone and leave your carrier high and dry.
      • rayiner 14y ago
        I don't know what AT&T's reasoning is for not unlocking under-contract phones. They must make money off it somehow. Maybe they want to limit resale so people buy new phones, or limit hand-me-downs for use on other carriers. Who knows? See: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/theres-lots-of-money-in-those-old-iphones/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/theres-lots-of-mone... The point is, that reasoning is built into the terms. You don't get to decide, after the fact, when you feel like AT&T has gotten the benefit of their bargain.
    • mikeash 14y ago
      The quid pro quo was to sign a service contract. No part of that transaction made the phone any less mine, or gave them any rights to my hardware.
  • streptomycin 14y ago
    Had you not heard of the DMCA? It puts all kinds of restrictions on what you can do with things you "own". For instance, playing a DVD in an unauthorized DVD player.
  • mikecane 14y ago
    >>>I paid for the phone. I own it. I can do whatever I bloody please with it. I keep trying to make that point to people who defend lock-in to specific app stores and so far it hasn't worked. It's your device. Not someone else's damned colony.
    • venomsnake 14y ago
      It is a lost fight. The moment you hear competent developers and tech savvy people telling you that the locked bootloaders and the ability of apple or microsoft to be total moral arbiters is "fine and good for the users", some of them people that have benefited greatly from the openness of the PC and WWW ... its is sad.
      • mikecane 14y ago
        Yes. I understand their need to make a living, but it's the same shortsightedness that leads to the entire mess we're in with everything.
    • cubicle67 14y ago
      I have no problem with lockin to specific app stores, consoles that only run approved games etc. A company can sell what they like; it's their product ... but ... once purchased the owner should be free to do what they like with it. Jailbreak, hack, whatever. It's their physical device to do with what they like. Sure, this may not suit some business models (like consoles sold at a loss) but too bad. Those companies are free to make hacking/jailbreaking said device as dificult as they like, but if someone can bypass that then good. I don't believe the goventment should be involved at all, on either side
  • tvladeck 14y ago
    > I paid for the phone. I own it. I can do whatever I bloody please with it. But you didn't pay for it. You paid for part of it. The phone provider paid for the other part of it. In exchange for the use of something you didn't completely pay for, you agree to certain conditions.
    • darkarmani 14y ago
      No, you completely paid for it. You get a discount on the phone when you agree to contractual obligations. You own the phone no matter what, irrelevant to the performance of your contractual obligations.
    • b0o 14y ago
      You're partially correct in that you would still be "paying" for the phone through your contract, but once you get the phone, you own it, but because most contracts state that if you were to cancel your contract before its completion, you would have to pay a cancellation fee, most of which would be the "subsidy" portion for your phone. This is to prevent people from getting iphone 5s for free and then running off with them and selling them on craigslist or china for $1000 (which you'd probably still make money even if you paid the $600 or $700 cancellation fee)
• programminggeek 14y ago
  It's ironic that unlocked phones benefit carriers arguably as much as locked phones do. An unlocked phone makes it easier to switch carriers, thus cheaper for carriers to acquire customers, but maybe they'd all rather have it be expensive to acquire customers so that it's harder for smaller providers to compete. Either way, I don't think that the DMCA was designed to ensure a telecom oligopoly.
  • rdtsc 14y ago
    > An unlocked phone makes it easier to switch carriers But this also means losing customers, and losing that predictable 2 year revenue. They know their own services and prices and customer service is utter crap (at least here in US), I don't think any of them are delusional, so they don't want people to leave on a whim, because (gasp!) they might have to actually start competing (lowering prices, better customer services etc.).
    • thisone 14y ago
      Carriers have an escape clause fee in their contracts. If you cancel your contract, you get hit with the fee. I don't think phones should be locked to any carrier. Instead change the contract rules. If you cancel after the cooling off period and in the first 30 days you pay (blah), and every month there after it's (blah) - (something)*number of Months. Only if the phone was subsidized by the contract, of course. I say this as someone who needs to be able to change out sims when I travel.
      • girvo 14y ago
        That's exactly how it works in Australia, and I believe that is fair.
  • amurmann 14y ago
    I don't think it's ironic at all. Big corporations spend more on lobbying and only want a free marked where it helps them. Big corporations are the biggest threat to a functioning and free market.
  • 14y ago
• felipeko 14y ago
  This is sad. In Brazil, my home country, is illegal for a carrier to not unlock your phone if you ask.
  • enqk 14y ago
    Same in France for instance
    • thisone 14y ago
      The EU has been good for mobile phone pricing. £12.50 a month for unlimited data (and enough minutes and texts), oh yeah.
  • rayiner 14y ago
    In Brazil, it's illegal for carriers to subsidize their phones. It's the carrier subsidy that gives rise to network locking here in the U.S. If you buy the phone at retail price, the carrier will unlock it if you ask.
    • felipeko 14y ago
      Not true. We also have contract subsidized phones, and you can still unlock and use your phone however you want, you still have the contract to fulfill, or you can pay the ETF and be done with it.
      • rayiner 14y ago
        Is this inaccurate? http://www.androidauthority.com/brazil-carriers-stop-selling-subsidised-smartphones-99432/ http://www.androidauthority.com/brazil-carriers-stop-selling...
• wwwtyro 14y ago
  What is the name of the person ultimately responsible for this decision?
  • kunai 14y ago
    There is no single party responsible. There are many. The entire government is to blame. We are talking about people, bureaucrats, who haven't the slightest idea of how a hard disk works or how their computer connects to the internet, and they think that they know everything about computers and can single-handedly swipe technological rights out of the American people. See Carmen Ortiz above. It's the entire government. The sooner people understand this, things like these won't happen.
    • afterburner 14y ago
      Without corporations wanting this to happen in the first place, this specific example of corruption doesn't happen. Let's not forget the party to whom this benefits the most.
      • kunai 14y ago
        How's about instead of calling out a specific party, we all try and fight the onslaught of corporate influence and the government bending over and answering to the companies' every whim? Seriously, calling out political parties does NOTHING unlessy you're prepared to fight against those parties. See my other comment about "misguidedness and delusion" for more details.
        • afterburner 14y ago
          Well, I mean corporations in general, so I certainly endorse reigning in their influence in general, not just a specific company.
      • redwood 14y ago
        Good point. You highlight the inherent danger of corporations: the mob has never been good at applying justice. Individuals, with accountability and transparency have always been better than the mob which is concerned only with profits.
• kunai 14y ago
  I don't give a rat's arse if it becomes illegal, I'm going to do it anyway. Even so, the government has no right to declare what users can or cannot do with their mobile phones. Another "victimless crime" on the books. How has the war on drugs been working out for you, Congress? So much money and so many resources wasted on a crime that has no direct victims. Seriously, someone needs to keep these loonies that run our country in check, because our masses are so stupid that they keep electing the idiots back into office. Ridiculous.
  • timeshifter 14y ago
    >How has the war on drugs been working out for you, Congress? So much money and so many resources wasted on a crime that has no direct victims. You say that as though the goal is to "win" the war on drugs. It's not. The goal is to get rich by supporting the war on drugs, without doing anything to actually "fight" it. I mean, why would you voluntarily get rid of a huge, risk-free profit center?
  • n3rdy 14y ago
    > Seriously, someone needs to keep these loonies that run our country in check, because our masses are so stupid that they keep electing the idiots back into office. Ridiculous. The electing isn't the problem, the voting is. If nobody voted, these politicians couldn't justify their actions with "we're just representing the people!"
    • Zarathust 14y ago
      USA is already rock bottom in voting turnout. See how well it works. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/soc_glance-2011-en/08/04/g8_co4-01.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/soc_glance-2011-29-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991290&accessItemIds=/content/book/soc_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/soc_glance-2011-en/08/04/...
    • kunai 14y ago
      It's impossible to say, even THINK that people would stop voting as a form of silent protest. With all the propagandist lies being shoved down our throats -- "Rock the vote!" "Your vote counts!" "If you don't vote, you will be doing your country a disservice! Blahbedyblahbedyblah" And all this propaganda is more bipartisan lies. The root cause of this entire problem is that people think they can only decide between the lesser of two evils because of naivety or misguidedness and delusion. The bipartisan system is corrupt. Third parties, particularly the Libertarian and Green parties, embody the true meaning of Americanism and are perhaps the only way to get this hellhole of a country back on track. The only way to do that is to raise awareness of the lies and evil in our current administration and other administrations of the past, and to increase awareness of a third, even fourth choice. It is difficult, however, with the entertainment industry shamelessly supporting big government and limited rights. The RIAA, anyone?
• bluetidepro 14y ago
  Maybe this is just my ignorance on Unlocking vs Jailbreaking, but will you still be able to Jailbreak your iPhone (legally) to get access to things like Cydia?
  • kunai 14y ago
    It's in the article: >(Note that unlocking is different from "jailbreaking," which opens the phone up for running additional software and remains legal for smartphones.) So, yup, that's still okay... For now.
• tokenadult 14y ago
  As phones become[1] no longer subsidized by network operators in the United States, this will become a non-issue. [1] EDIT: I changed the former word "are" to "become" for clarity. What I mean, as some readers picked up and some did not, is that I expect United States mobile phone networks to get out of the business of selling mobile handsets at a heavily subsidized price (as is current practice in the United States), and thus get out of the business of needing to lock in contracts to gain revenue to cover the up-front cost of the subsidy. When handsets are sold at near full list price, the networks can charge just their network costs to customers who are free to shop with unlocked phones. The United States market is confusing in having different technical standards for basic voice phone service on different networks, but the networks are converging on similar technical standards for their data networks, so eventually most smart phone users will be able to shop for networks here.
  • endianswap 14y ago
    Is there some sort of legal nuance I'm missing here? Phones are surely still subsidized by Verizon, AT&T, etc.. Are you saying that those entities aren't network operators?
  • w1ntermute 14y ago
    Why do you think this is going to change any time soon? AFAICT, it's not going to.
    • dmbass 14y ago
      T-Mobile is already dropping subsidized phones. See http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-tmobileusa-iphone-idUSBRE8B604A20121207 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-tmobileusa-ipho...
      • halviti 14y ago
        That's interesting because I see AT&T doing the opposite. i.e. if you want a Nokia Lumia 920, they'll sell you one without a contract, but it's still locked. I called them and told them I'd like to use it when traveling, and they told me that since I had been a customer with them for so long they'd help me out. They later came back and told me they wouldn't be able to unlock the phone for me until the middle of May.
• dmix 14y ago
  "Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
  • vvpan 14y ago
    Heh, I thought it was Emma Goldman. Interesting how similar opposites are sometimes.
• Claudus 14y ago
  I'm an even tempered person, but seeing a law like this passed really makes me angry. Dear government, how about passing a law that benefits me for a change? It's been a while.
  • clarkmoody 14y ago
    Even worse is that the "Librarian of Congress [...] decided that unlocking mobile phones would no longer be allowed" seemingly without an input from the people. The regulatory agencies, dubbed the "fourth branch of government," are able to pass regulations with criminal penalties without passing a law through Congress. This increase in arbitrary government authority threatens the very nature of a Republic.
    • nickpinkston 14y ago
      Yes, regulatory agencies making laws is a hard call. The agencies are at least more specialist than Congress and don't have nearly the quid pro quo problems that election funding entails. However, I'm sure a lot of them come from industry, which biases them to the establishment. The nice thing is that they can easily be changed through public outcry unlike stupid laws passed through Congress.
    • showerst 14y ago
      This isn't exactly accurate; "... are able to pass regulations with criminal penalties without passing a law through Congress." The DMCA was passed by congress and provides the criminal penalties. It's up to the agencies to work out the exact details of what falls under those penalties, within congress' wording. The larger problem is congress passing extremely broad laws. Congress can't possibly legislate out every detail of every law (imagine holding hearings to decide on what species of tree in some national forest can be logged or on the details of the airport airspace restrictions around Des Moines Iowa), so they leave it to agencies. This isn't anything new. That's not to say that there are no oversight issues though...
    • jivatmanx 14y ago
      The regulatory agencies are largely controlled by the executive branch, and the increase in their power in part of a larger, seemingly irreversible towards the president being a sort of elected king. There are many reasons for this, but the growing staleness and corruption of congress is a major one. That, in turn, is caused by a historical low in congressional turnover (with a multitude of causes, including Gerrymandering, Power determined by seniority, etc) Term limits, preferably on consecutive terms rather than absolute ones, would help. And it's considerably more likely to happen than, say, switching our voting system to proportional representation. Congress is supposed to be the people's chamber, in fact, the most important and powerful branch of government. Without a strong one, the Republic, in the form it was intended, will fail.
• pg 14y ago
  Does it strike anyone as odd the the Librarian of Congress is deciding critical technology policy? How did that happen? Is this just a random anomaly, or a sign of some sort of sneakiness?
  • showerst 14y ago
    It's because of the way the DMCA is written; there's a vast scope for actions that are by default illegal and need 'exceptions'. The LOC defining those exceptions instead of some agency setting administrative rules (which is normal procedure for things like this that are too specific and move too fast for congress) is just an artifact of the US gov't not having a clear agency to deal with tech issues like this.
  • randomwalker 14y ago
    I found out the answer to this just yesterday in a different context. Here's how it was explained to me: When those who opposed the impending passage of the DMCA realized they couldn't defeat it, they (mainly EFF at that point) decided to salvage what they could, which is to stick in a clause to allow the Librarian to decide exemptions. The *AA didn't try to shut that clause down because they thought it was basically a joke and would never amount to anything. But in reality the Librarian has indeed exercised some power, so it's considered a minor win for consumer advocates.
    • Finster 14y ago
      Until you realize that the LoC is basically deciding these things by executive fiat. Seriously, what has changed in the last few years that suddenly makes phone unlocking a threat to digital security when before it was just fine? Nothing has changed except who's getting the money.
      • saurik 14y ago
        You are not looking at it in the same way the LoC is; instead, the question they pose is "has the situation changed sufficiently to no longer warrant maintaining an explicit exemption of a law--one that was instated by Congress and which we thereby must upheld and abide--for what we agreed six years ago was a dire and necessary reason?", and they felt the answer was "yes, while when we first put this exemption in place six years ago it was nearly impossible to purchase unlocked phones, it is now the case that numerous handset lines either come unlocked by default or have an option to purchase them unlocked, carriers have better policies with regards to unlocking them, and generally this is just no longer considered as much of a serious problem by users; we thereby no longer see the extreme necessity required in maintaining this explicit exemption: removing it will not cause the original problem to reappear".
• cafard 14y ago
  Eh? The WMATA buses in Washington, DC, have advertisements on the side from one carrier (Verizon?) offering deals for users bringing in unlocked phones from another carrier (AT&T)?
  • illuminate 14y ago
    It'd be legal for the carriers to do it themselves, I imagine.
• Xuzz 14y ago
  Removal of a specific exemption from a law is not the same as "becomes illegal". Do we have any clear reasons that this becomes illegal, or is it now just more of an unexplored gray area of the law?
  • cheald 14y ago
    Because it's circumvention of an access control mechanism which is not exempted under the DMCA, making it illegal under the DMCA which bans all circumvention of all access control mechanisms, except those specifically exempted.
    • saurik 14y ago
      So, some context: Xuzz (whom I work with) possibly brings this up as I often make such an argument for the jailbreaking exemption in reverse. Specifically, that people who say it is "now legal" under an exemption are incorrect, as it might still be the case that there are other laws that apply; it just means that this one law now doesn't. Additionally, I tend to make the argument that we didn't consider it to be "illegal" in the first place, but with jailbreaking the situation is somewhat different: the people opposing the exemptions actually cite as one of their reasons "you don't need an explicit exemption as you are covered by the blanket interoperability clause already". With regards to unlocking, I have not read all of the relevant history (I have generally avoided working on the unlocking tools for various reasons; if nothing else, I simply haven't personally needed them); the DMCA, though, is mostly supposed to apply to cases of clear copyright infringement, which this is not; it isn't quite "interoperability", though, either. In particular, there was a case I was interested in, with General Electric as the defendant (yay! ;P), which was hinging on the argument of whether the DMCA could apply to cases unrelated to copyright infringement (GE, by way of a company it acquired, apparently was doing unauthorized field service on a UPS made by a company that required a hardware security dongle to access the software it was running). The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology publishes the JOLT Digest, where they summarize various cases. This case was summarized there. http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/software/mge-ups-systems-inc-v-ge-consumer-and-indus-inc http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/software/mge-ups-systems-... The good news: > The Fifth Circuit held that the DMCA’s provisions apply to protections designed to prevent infringement of copyrighted material and not protection from mere access to that material. > In so holding, the court limits the DMCA to those cases where a defendant circumvents a protection that is designed to prevent infringement of copyrighted material. The bad news: > Barry Sookman provides an overview of the case and an analysis of the court’s ruling. Info/Law has a critical discussion of the DMCA in light of this case’s holding. > As pointed out by Barry Sookman, such a limitation is inconsistent with prior circuit court decisions and fails “to consider [] legislative history.” (I had actually forgotten about this case, and thereby had never actually seen the final court opinion. I guess I now have some reading to do this week ;P.)
• thisismyname 14y ago
  Wow, who got paid to make this law?
• redwood 14y ago
  We really need to reflect on the slippery slope, America. I recommend checking out this TED talk because it's very inspirational: http://on.ted.com/Stevenson http://on.ted.com/Stevenson The focus of the talk is a bit more on inequality in the justice system than tech laws, say. But it's relevant since a) we need to be mindful of the "other" who's persecuted, as we're reminded by some of our own who are persecuted. and b) this talk highlights how we accept the moment as normal even when the moment is unjust. The talk reminds us to stand up and fight for what's right, rather than accept the new normal. Finally, I'm reminded of the Martin Niemöller quote that we should always remember: "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." EDIT: I do apologize for the hyperbole folks... it was more inspired by the TED talk I linked to than the article above and the feelings caused by the Schwartz case and others. I went off topic, sorry!
  • tokenadult 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but you have an extremely warped sense of history if you think contractual arrangements between mobile phone network operators and their customers are comparable to the restrictions on freedom in Nazi Germany. This is a really bleak example of Godwin's Law in action. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law AFTER EDIT: Seeing the kind reply from the person with whom I am disagreeing here, I note from the dates of Martin Niemöller's life (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller that his quotation was surely about the Nazis, and it couldn't possibly have preceded the presence of the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party in Germany "by half a century," so you were referring to the Nazis whether your knowledge of history included that realization or not. I have known that quotation since 1969, when I learned it from my elementary school teacher that year, when Niemöller was still alive.
    • 14y ago
• SageRaven 14y ago
  From TFA: "The DMCA only permits you to unlock your phone yourself once you've asked your carrier first." This struck me as odd. Not having read it myself, I didn't realize the DMCA was that particular. So, is this "illegal" in the sense that ripping your own DVDs is "illegal"? Will we have "cellphone johns" under fire from phone maker and phone-unlocking code on t-shirts in a few weeks/months? I've never owned a phone fancy enough to warrant unlocking, but this news irks me nonetheless. Seems plain as day that once you buy hardware, you have the right to modify it and use it as you see fit, so long as you own it outright. Let the game of whack-a-mole begin...
  • eli 14y ago
    Yes, it is illegal in very much the same way that ripping your own DVDs is illegal (no need for scare quotes -- it really is illegal, even if you think it shouldn't be)
    • pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      >ripping your own DVDs is illegal // That's not true in the USA is it - I understood that Fair Use terms meant that you could rip your own DVDs for backup, format shifting and such personal activities. Perhaps the person using the scare quotes considers that perfectly moral activities that are classified in statute as being illegal are overridden by the demos' agreed morality of the actions. Does anyone find making/using a backup - even if it's format shifted, even if you torrent the backup - to be immoral given you paid your share of the copyright license already?
      • dtparr 14y ago
        If the dvd is protected by a technical mechanism which you are circumventing in ripping it, then yes, it is unless you meet one of the LoC exemptions. In the current phase they allowed it only for disability access and for short clips for documentaries, educational use, etc. They specifically denied an exemption for space-shifting, so ripping a DVD to view on a tablet, for instance, is still a DMCA violation. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/jailbreaking-now-legal-under-dmca-for-smartphones-but-not-tablets/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/jailbreaking-now-...
• shaaaaawn 14y ago
  There is little or no way for this to be actually be regulated.
• Irregardless 14y ago
  If I remember correctly, Sprint, T-Mobile and AT&T have all settled class-action lawsuits regarding their locked down handsets after consumers claimed it was anti-competitive. 1 step forward, 10 steps backwards. How is this happening? > Born in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, on June 1, 1929, Dr. Billington was. . . Oh, the guy who just decided unlocking smartphones should be illegal was born in 1929? Cool. That's how rotary phones used to work, right?
  • adventured 14y ago
    Age has nothing to do with it. Ideas held, does. Dr. Billington believes the government should have that kind of authority. It's no more complicated than that, and it tells you all you probably need to know about what the man believes - whether he's 20, or 90.
  • firefoxman1 14y ago
    > That's how rotary phones used to work, right? Haven't LOL'd at an online comment in a long time. In all seriousness, he grew up in the era where AT&T owned the phone line all the way into your house AND the phone itself! I guess he misses the old days...
  • pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >Oh, the guy who just decided unlocking smartphones should be illegal was born in 1929? Cool. That's how rotary phones used to work, right? // Rotary [dial] phones weren't locked to a particular provider were they? You could buy anyone's phone and connect it to your line and indeed buy any line and connect it to your phone - post network standardisation at least.
    • colomon 14y ago
      For a long time they weren't just provided by the phone company, they were owned by the phone company. The theory (at least as presented to the public) was you couldn't let ordinary people hook anything they wanted to the phone lines -- think of the potential for chaos!
    • Spooky23 14y ago
• tburch 14y ago
  If you need to unlock your GSM Samsung Galaxy S3 or Note 2, here's how: Dial the following keys #197328640# Main Menu > [1] UMTS > [1] Debug Screen > [8] Phone Control > [6] Network Lock > Options [3]Perso SHA256 OFF > (after choosing this option, wait about 30 seconds, then go back one step by pressing the Menu button then select Back, now you are in [6] Network Lock then choose [4] NW Lock NV Data INITIALLIZ ..... wait for a minute then reboot your phone... enjoy!!! This is a PERMANENT UNLOCK, and does NOT trigger anything for warranty /standard disclaimer: I am not responsible if you don't follow directions and what you do with your phone. Credit goes to http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=34661189&postcount=1 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=34661189&...
  • shrughes 14y ago
    Your post is missing the asterisk in the key listing -- it ended up italicizing the text.
• eliben 14y ago
  It may be marginally off topic, but this is exactly why it makes me sad seeing people claiming that monopolies are why capitalism doesn't work. The only reason monopolies really succeed is because of government regulations like this one. Without government regulations, all monopolies would crash very quickly.
  • simonh 14y ago
    Without government regulation cartels wouldn't be illegal. Instead we have a regime where cartels and monopolies are illegal, unless specifically created by law. Which is what we have here.
    • eliben 14y ago
      My point is that without government regulation cartels wouldn't arise in the first place. Cartels are vulnerable to competition from outside. No industry has a high enough barrier of entry these days, since many huge corporations shoot all over the place for new business opportunities.
• chintan 14y ago
  If you do the math, unlocked phones turn out to be cheaper over 2 years. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/prepaid-phone-plans/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/prepaid-phone-plans... I hope people start avoiding the contracts because of this stupid law.
  • jackalope 14y ago
    As one commenter points out on that page, this may only be true for plans with a single phone. I have a family plan with 5 phones on it, and I couldn't find a prepaid account with comparable service for the same price.
  • leejoramo 14y ago
    Are they really cheaper? Last I looked if I purchase an unsubsidized and unlocked phone, I still pay the same monthly service fees to AT&T, Verizon or Sprint. They don't give me a discount. So the only benefit is the ability to stop service at anytime. But since I can't use their phones on another service where does that get me? Yes, T-Moblie or the service resellers (Virgin, Credo, SmartTalk, etc) may provide cheaper monthly service with your unsubsidized phone. However, I have found them to be inferior in their service (technical, coverage and/or administrative) compared to the big three At least, that has been my direct experience and research. I am actually hopeful that this will change in the coming year. I would very much like to take this path with my next phone.
    • jdechko 14y ago
      Exactly, for someone like me who doesn't make international trips, the only benefit is not "being in a contract" which gains me practically nothing other than being able to leave on a whim. But to whom would I switch really? Unlocked phones are a big deal to people in Europe, people who travel internationally a lot and people who just want to have an unlocked phone. That said, when my contract goes up, I will be getting AT&T to unlock my phone because it makes it easier to sell should I desire.
      • leejoramo 14y ago
• kevinalexbrown 14y ago
  I'm wondering if anyone could help me explain why this is a bad idea to others who might be sympathetic but don't really think about unlocking iphones. Like most people, I don't care about unlocked cell phones per se, it's just a consequence of a principle I very roughly characterize as "I want to do what I want with the things I own so long as there's no detrimental social effect." I've thought of the gas station metaphor: "Imagine owning a car and legally not being able to fill your tank with gasoline from any vendor you chose." But I'm not sure what works best. Please: I'm not characterizing the people I mean as dumb. On the contrary, they're smart people, who would otherwise see this as an obscure decision (indeed, how many people in the US actually unlock a phone?). I'm not asking how to dumb things down, I'm asking how to convey why decisions like this matter.
  • makmanalp 14y ago
    The problem is this. I buy a phone from Verizon, go through and pay my 2 year contract. Legally, I am done and all paid for, except I can't switch out to T-mobile now (or at any time), if I wanted. I have to pay the price that Verizon mandates. I'm basically trapped unless I waste money for a new phone. So basically when gas prices go up, I can't go to a different gas station a mile away that I know to be 50c/gal cheaper. So they all make it go up to fuck me over.
  • pkteison 14y ago
    I don't think this falls under your principle. I'm all about the doctrine of first sale, but this isn't a simple retail transaction where I fork over a sum of cash for a finished product and that's it. I paid for half a phone, my cell provider paid for the other half, and I have contracted to tie this phone to their service for two years in exchange for them shelling out that $300 up front. Once the two years are up they should be legally required to unlock it, but during the contract period it seems reasonable to keep me from taking full ownership of something that I don't yet fully own. "You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go." - if the full price phone was locked, your principle would certainly apply, but it isn't, so I don't think it does.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• meaty 14y ago
  I don't see this being a major problem. It's technically been illegal in the UK for years as you don't own the handset until your contract has paid up. However, every handset I've ever had is either "SIM-free" or has been unlocked. I now however only buy SIM-free unlocked handsets so I can give my telco the finger or throw another SIM in if they go down.
  • illuminate 14y ago
    You don't see it as a problem because you find it easy to buy pre-unlocked phones. This is not as easy in the US. Possible? Yes. Common? Hell no. And until very recently, it was near-impossible to find cheaper service for unsubsidized phones.
    • illuminate 14y ago
      To add on, you're also effed if you want to buy used phones. They're locked, and since you were never a customer, they won't unlock them for you. Even if you were to "become" a customer for a month with no contract, they still wouldn't unlock them for you, I think you have to be a "customer in good standing" for three months or so according to most providers' policy? That's also only for the carriers who have policies that allow their agents to unlock. Myself, yesterday I paid a person in India ~$2.00 to unlock an iPhone so I could use the gift on another service. People on Craigslist or local GSM repair shops are less lucky, I've seen demands of 40-100 bucks for the same privilege.
  • jdietrich 14y ago
    Unlocking has never been illegal in the UK. Unlocking a phone may be a breach of your network contract, but that's never been enforced and is almost certainly unenforcable. It's illegal to unblock a handset, but that's a different matter - IMEI blocking is an anti-theft measure that stops a phone from being used on any network.
• darkstalker 14y ago
  Totally the opposite on how is my country (Chile). Here it's illegal to sell locked phones.
• fnl 14y ago
  My condolences to all US travelers who now will have to either pay outrageous roaming bills, be criminalized, or buy a second (unlocked) phone...
• acuity12 14y ago
  faithInUSGovernment--;
  • jpitz 14y ago
    It has to wrap around at some point.
  • pekk 14y ago
    And your faith in private industry is increasing, right?
    • jimzvz 14y ago
      Private industry isn't elected.
      • dvhh 14y ago
        What about voting with your wallet
        • rooshdi 14y ago
          What about extorted wallet votes?
• ommunist 14y ago
  OMG> Should I open "mail me your phone to unlock" e-store?
• berlinbrown 14y ago
  Is this like Aaron Swartz illegal or something else? Is it a felony?
  • homosaur 14y ago
    well it would be a DMCA violation, so you'd be subject to those penalties http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID122 http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID...
  • genwin 14y ago
    It reduces corporate profit so yes it's Aaron Swartz / terrorist illegal.
• eriksank 14y ago
  Since the politicians and their servants invented these new regulations to please their friends and intend to enforce it at gunpoint, my question is now: what respect-instilling reprisals should be inflicted -- thoroughly -- to discourage them from trying this again? It is not possible to make an omelet without breaking eggs. So what's next?
• pla3rhat3r 14y ago
  I love the part where the article says, "this wasn't what the DCMA was supposed to do." Is anyone else shocked that intention and expectations change when someone is given enormous power to change the rules? Come on guys! Stop being so gullible!
• jawngee 14y ago
  I don't work for them, or am associated with them in anyway other than being a customer, but I did get an unlock through them: http://applenberry.com/ http://applenberry.com/ Was flawless, though I did have to buy a nano sim from T-Mobile to make it all happen. I spend about half the year in Vietnam. My first trip there, I had a locked iPhone and had to use a Gevey Ultra-Sim to get my phone to work on Viettel. It worked OK, but just OK. Had to fiddle with it a lot. I've unlocked an iPhone 4s and an iPhone 5 with them.
• tvladeck 14y ago
  My view is that requiring the user _not_ to unlock the phone is a perfectly reasonable element of the agreement between the user and the phone provider. It's all about what both sides are getting -- and it's certainly true that you are not getting an unrestricted device. But, I would dare say that everyone has a certain price at which they would find a restricted device to be worthwhile. So, the qualitative aspects of such a transaction are absolutely fine and it's perfectly reasonable for the law to uphold that.
  • Zak 14y ago
    Most of the time, contract law is sufficient to handle such agreements between service providers and their customers. Why should unlocking phones be given special treatment under the law? Early termination fees are very enforceable and generally seem to be sufficient to stop people from breaking their contracts.
    • tvladeck 14y ago
      Good point. This has certainly complicated my thinking.
• joejohnson 14y ago
  >>For example, Verizon's iPhone 5 comes out of the box already unlocked, and AT&T will unlock a phone once it is out of contract. Can someone explain to me why AT&T is allowed to unlock phones if unlocking phones is illegal?
  • fpgeek 14y ago
    Unlocking phones isn't illegal. Unlocking phones without permission (of the manufacturer and/or the carrier the phone is locked to) is what will become illegal.
• jdietrich 14y ago
  In most of the developed world, it's either illegal to sell a network-locked phone, or there's a legal requirement for networks to provide an unlock code at the end of your contract. Locking is generally seen as fundamentally anti-competitive and permissible only under strict restrictions, in order to maintain the economic viability of handset subsidies. It's entirely reasonable that if your phone is discounted as part of a contract, you should be obliged to complete the contracted term or pay an early termination fee in order to keep the handset. What's not reasonable is the idea that the subsidy arrangement gives a network complete control over your device in perpetuity. Either the device is rented to you by the network, in which case they are responsible for it, or it's sold to you at a discounted price and is yours so long as you finish paying for it.
  • halvsjur 14y ago
    I'm always amazed at what Americans let slide of governmental abuse as long as big private companies profit. I find it difficult to comprehend that even hard core libertarians will defend laws like these.
    • icelancer 14y ago
      Why would hardcore libertarians defend laws like these? It's an obvious market restriction.
      • bjorn2404 14y ago
        Yes, it's also obvious that the government is in bed with the corporations (crony capitalism).
      • halvsjur 14y ago
        Just an observation on my part. Americans who call themselves libertarian often seem to be reflexively pro-corporate, even when it flies right in the face of their professed ideals.
        • jiggy2011 14y ago
• arbuge 14y ago
  I hear that Carmen Ortiz is already gearing up her office to enforce this. Unlock your phone, get charged with 13 felonies and up to 50 years in jail. But you'll be able to plead guilty and get away with just 6 months or so.
• grandpa 14y ago
  I couldn't figure out from the article what exactly it is that's illegal. Which of these situations cause me to break the law as an American? 1. I travel to Canada, unlock my cellphone there where it is legal, and bring it back to the U.S. 2. My Canadian nephew unlocks my phone while I am not looking. 3. I unlock my phone, but then never turn it on so it never connects to a carrier. 4. I buy a phone in New York, then move to Canada never to return. On arrival in Canada, I unlock my phone. If it's really true that "unlocking cellphones is illegal in the U.S.", then only 3 should be illegal.
  • darkarmani 14y ago
    It sounds like you are crossing state lines (and international lines) for the purpose of committing a felony. I'm half joking. I think you can get fined for smoking a cuban cigar overseas, so I think you need to hand the phone off to a Canadian and let them unlock it.
    • saurik 14y ago
      There is further discussion about this started from a comment I made elsewhere on this article; the replies seem to clarify that only specific laws (including, apparently, this cigar issue you bring up, looking into it; that is apparently new as of 2004) have extra-territorial application. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5111405 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5111405
      • darkarmani 14y ago
        Thanks for the link. Those are some surprising insights.
• scottbartell 14y ago
  The power of lobbying. The legislation that can bring candidates the most money always seems to take priority. This goes to show that the common man has far less power then is ideal.
• jakeonthemove 14y ago
  Well, damn... No worries, it will just make these things: http://www.gsmserver.com/shop/gsm/sigma_key.php http://www.gsmserver.com/shop/gsm/sigma_key.php cheaper, more popular and reliable...
• diminoten 14y ago
  > Christopher S. Reed from the U.S. Copyright Office noted in an email to TechNewsDaily that "only a consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of software on the handset under the law, may unlock the handset." So if I flash the firmware with a copy of software I own, am I then free to perform the unlocking action?
  • saurik 14y ago
    It should be noted that the baseband typically runs unrelated software to the actual phone, and one usually has to modify the software of the baseband to unlock it; thereby, when they say "software" they don't, for example, mean something like "CyanogenMod". If, however, your device doesn't have any protection mechanisms on it keeping you from flashing the baseband, and you own the rights to the software you are flashing to the baseband, and that software doesn't keep you from unlocking the phone, then I do not see any way in which the DMCA is relevant. (That said, while I have a vested interest in this sort of thing, I am not a lawyer.)
• Sami_Lehtinen 14y ago
  I haven't ever had locked phone, and I won't have one in future either. What's the problem. If you don't want locked phone, don't buy one.
• drucken 14y ago
  Original ruling (Section III.C of 77 FR 65260) from Copyright Office, Library of Congress available at, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-26308/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-263...
• drucken 14y ago
  Long term, the locked business model due to smartphone subsidies will die anyway since it largely benefits the manufacturers and app developers. Carriers are the ones currently taking the considerable risks facing consumers. So, it is really a question whether it is appropriate to have semi-random administrative laws being applied by a "Librarian" at any time being good for society or progress. The EFF and others who argued for how these exemptions to draconian laws are applied may yet rue the day the asked for this opening on their effective rights. At least the passed law was a static target that could be outpaced by technology.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• nichochar 14y ago
  The problem here is way deeper than just the possibility to unlock a phone (which obviously is already quite a big practical problem, you just have to read a couple of comments above who explain why very well). The problem is the culture in which we live in, and the transition that we are experiencing, going from `free culture`(read more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_culture_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_culture_movement) towards a 'permission culture`, in which big companies basically control assets which should be creative commons. This transition will not pull through, it will most probably lead to a revolution of some kind (this is a pattern seen throughout history).
• jimktrains2 14y ago
  Why would they just switch their stance? https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 Something's rotten in the state of Denmark^H^H^H^H^H^HC (Yes, I know DC isn't a "state")
• transfire 14y ago
  STOP CORPORATE TYRANNY!!!
• ceesiren 14y ago
  Also, let's say you are with AT&T and your phone breaks or you lose it a few months before you qualify for a new phone. You are forced to pay for a new one at full price even though you've already decided you are going to switch to T-Mobile or a prepaid service when your contract is up. If you can unlock it and the new carrier is also GSM, you can take the phone with you. Or, if you want a new phone with your new carrier, you can sell your existing phone that you just paid full price for. If it's unlocked (or unlockable) you can sell it to ANYONE if it's unlocked and might get a better price since the potential customer pool is larger than if you HAVE to find someone on the AT&T network to buy it. I just bought a currently locked AT&T phone because I was told I can unlock it for use with T-Mobile. Then I discovered that when it arrives tomorrow I have EXACTLY ONE DAY to unlock it before that becomes illegal. In my case, the scenario described above is exactly what happened to the guy I bought the phone from. Only he wanted to stay with AT&T but when his contract renewed (3 months after buying the phone I just bought from him) he was eligible for a new higher end phone (actually an iPhone 5). I just can't get over how freaking BIG BROTHER-ESQUE this new law is. I HAS to be unconstitutional, right???
• cupcake-unicorn 14y ago
  This article is frustrating, it doesn't really explain the implications. In what sense is this "illegal"? Could I be jailed or fined for doing this? I doubt it's going to be enforceable, unless somehow the carriers care enough to keep a database of phone ids and actually go after people? If a friend unlocks a phone for me, or I buy an unlocked phone unknowingly, am I now implicated? It just seems to me that this is going to effect businesses that repair phones and phone companies with bring your own phone plans, not individuals, because people will go on modding regardless. Or is it somehow going to be "illegal" to the extent that roms will be modified and forum posts referring to "illegal" activities like unlocking the phone will be blocked?
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• shaydoc 14y ago
  Prohibition on unlocking cellphones, unreal, who lobbied for that, When I hear stories like this, Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", springs into mind!
• ForFreedom 14y ago
  That is plain stupid and only supports Apple
• cicloid 14y ago
  Funny story. Since october, If you own your cellphone on Mexico (not subsidized or contract has ended), according to the NOM-184-SCFI-2012 you can ask your carrier to unlock it for you, free of charge.
• segmond 14y ago
  only buy unlocked phones. people need to wise up, stop signing contracts. make these companies bend to our will.
• jemeshsu 14y ago
  It is illegal for telcos to sell locked phones in countries like Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and I believe some more Asian countries. I take it as a pro-consumer or a pro-business decision by a government.
• DanBC 14y ago
  Why is locking a phone to a particular carrier covered by the DMCA? What part of the DMCA covers it, and why?
• enemtin 14y ago
  Another big step backwards for the U.S.
• enemtin 14y ago
  Another big step backwards for the U.S.
• pharrington 14y ago
  Apparently I'm totally confused and don't understand this at all. "III. The Designated Classes Upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the following classes of works shall be exempt from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures set forth in Section 1201(a)(1)(A): ... C. Wireless telephone handsets – interoperability with alternative networks Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable a wireless telephone handset originally acquired from the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or retailer no later than ninety days after the effective date of this exemption to connect to a different wireless telecommunications network, if the operator of the wireless communications network to which the handset is locked has failed to unlock it within a reasonable period of time following a request by the owner of the wireless telephone handset, and when circumvention is initiated by the owner, an individual consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of the computer program in such wireless telephone handset, solely in order to connect to a different wireless telecommunications network,and such access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network."[1] As far as I can tell, software unlocking your cell phone was already illegal under the DMCA; in October this exemption was enacted, saying that software unlocking old phones will no longer be illegal; new phones purchased between then and this upcoming Saturday are also legally software unlockable; it's only new phones purchased after the 90 day period that don't fall under the exemption." Is this interpretation accurate? e: And of course there's the whole issue that software unlocks are primarily illegal because of their use to circumvent contracts after buying subsidized phones, but I don't have a well-reasoned opinion about that :\ [1]http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227035/DMCA-Rules-2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227035/DMCA-Rules-2012 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-26308/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-263...
• mikebracco 14y ago
  B2C businesses (like mobile carriers) that require customer contracts and/or other "lock in" tactics are destined to die through market disruption. "Lock in" is an artificial way to increase LTV of a customer. Market innovations that reduce cost of customer acquisition will displace these archaic business models.
• ratherbefuddled 14y ago
  I can think of no good reason to enter into a contract for cell phone use. It always seems to me to be at least as cheap to buy the phone outright and use a prepaid sim. You pay more up front but less monthly. You have more freedom, you can still buy on credit with a credit card if you wish to (and benefit from additional protections by doing so usually). You can change networks if you relocate or have signal problems, you can keep your number and you can sell your phone and buy a new one if you fancy it. I use a prepay in the UK, I bought my own Note 2 which was expensive (~£400), but now I pay £12 a month for unlimited data and text and more minutes than I'll use by an order of magnitude. Even in the US, where airtime charges are comparatively high, it seems to be cheaper to do this overall. Why save $400 on the phone by agreeing to pay $20-30 a month more than you need to for two years? Am I missing something? Why do people get sucked in?
  • DanBC 14y ago
    Phones are shiny and easy to buy, especially if they have a "Free with this contract" sticker. Phone plans are baffling, and boring. You don't fondle your phone plan. You don't buy a case for your phone plan.
• darasen 14y ago
  I still want to know why a completely unelected government official gets to decide what is and isn't illegal.
• spiritplumber 14y ago
  Dear law, no. Signed, Users
• GigabyteCoin 14y ago
  New Title: Unlocking Cellphones Becomes a Much More Lucrative Endeavor Saturday in the U.S.
• ck2 14y ago
  Just another way to make sure your are felon. Unless you knowingly launder drug money in a major bank chain, then you are fine and no-one will go to prison, you'll only lost a month of profit and everyone is fine.
• vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  The petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel... The HN discussion of the petition (in short, it's not nearly enough, but it's a start): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020 I'm at a loss for words over this one. All I can think to say is: money talks ladies and gentlemen. Freedom is the only thing that's ever been worth paying for.
• zceid06 14y ago
  Carriers must have lobbied for that in order to kill the second hand market. Locked phones have very little resell value so it makes their bundles much more attractive. Needless to say, telecom operators had to innovate to continue growing !
• Goose90053 14y ago
  I have a Samsung Galaxy S3 with AT&T Wireless. I went on their website and found their "Online Chat" support. I told the support person that I needed to unlock my phone so I could use a prepaid SIM while traveling overseas. Three minutes later I had my unlock code, no questions asked.