Posted on 01/25/2013 3:00:40 PM PST by Still Thinking
Think you own your wireless handset, inside and out? Think you can do whatever you wish with your own property? Think again. Beginning Saturday, it will become illegal to unlock a phone without the express permission of the carrier who locked it.
While the relevant portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act legalizes jailbreaking for three years, it also makes it illegal to unlock new, locked wireless handsets (without the permission of the previous carrier). Exemptions include “legacy phones” ("used (or perhaps unused) phones previously purchased or otherwise acquired by a consumer").
So this ruling won’t kill the secondary market (i.e., Amazon, eBay, etc.), but be prepared to suffer the consequences if you walk into a Verizon store with an unlocked AT&T iPhone.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – this country’s service-oriented focus with respect to wireless carriers (vs. Europe’s hardware focus) makes little sense. I can see why they do it (fostering brand loyalty), but it’s foolhardy. The money is in the monthly service contract, not the meager or nonexistent profits afforded by the handsets (hence the old saw, “give away the hardware to sell the software”).
The wireless carriers realize this, but they stubbornly insist that handsets must be locked in order to strong-arm their customers into loyalty via contractual agreement. And this is but the latest result of all the handwringing – fearful that they won’t recoup the heavy hardware discounts, carriers lobby to ensure that consumers don’t own what they purchase.
The alternative business model dispenses with long-term contracts (one of consumers’ biggest pet peeves) in exchange for fully-priced, unlocked handsets. I, for one, wouldn’t mind a higher upfront cost in exchange for the freedom to switch carriers. Can everyone afford an unsubsidized $600 handset vs. a discounted $200 model tied to a contract? Probably not. But why not give consumers the choice?
I don’t sympathize with consumers who get buyer’s remorse after getting a heavily-subsidized iPhone and signing a 2-year contract. Nor do I have any problem with exorbitant early termination fees on smartphones, because the carrier needs to recoup the loss somehow.
But the business model underpinning this situation and the latest DMCA exemption is unsustainable. What’s mine is mine ... not the wireless carrier’s.
No, I still think that. It's just that now I've become aware that Congress and the courts have joined the carriers on the wrong side of this issue. If I pay for the thing, it's mine (Even with a "free" or subsidized phone, the money to pay for it is still coming from you. Any carrier who was actually GIVING phones away would go out of business.)
And yes, I realize the author is against this outrage; I'm just taking a shot at the surrender-monkey phrases he uses to frame his objection.
Wow! There’s another freedom we don’t have but the people of Vietnam have.
I will not comply
It will not work anyway. AT&T uses different wireless technology than Verizon. That's why Apple sells two different types of iPhones:
One type - GSM - works on AT&T (and a few other carriers)
And the other type - CDMA - works on Sprint and Verizon (and most other carriers).
CDMA is more common in North America but GSM is more common in the rest of the world.
IF the alternate business model existed (I don't know if it does, since I still use a old Razr flip-phone), then the locked phone makes sense. In essence, there is an agreement that you will pay less for the phone in exchange for "exclusivity" period.
Time for a class action lawsuit against AT&T for forcing users to retain software like Blockbuster and Facebook, which I never use. They use data and battery power, even if they are never used.
When I went to the Philippines in October and went to the market areas, they had kiosks everywhere that unlocked your Iphone and Droid, including Samsung for $5 (equivalent) as I wanted to piggyback off the local carriers. When going back, they put back the phone together (same price). When I went to the Verizon store once I came back overseas for another non-related issue, they never knew it was unlocked.
Actually, yes they can, at least if they're good at math and can resist immediate gratification. Obviously if the carrier is willing to sell you a phone for $200 which would otherwise have fetched $600, they think they'll get more than $400 benefit from the lockin. Not saying that you'll pay more than $400 for service, but that you'll pay more than $400 MORE for service than you would without a locked-in contract, the actual market value of the service itself. Otherwise the carrier is throwing their money away. So you should actually come out ahead with a market price handset and a no-contract plan.
It's just like those scammy outrageously priced insurance policies they want to sell you. I once calculated that to break even you'd have to get a phone replaced every three months, which was bad enough (who does that?) till I learned from my wife's carrier that you couldn't get a phone replaced more than ONCE EVERY FOUR MONTHS!!! So it's not even really insurance in an honest form of the word -- they're just allowing you to prepay for your replacement and they're guaranteed to turn a profit on the replacement policy of every single customer, not just actuarially in the aggregate like real insurance.
Boy do the Intellectual Property laws need a HUGE revamp.
-PJ
It will not work anyway. AT&T uses different wireless technology than Verizon. That's why Apple sells two different types of iPhones:
One type - GSM - works on AT&T (and a few other carriers like T-Mobile)
And the other type - CDMA - works on Sprint and Verizon (and most other carriers).
CDMA is more common in North America, Japan, and South Korea but GSM is more common in the rest of the world.
I have no problem with subsidized phones in exchange for a contract, and if you've agreed to a contract I have no problem with locking the phone till the expiration or at least settlement of that contract. I think it's stupid, at least in my case, and I've never done it, but it's a legitimate trade.
A locked phone which they've paid their tools in Congress to criminalize you for treating like it's your property is a different matter. They're saying they get to retain control over your use of that piece of hardware FOREVER, even after you paid for it, either in cash or by completing the period of a service contract. An infinite price for a finite benefit. F 'em. AND the horse they rode in on.
Why not just uninstall the app?
I wish someone would produce an “Iphone” (or Android) with all the features EXCEPT the damned phone. I’m a lot more interested in the “computer” aspects than having the ability to have people intrude on me wherever I happen to be. I already have a phone. I’m quite happy with it. What I want is a powerful pocket computer just slightly larger than an Iphone, but significantly smaller than the Ipad “mini” (say about half that size). Something that will actually fit in a pocket.
Thanks for the info. I completely agree.
Sound like a smartphone off Ebay or one of your old ones with no cell connection. I’m pretty sure a lot of people do that — keep their old smartphones and tablets and use them with no cell service as game machines for their kids, etc. You just use Wifi and USB to transfer data on and off. Plus if can get on a network, I believe it gives you the ability to make 911 calls even without cell service per se.
It's locked by AT&T. They can't be deleted without "unlocking" the phone, which is not easy.
And apparently illegal, if we're to believe Congress. "When unlocking cell phones is outlawed, only outlaws will unlock cell phones!" [eyeroll]
Try an iTouch.
I don’t understand why copyright issues such as this should be CRIMINAL matters. It seems like a contractual matter. If you buy a phone from a service provider and unlock it, then alright, you’ve voided the contract and now the service provider has no more obligations to service your phone.
Why does THE GOVERNMENT need to poke its nose into that transaction? What am I missing here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.