UNLOCKING cell phones now ILLEGAL......

[h1]What you need to know about cell phone unlocking[/h1]

By Jerry Hildenbrand  | Jan 26 2013 | 10:07 pm

unocked.jpg


Did you know that as of Jan 26, 2013, it's "illegal" to unlock your phone? Of course you did. You've seen the "Sky is falling!" headlines

It's not quite that simple, but that's what you'll hear around the Internets today. The too-long-didn't-read simple version is that you'll likely not be affected in any way (minus the personal freedom aspect). But after seeing so many people worried, and some of the poor information they were receiving, we knew it was time to talk about it a bit. 

In 1998 Congress passed a law that provides copyright protection to the software (and software means written code, remember) that locks your cell phone to a certain carrier. This has nothing to do with rooting, or bootloader unlocking. It only covers locking your phone to a GSM carrier through software. As a provision of this law, the Librarian of Congress (which I imagined as a totally hot babe with her hair in a bun, and was quickly disappointed when I investigated) is allowed to grant exceptions, and did until his October 2012 decision to allow the DMCA to regulate cell phone locking. Fast forward to today, when the exceptions expired, and now the software used to lock phones is covered under the same copyright laws as most other software.

It sounds scary. But it's really not. Let's have a look.
[h3]What is really going on?[/h3]
The first thing to realize is that if you bought your phone before today, none of this applies. The conditions and terms you agreed to when you bought your phone will still apply. Anything up until now is grandfathered in. But what about phones you'll buy tomorrow and beyond?

Well, unlocking phones to use on a different carrier without permission is now against the law. That's pretty crappy, but as the CTIA blog points out, this is no different than your car. Until you're finished paying off your loan for it -- and that's really what a smartphone subsidy is -- you're not allowed to transfer title without permission from the lien-holder. When you buy a subsidized phone on contract from your carrier, it is the lien-holder, and it's up to the carrier when and where you get to use it. Read the fine print on your car loan -- I'll bet you never knew the finance company could tell you you're not allowed to park your car in a place they don't like. Of course, that's not enforced. But that's not to say it can't be used against you in court.

Now, AT&T and T-Mobile and any other carrier can do the same thing. Does that suck? Yes, but it's a price you pay for getting the phone subsidized (financed). 
[h3]OK, what does that mean to me?[/h3]
The good news is that, as the Librarian of Congress points out, carriers have "liberal, publicly available unlocking policies." AT&T will unlock your phone for you once you meet their criteria. So will Verizon. And that criteria hasn't changed now that the DMCA covers unlocking. Nine times out of ten, they will shoot you an unlock code if your bill is current and you have a legitimate need to use it. 

The gray area comes from using third-party unlocking sites. Under the letter of the law, these folks may be committing a crime if they do this sort of business in he U.S. (We've asked a few for their take but have yet to hear back.) You are, too, if you knowingly use their services. It's the same crime millions of Android users commit when they flash G apps -- not honoring the license for software they are using. As a user, you can be subject to civil penalties. That means you can be held liable to pay the affected party (your carrier) the amount of money they have been harmed (the cost of the phone), with additional assorted court fees. The penalties for folks unlocking phones to make money are more severe, and outside the scope of this blog post -- talk to a lawyer if you have those sort of questions.
[h3]Got it. Now how do I unlock my phone?[/h3]
So, what do we need to do? Pretty much the same thing we always have done. If you need to unlock your phone, call AT&T or T-Mobile and ask them. They'll probably say yes, so long as your account is in good standing. (How new your phone is might affect things, too.) And it won't cost you anything if you give them a legitimate reason. Legit reasons are things like going on a trip and want to use a local SIM, or you need to use the phone in an area where they have poor coverage for work, or anything that sounds reasonable that doesn't make them think you're going to end your contract or sell the phone. I'm not saying you should lie to them, just deliver the truth the same way they do when they say unlimited.

T-Mobile has a simple, easy to read unlocking policy as you can see here. AT&T's policies are not so simple, but Dan over at WP Central managed to do it over the phone  for his Lumia 900.

If they still say no, well I can't advise anyone to break the law, but I know what I would do -- head happily into that gray area like the honey badger.
[h3]A few more things worth mentioning[/h3]
  • While the law covers all phones, it only really applies to GSM phones. CDMA phones (Verizon and Sprint) aren't "locked" on the device, and instead use a database that the carrier controls to decide if you can or can not use a particular phone on their network.
  • This does not apply to phones that are purchased unlocked. AT&T can't lock your Nexus 4 or any other unlocked device.
  • Finally, this only applies inside the US. If you're reading from elsewhere, you can feel free to sit back and smugly laugh at our laws. 
Hopefully, this answers any questions you might have had about this whole silly mess, and we can go back to arguing about which phones are better.
 
[h1]Congress OKs Bill to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking[/h1]

The bill comes nearly two years after the Library of Congress moved to make cell phone unlocking illegal.

[img]http://www5.pcmag.com/media/images/406961-roundup-best-unlocked-phones.jpg?thumb=y[/img]

Almost two years after the Library of Congress moved to make cell phone unlocking illegal, Congress this week approved a bill that reverses that decision and will once again give consumers the right to unlock their devices.

The bill, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, must now be signed by President Obama to take effect.

The Senate approved the bill on July 15, and the House did the same on Friday, clearing the way for the president's signature. The measure specifies that consumers can unlock their cell phones without running afoul of copyright laws. It also directs the Librarian of Congress to consider whether gadgets like tablets should be eligible for unlocking.

"The bipartisan Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act puts consumers first, promotes competition in the wireless phone marketplace, and encourages continued use of existing devices," Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who penned the Senate bill, said in a statement. "Once the President signs this bill into law, consumers will be able to more easily use their existing cell phones on the wireless carrier of their choice."

"This law will protect consumer choice by allowing flexibility when it comes to choosing a wireless carrier," said Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte, who sponsored the House version.

The debate dates back to an October 2012 decision from the Library of Congress's (LOC) Copyright Office, which gave consumers a 90-day window to unlock their phones without carrier permission before that practice became illegal in January.

The Copyright Office reviews the rules on unlocking (and jailbreaking) every three years, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In 2012, regulators found that "there are ample alternatives to circumvention. That is, the marketplace has evolved such that there is now a wide array of unlocked phone options available to consumers."

That did not sit well with OpenSignal's Sina Khanifar, who added a petition to the White House site asking for the decision to be reversed. It passed the 100,000 e-signature threshold needed for an official White House response, and that response was posted in March 2013, with the Obama administration issuing its support for cell phone unlocking.

By December, the wireless industry committed to a voluntary set of principles that will make it easier for consumers to unlock their devices. The House and Senate bills were then introduced in February and March, respectively.

But as Khanifar noted, the unlocking exemption will only last until the Librarian of Congress's next rulemaking, scheduled to happen in 2015.

"With such a strong signal from Congress, it's very unlikely that the Librarian will remove the unlocking exemption," Khanifar said in a statement. "But the fact that public advocacy organizations have to make a fresh case for an unlocking exemption every three years is a perfect example of why the underlying copyright law, Section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, is in dire need of an update."

Khanifar has long argued that the cell phone unlocking debate highlights a larger issue with the DMCA. His site, FixTheDMCA.org, takes aim at Section 1201 of the law, which requires reviews every few years.
Click to expand...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2461481,00.asp

All it needs is the presidents signature and this stupid law will be reversed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

numbah1
Curbing cell phone addiction
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
jpzx
jpzx
D
Help identify this shoe by description
Replies
5
Views
1K
midnitegreen
midnitegreen
1995
What's the craziest most irresponsible thing you did in your youth?
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
ahat
ahat
HIM
|| DFS Player Props Thread || Prize Picks - Underdog - etc. ||
Replies
24
Views
1K
HIM
HIM
L
Help ID'ing a pair of NIKE Cortez?
Replies
0
Views
483
LangleyConfirms
L

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom