This can only happen in America lol!
On 01/29/2013 03:46 PM, caf4926 wrote:
>
> ‘The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock
> Your Smartphone - Derek Khanna - The Atlantic’
> (http://tinyurl.com/ahtzqv8)
>
>
I’m too floored by the systemic malfunctions that occur there to make
any comment that would not be simply rude. So I won’t comment.
Regards
swerdna
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:46:02 +0000, caf4926 wrote:
> ‘The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock
> Your Smartphone - Derek Khanna - The Atlantic’
> (http://tinyurl.com/ahtzqv8)
So I did a little looking into this, and while it is as silly as it
sounds, I think the reasons actually make sense.
I’m not a lawyer, so take this for what it is - the opinion of someone
who thinks he understands what’s changed.
First, though, this isn’t about rooting or jailbreaking. It’s about
unlocking the “carrier lock”.
In the US (as probably is true in other parts of the world), the mobile
companies subsidize the purchase of equipment. When I signed up with
Verizon nearly 3 years ago, I got a “free” phone. That phone is locked
to Verizon’s network.
Up until the change in the application of the law, I could remove the
“carrier lock” and use the phone on someone else’s network if I had all
the proper information to do so - and I could do that without the
carrier’s consent. Or I could pay full price for an unlocked phone.
Since the change in the application of the law, the only thing that’s
changed is that I need the carrier’s consent. Or I need to no longer be
under contract with them (ie, the contract ran out, or the carrier
provided the unlock code, or the carrier gave me permission to unlock the
phone to use it under another carrier).
The way “free” phones work with a contract is that the carrier subsidizes
the purchase of the phone in exchange for you agreeing to pay them for
service for a set period of time. That way, they invest in you as a
customer and get a return (namely, your payment for the service). It’s a
standard business investment - you put something in, you want to get more
than you put in out - a positive ROI.
It’s a failing business model to give away a $500 phone and have
customers unlock it and switch to a different carrier. Eventually, one
who did that would go out of business.
It’s also worth noting, though, that this isn’t a new law. This is an
application of DMCA, and it’s interpreted based on the librarian at the
library of congress. The decision that individual made was that because
it’s possible to buy an unlocked phone legally (and the carriers can sell
them that way, as can the manufacturers), that the consumer does have the
option to get a device that is unlocked.
The difference, of course, is that the cost of customer’s phone won’t be
subsidized by the carrier. Which seems reasonable to me.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
I think EU rules are different. But carriers charge around € 85 to remove the SIM lock, the turkish phone-shop around the corner does the same in 10 minutes, for -€ 10. A lot of them won’t even do business with people who don’t want the free phone. Laws like this have one single goal: protect the big fish. IMHO.
ATM EU is planning laws to stop these combined contracts - X year contract, free phone -.
A bit off topic, but not completely: it looks like the EU is not done yet with UEFI. Had to buy a laptop for the wife, and, exactly what I expected, nobody could answer the question whether UEFI could be disabled. But, in one huge store, they allowed me to reboot machines and go into the BIOS. Guess what? Not a single laptop that wouldn’t allow disabling of UEFI… The department manager said he read some email about UEFI and the EU, but didn’t know what it was about. BTW. A Lenovo G85, where, believe it or not, the compat-wireless was needed to get the wired card (alx module) working + a broadcom that needed broadcom-wl, felt like the Windu days, having t to dowload some compressed file to a USB stick on one laptop, to install stuff on the other. Up and running by the way, wife takes the laptop to a Winows-only school :D.
I think the issue is why is this a criminal offense?
I recall when DAT cassette players were forced to charge a fee to the movie & recording industries because they had stopped the sale of these machines to consumers through the courts
because people were “unfairly” recording digital tapes and not buying new $20 discs.
Eventually an Asian cell phone maker will come out with a great Ubuntu phone which is CHEAP and works with all providers and then you will see the whole view on this issue change.
Once again a bunch of out of date pencil pushers in the USA will be out of work and blaming somebody.
That sounds like the network company’s line. 
Put another way, the network company pays rock-bottom prices for phones from selected manufacturers. Their purchasing power is a bit better than yours or mine, and then there are those volume discounts when they commit to taking large quantities. Don’t worry, you pay them for the phone over the life of the contract, albeit at a lower price than if you just bought the phone independently and took the network’s Pay as You Go option or a SIM only tariff.
Since the change in the application of the law, the only thing that’s
changed is that I need the carrier’s consent. Or I need to no longer be
under contract with them (ie, the contract ran out, or the carrier
provided the unlock code, or the carrier gave me permission to unlock the
phone to use it under another carrier).
AFAICT it’s been working like that in the UK for a long time, without crazy or draconian legislation/penalties, and I think the carriers do charge to unlock if you switch carriers midterm.
In any case, EU law is more concerned about preventing unfair competition and practices. I don’t see a problem, as long as the network company isn’t locking you into only using their phone deal. They should also be offering an unbundled service/tariff at an appropriately lower price.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:16:01 +0000, RichardET wrote:
> I think the issue is why is this a criminal offense?
Doing it without permission of the carrier constitutes a violation of
DMCA. The carrier lock is a technical restriction put in place (to
require you to use the network of the carrier that provided the phone)
that is protected by DMCA. The provider can grant permission to work
around the restriction, but they have to do it.
Of course, that raises the broader question of whether DMCA is reasonable
- personally, I don’t, but at present it is “the law of the land” in the
US, so consumers should work together to get the law changed.
But within the context of established law, I see it as a reasonable
application of the law.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:16:01 +0000, consused wrote:
> hendersj;2523073 Wrote:
>>
>> In the US (as probably is true in other parts of the world), the mobile
>> companies subsidize the purchase of equipment.
> That sounds like the network company’s line. 
Put another way, the
> network company pays rock-bottom prices for phones from selected
> manufacturers. Their purchasing power is a bit better than yours or
> mine, and then there are those volume discounts when they commit to
> taking large quantities. Don’t worry, you pay them for the phone over
> the life of the contract, albeit at a lower price than if you just
> bought the phone independently and took the network’s Pay as You Go
> option or a SIM only tariff.
Well, sure - they get a lower cost because they buy in bulk, and they
pass that savings along to you for a premium. That’s how products are
sold (nobody generally pays wholesale for books - for example - except
resellers. If a book sells at the bookstore for $39.95, you’re paying
about twice what the bookstore paid for it. On a book priced like that,
the author typically makes something like 2% or 3% (or maybe even as much
as 6%) of the wholesale price.)
>> Since the change in the application of the law, the only thing that’s
>> changed is that I need the carrier’s consent. Or I need to no longer
>> be under contract with them (ie, the contract ran out, or the carrier
>> provided the unlock code, or the carrier gave me permission to unlock
>> the phone to use it under another carrier).
>
> AFAICT it’s been working like that in the UK for a long time, without
> crazy or draconian legislation/penalties, and I think the carriers do
> charge to unlock if you switch carriers midterm.
That’s fairly typical here, but of course they can waive that fee. My
son went to France a couple years back, and he asked AT&T for an unlock
code for his phone so he could get a SIM in France and use it there, and
they were happy to provide him with that.
> In any case, EU law is more concerned about preventing unfair
> competition and practices. I don’t see a problem, as long as the network
> company isn’t locking you into only using their phone deal. They should
> also be offering an unbundled service/tariff at an appropriately lower
> price.
It would be interesting to know if, for example, Verizon (my carrier at
present) would charge me less per month for a phone that was acquired
“out of band” of the contract.
Then again, I’m due for a phone upgrade. Maybe I should tell them I’m
happy with my current phone, so I shouldn’t be subsidizing the purchase
any more since it’s paid for.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
OK
I see the various points of view
BTW: There is no such thing as a Free Phone. I know loads of people get in to that because $20/month or whatever is not like say $400 outright.
I never use HP (hire Purchase) of any kind.
But I can see if you use a phone that you don’t really own, then you ought to be subject to the owners conditions!!
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:06:01 +0000, caf4926 wrote:
> OK I see the various points of view BTW: There is no such thing as a
> Free Phone. I know loads of people get in to that because $20/month or
> whatever is not like say $400 outright.
> I never use HP (hire Purchase) of any kind.
Oh, absolutely - “free” just means “included and somehow accounted for in
your purchase price”.
> But I can see if you use a phone that you don’t really own, then you
> ought to be subject to the owners conditions!!
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
I’m not convinced that this is true in other parts of the world.
In other parts of the world one almost always pays more for the name brand mobile phones - with some exceptions (such as China, and India) although even in the exceptions, if one buys a name brand phone (such as Samsung) one pays a LOT more for the phone than one will pay in the USA. But no-name brands are cheaper and typically more functional from a performance perspective (but quality is a different matter). How is it a no-name brand phone in China or India, with more functionality (faster cpu, dual sim, higher res camera … etc … ) can be cheaper than a name brand Smart phone everywhere else in the world? My view is someone is taking a big profit. Name brand phones ARE cheaper in the USA, but all that tells me is there is something going on between the regulators and the manufacturers of name brand phones and going on with the phone companies that distribute these phones.
One can have different views about subsidization and the morality of this, but I have to say based on watching trade battles between the USA and Canada that their is a hypocracy here applied by all countries (to which the USA is no exception) when it comes to susbsidization. Typically subsidization will lead to trade tarrifs.
I’ve also read that subsidization can lead to a disruption of the basic supply and demand equation. And subsidies if not to help some fragile industry (to preserve jobs … ) is likely instead just lining the pockets of the rich (or CEOs/board of directors).
Is the mobile phone industry fragile ?
Anyway, my views here border on the political and don’t belong on the forum.
I do understand why the subsidization is purported to be in place, but frankly I think there is a LOT more to this. I don’t accept the subsidizing arguement on blind faith. My travelling around the world and looking at phone prices around the world tells me something else is going on here.
I think it’s valid to make a misdemeanor law carrying a fine for trying to defraud the owner of a phone by linking that phone to a different carrier.
But spending what could be rest of one’s life in jail and selling the kdz into slavery to pay a one mill fine is just silly. The sort of thing I’d expect to see in a tin pot dictatorship.
I wouldn’t say they `give it away’ because it’s associated with an inflated subscription over a minimum fixed-term contract. Once that minimum time is reached, it is up to the user whether or not to continue, but in either case he/she keeps the phone and enjoys the right to be contractually free from any financial obligation to the carrier.
It’s like purchasing a laptop where Windows is pre-installed since its subsidised by Microsoft and bloatware. To make it difficult to jump ship (e.g. to Linux) is unfortunate (think UEFI), but to make it illegal for financial reasons is scandalous, and merely pandering to the corporate monoliths.
They definitely don’t “give it away”. The fees cover any “inclusive” monthly allowances (network units/sms/data etc.), recovery of their costs for providing the phone, and maybe some profit. All that is packaged to enable and encourage you to build up chargeable and highly profitable network traffic.
It is fascinating to read the range of opinions on this new ruling in light of how the Linux community in general reacts to any forced licensing of hardware or software, something which is against the spirit of the Linux community with its GPL license. Examples which come to mind are DVD encryption, UEFI, and vfat licensing, which was an issue with Tom Tom phones, see TomTom fights Microsoft FAT32 lawsuit with suit of its own | Ars Technica for example.
I don’t have to pay a fee to use any desktop phone of my choice with a land line - why is this not true with wireless equipment?
It is interesting that as we move further and further from analog technology, what we gain in technological power, we equivalently lose in personal freedoms.
Eventually the pain my far outweigh the gain !
I meant Tom Tom GPS units.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:56:01 +0000, oldcpu wrote:
> hendersj;2523073 Wrote:
> I’m not convinced that this is true in other parts of the world.
Maybe so, but the law in question is a US law.
> I do understand why the subsidization is purported to be in place, but
> frankly I think there is a LOT more to this. I don’t accept the
> subsidizing arguement on blind faith. My travelling around the world
> and looking at phone prices around the world tells me something else is
> going on here.
Remember that the US is one of the most expensive places to own a mobile
phone. My views about this also get pretty political (not in terms of
political parties, but just the broader definition of “capitalism” often
used here), so I won’t pursue that here.
The US is also one of the most expensive places to get broadband, too -
and our speeds aren’t as good as other parts of the world. For $50/
month, I get 3 Mbps/384 Kbps DSL. My brother in Japan can get speeds
upwards of 60 Mbps for far cheaper per month (though he has a bandwidth
cap and I don’t).
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:36:01 +0000, flymail wrote:
> hendersj;2523073 Wrote:
>>
>> It’s a failing business model to give away a $500 phone and have
>> customers unlock it and switch to a different carrier. Eventually, one
>> who did that would go out of business.
>>
> I wouldn’t say they `give it away’ because it’s associated with an
> inflated subscription over a minimum fixed-term contract. Once that
> minimum time is reached, it is up to the user whether or not to
> continue, but in either case he/she keeps the phone and enjoys the right
> to be contractually free from any financial obligation to the carrier.
Well, again, remember that the prices on mobile services in the US are
fairly expensive relative to the rest of the world.
> It’s like purchasing a laptop where Windows is pre-installed since its
> subsidised by Microsoft and bloatware. To make it difficult to jump ship
> (e.g. to Linux) is unfortunate (think UEFI), but to make it illegal for
> financial reasons is scandalous, and merely pandering to the corporate
> monoliths.
I think that’s somewhat different. As I understand it, the subsidized
cost of Windows on the machine pre-installed is covered by fees paid by
the bloatware companies to have their trialware installed. That’s the
rationale I’ve heard for a barebones machine costing (as often is the
case) more than one with Windows pre-installed.
I’m not completely sure I buy that argument, but I’ve seen stranger
things in business dealings.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Hmm … From my research recently (prior to my purchasing a Smart phone in November) was that US mobile phones price are signficantly cheaper in the US than Europe. I do note in Europe it is possible (and legal) to buy a (more expensive) unlocked phone. Its also possible (but not easy) to buy a locked phone with a service contract and unlock the phone. However in that contact case, one is still locked in to their contract of a fixed payment per month, typically for a couple of years (whether or not one uses the service). Ergo there is not much motive to buy a 1-euro phone (with a contact), unlock the phone, and jump ship to a different provider as one still has to pay out the two year original contract. To me that makes sence and it is conistent with how I see ownership rights of a phone. The US situation does not make sense to me given what I am reading on this thread.
Also, wrt phone prices, Chinese/Indian (no name brand) mobile phone prices (where the phone’s performance tends to be higher than name brand) and also the Chinese/Indian services are significant cheaper than those of the US. Only name brand phones in China and India are comparible to US levels, and only name brand (typically of lower performance) are possibly more expensive - ergo one pays for the name. The cheaper non-name brand phone prices (for both phones and service) tends to suggest to me that the US situation is not what it seems.
I have my own views on the above as to why it is the way it is, as I am sure others have different views.