Well, considering the cutoff of the old rules apparently being the end of 2012, I would bet it's been on the table for at least that long.
Sent from my A210 using Tapatalk HD
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Just FYI: Saturday Jan 26th It Will Be Illegal in the US to Unlock Your Phone
- Thread starter dgstorm
- Start date
Well, considering the cutoff of the old rules apparently being the end of 2012, I would bet it's been on the table for at least that long.
Sent from my A210 using Tapatalk HD
fobpartisan
Member
So instead of buying a phone from a specific carrier it'll be more like leasing a phone. U use the phone until u no longer want to pay for it or it breaks. Sad how an 83 year old granpops that most likely has no idea how to use a smart phone okayed this into a law which the congres nor the united states citizens didn't vote on. What is next. U buy a car in 2014 and u can only use shell gas in it. If u use chevron it is stealing profits from shell. Ridicules.
Except that Shell didn't contribute anything to the development, manufacturing, advertising or distribution of the car. In contrast, Verizon (insert your favorite carrier here), not only contributed to the software for the phone, but also to the marketing, advertisement and distribution via their website, television, radio and print advertising, and direct retail distribution in their stores. If Shell both contributed to and sells the car, then they'd have a right to recover costs and to profit from its distribution and use.
You have to look at the big picture to fully understand why this make at least some reasonable sense.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
So, are you saying it's OK for Verizon to contribute to the overall success of the phone just so somebody can take it to a competing carrier and allow them to reap the fruits of Verizon's labor? Lets see someone do that to your products or your job...how long would that last? You do all (or part of), the work to make something and then instead of you getting paid, they send your salary to your neighbor.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
how does verizon contribute to phone's success besides having the best network? it's more like other way around, the phones are contributing to verizon's success. and you can't take phone from verizon to other carrier without either paying full price for it or subsidized price and etf. are they going to do the same with tablets too? then what, personal pcs? tell you where and how you can use them? sounds like too much government involvement in our personal lives.
i'd go as far as saying that verizon is doing a disservice to smartphones by filling them up with a ton of crapware and postponing timely updates for years on end.
i'd go as far as saying that verizon is doing a disservice to smartphones by filling them up with a ton of crapware and postponing timely updates for years on end.
Again, I think you're missing the point. Verizon does contribute a very large chunk of money to the phone manufacturers in order to have those phones on their network. As described above, the success of the phone (and yes, also of the network), is highly dependent on the joint efforts - the collaboration between the carrier and the phone manufacturer. Without one the other fails, so recovery of the costs is crucial.
The cellular phone is a radio communications device which is dependent on the cellular carriers' networks. Without the carriers, the device can not communicate. Likewise, the carriers are dependent on the phones to do their jobs as well. If the tablet you're using as another example is cellular enabled, then yes...the same rules would apply.
In the case of personal PCs, since they are not cellular dependent and can perform a plethora of tasks without even being connected to any network at all there is no purpose for the networks to get involved in the design, building, or marketing and distribution of them (yet). Once home or personal PCs become cellular capable as a way to connect to the internet for example (and it's likely coming...), then you may see this same legislation applied to them as well.
And if you don't think Verizon contributed to the success of the Droid and Droid RAZR phones then you weren't watching TV or listening to the radio, let alone reading any major news or magazine publications. Those AD campaigns cost millions, and I'm sure that both Verizon and Motorola for instance, contributed their fair shares.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
debrad0307
Member
Ok, I understand why some of you are so upset. The fact that you can't do what you want to something you own. But... doesn't a device have to first be compatible with a certain network. Also, I know that a lot of carriers do not allow you to activate a phone that they do not support (you cannot activate a Verizon phone on sprints network and vice versa). And from what I understand its because the features on the phone may not be compatible with another network. So, my question is... why even care about this law? It really isn't pertaining to us anyway. In highly doubt that all of you bought your phone after the 26th. Now, if they made rooting, unlocking your bootloader, and romming your device illegal them we would have an issue. I don't know about the rest of you but I have no intentions of leaving my carrier. And if I do leave, then I will get a compatible phone. At the same time, I rely don't understand why the law was passed in the first place. Also, my question is what is going to happen to those cell phone companies like cricket. They have to flash your phone in order for it to work on their network. Are they no longer going to be able to do that? Anyways, I'm sorry that most of you are upset. But look on the bright side... people break the law all the time and don't get caught. If there is a will they're is a way, right?
Sent from my Synergized SCH-I535
Sent from my Synergized SCH-I535
Well, considering that all the telecoms are going to 4G/LTE I would venture to guess this means that all phones with LTE will be compatible. But, also we've seen a rise in every day people buying phones with global capabilities.
Look at the t-mobile kids who bought the htc dna droid off contract and took it to t-mobile.
Plus, we're seeing a retaliatory backlash against consumers who are not paying for the roaming charges when leaving the country because they could unlock it.
As far as cricket is concerned they will have to abide by the newly to be enforced lost/stolen/blacklisted directory for phones. So, if you leave Verizon with your galaxy Nexus without paying for the etf or the bill then they will block the esn/imeid number to render the phone useless.
Doesn't Europe allow you to take the phone that you own, and go get a SIM card and service for whatever carrier you want? This isn't rocket science. I buy a TV, maybe I get a good deal on it because I signed up for DirecTV with it, but when my contract is up and DirectTV "Recovered their costs", why should they be able to prevent me from going to Comcast or Dish?
It's stupid. This is yet another industry buying legislation in order to boost profits, with the consumers and tax payers footing the bill and being incovenienced.
It's stupid. This is yet another industry buying legislation in order to boost profits, with the consumers and tax payers footing the bill and being incovenienced.
I just thought I would let you guys know that the OP has been updated with some new info that clarifies things a bit.
I guess my only question with that would be is it the contract or what you paid for the phone that dictates if it's "yours" or not?
For example, say I used an upgrade to get an iPhone 5 for $200, but after a few weeks didn't like it, but couldn't return it at that point. Therefore I buy outright, for full retail, a Galaxy S3, and sell the iPhone 5 myself to cover most of the cost. Does that make it legal for me to unlock the S3 to another carrier? Or because it's still tied to my contract, in a roundabout way, is it illegal for me to unlock the S3 to another carrier?
Isn't that what the ETF is for? To pay back the carrier for the subsidized costs of the phone should you break your contract early?
Wouldn't it be "double dipping" to try to "recover" those costs, twice?
Yeah, but I'm never actually using the ETF because I'm not breaking the contract. Unless I'm looking at this the wrong way?