NEWS: Congress unlocks US cellphones

<http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/23/congress_dmca_cellphones_censorware>

The US copyright office will permit mobile phone subscribers to
unlock their phones, allowing them to be used by rival network
providers.

It's a right that's taken for granted in most of the GSM world, where
there's little operators can do to stop it.

But US carriers, being the enlightened souls that they are (lowest
form of wit - ed.) used fear created by the 1998 Digital Millenium
Copyright Act to prevent unlocking. The DMCA outlawed the
circumvention of technological protection measures on copyright works
- with few exemptions. It promised to permit the US Congress'
copyright office to review these exemptions from time to time.

Now, in its third review of permissible DMCA exemptions, the US
Congress' copyright librarian has lifted the fear of prosecution from
unlockers:

"Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless
telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication
network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of
lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: NEWS: Congress unlocks US cellphones

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/2...phones_censorw
> are>
>
<snip>

This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept unlocked
phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to occur.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 23:19:51 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept unlocked
>> phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to occur.
>
>The carriers currently accept unlocked phones. With CDMA, if the carrier
>supports a phone, either the locked or unlocked version will work just
>fine, while with GSM you can generally use any unlocked GSM phone.
>
>What doesn't make sense is the fact that the carriers are so sensitive
>about the subject. You still have to sign a contract to get a discounted
>phone, and you can't leave for another carrier for one or two years
>without paying a termination fee. I guess the carriers are thinking
>beyond those two years, or in the case of quad-band phones they're
>thinking about international roaming revenue as opposed to having
>subscribers opt for prepaid SIM cards.

The carriers are actually thinking about fraud.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept
>> unlocked phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to
>> occur.
>
> The carriers currently accept unlocked phones. With CDMA, if the
> carrier supports a phone, either the locked or unlocked version will
> work just fine, while with GSM you can generally use any unlocked GSM
> phone.
>

Sorry- I should have been clearer. There is nothing to force, say, Sprint
to put an unlocked Verizon phone on their network. I can also see where
this goes if they are eventually forced to comply- a new charge to reflash
the phone to make it network-capable. I'm also waiting to see a ton of
complaints from the uninformed who believe that they are entitled to full
phone funcationality from a carrier that doesn't actively support a phone.
We already see it with limited BT functionality from carriers that do
support the phones- it'll only get more outrageous going forward.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
> The carriers are actually thinking about fraud.
>

Actually a fairly good point. How does a carrier know if another carrier's
phone was stolen or not?

I smell a new government-mandated database- a national "stolen phone" list.
A great way to add yet another fee to our bills to support its operation.

Scott wrote:

> This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept unlocked
> phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to occur.

The carriers currently accept unlocked phones. With CDMA, if the carrier
supports a phone, either the locked or unlocked version will work just
fine, while with GSM you can generally use any unlocked GSM phone.

What doesn't make sense is the fact that the carriers are so sensitive
about the subject. You still have to sign a contract to get a discounted
phone, and you can't leave for another carrier for one or two years
without paying a termination fee. I guess the carriers are thinking
beyond those two years, or in the case of quad-band phones they're
thinking about international roaming revenue as opposed to having
subscribers opt for prepaid SIM cards.

>>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept
>>> unlocked phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to
>>> occur.
>>
>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>> The carriers currently accept unlocked phones. With CDMA, if the
>> carrier supports a phone, either the locked or unlocked version will
>> work just fine, while with GSM you can generally use any unlocked GSM
>> phone.
>>
> >"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> Sorry- I should have been clearer. There is nothing to force, say,
> Sprint
> to put an unlocked Verizon phone on their network. I can also see where
> this goes if they are eventually forced to comply- a new charge to reflash
> the phone to make it network-capable. I'm also waiting to see a ton of
> complaints from the uninformed who believe that they are entitled to full
> phone funcationality from a carrier that doesn't actively support a phone.
> We already see it with limited BT functionality from carriers that do
> support the phones- it'll only get more outrageous going forward.
>
Last I knew VZW didn't allow former sprint phones on their network.
IOW, You couldn't bring a Sprint phone to VZW after the terms of contract
were met with Sprint and vise-versa
--
Andrew D. Sisson
LG VX8100 VZW AC II SINCE APRIL 1993
SonyEricsson Z525a CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006

Andy S wrote:

> Last I knew VZW didn't allow former sprint phones on their network.
> IOW, You couldn't bring a Sprint phone to VZW after the terms of contract
> were met with Sprint and vise-versa

If Verizon supported a specific model, and another carrier had that
model, and you unlocked the phone, you could activate it on Verizon.
That was my experience anyway.

The problem is that Verizon and Sprint have very few phone models in
common, even phones that are essentially identical often have slightly
different model numbers. However Alltel often had phones identical to
Verizon phones, and these could be activated on Verizon if unlocked.

Scott wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept
>>> unlocked phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to
>>> occur.
>> The carriers currently accept unlocked phones. With CDMA, if the
>> carrier supports a phone, either the locked or unlocked version will
>> work just fine, while with GSM you can generally use any unlocked GSM
>> phone.
>>
>
> Sorry- I should have been clearer. There is nothing to force, say, Sprint
> to put an unlocked Verizon phone on their network.

Right, but if it's a phone that Sprint otherwise supports, then it may
be okay. With Verizon, you could use a Motorola phone from another CDMA
carrier on Verizon's network, if Verizon also supported that model. This
is despite the fact that the phone from the other carrier probably had
slightly different firmware.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 23:19:51 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Scott wrote:
> >
> >> This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept
unlocked
> >> phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to occur.
> >
> >The carriers currently accept unlocked phones. With CDMA, if the carrier
> >supports a phone, either the locked or unlocked version will work just
> >fine, while with GSM you can generally use any unlocked GSM phone.
> >
> >What doesn't make sense is the fact that the carriers are so sensitive
> >about the subject. You still have to sign a contract to get a discounted
> >phone, and you can't leave for another carrier for one or two years
> >without paying a termination fee. I guess the carriers are thinking
> >beyond those two years, or in the case of quad-band phones they're
> >thinking about international roaming revenue as opposed to having
> >subscribers opt for prepaid SIM cards.
>
> The carriers are actually thinking about fraud.

I was under the impression carriers locked their phones to prevent folks
from getting free or discounted phones, then simply walking off to another
carrier or selling it on Ebay.

Since it's so easy to buy unlocked phones, or have one's phone unlocked, I
don't see how any of this can possibly prevent fraud.

CS

Cavity Search wrote:

> Since it's so easy to buy unlocked phones, or have one's phone unlocked, I
> don't see how any of this can possibly prevent fraud.

It has nothing to do with fraud. It's solely to prevent a subscriber
from using the phone on another carrier. It's one way to try to reduce
churn, though ineffective except for expensive PDA phones, since for
regular phones the new subscriber typically gets the phone either for
free, or for a token price, with a new two year contract.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Cavity Search wrote:
>
>> Since it's so easy to buy unlocked phones, or have one's phone
>> unlocked, I don't see how any of this can possibly prevent fraud.
>
> It has nothing to do with fraud. It's solely to prevent a subscriber
> from using the phone on another carrier. It's one way to try to reduce
> churn, though ineffective except for expensive PDA phones, since for
> regular phones the new subscriber typically gets the phone either for
> free, or for a token price, with a new two year contract.
>


The intent of locking may not be to prevent fraud, but fraud is much easier
controlled with the locks in place. The point is moot anyway, as the
carriers are under no pressure to accept unlocked phones from other
carriers. As long as the status quo is maintained, the headline of this
thread is much ado about nothing.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> What doesn't make sense is the fact that the carriers are so sensitive

I wouldn't say "sensitive". I would say "clueless". The front line
service reps don't know anything about unlocking. What reference do you
have that indicates they are sensitive about it, or refuse to provide the
code for a phone that is locked to them?

> about the subject. You still have to sign a contract to get a discounted
> phone, and you can't leave for another carrier for one or two years
> without paying a termination fee. I guess the carriers are thinking
> beyond those two years, or in the case of quad-band phones they're
> thinking about international roaming revenue as opposed to having
> subscribers opt for prepaid SIM cards.

If you ask Cingular for the subsidy unlock code, specifically because
you are traveling out of the country and want to use another SIM, they
will give you the unlock code. I received my unlock code within a few
months of buying the phone.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Scott wrote:

> The intent of locking may not be to prevent fraud, but fraud is much easier
> controlled with the locks in place. The point is moot anyway, as the
> carriers are under no pressure to accept unlocked phones from other
> carriers. As long as the status quo is maintained, the headline of this
> thread is much ado about nothing.

True, but GSM carriers do accept unlocked phones from other carriers. So
do CDMA carriers, if the locked version is one of the phones on their
approved list.

John Navas wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 23:19:51 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Scott wrote:
> >
> >> This is meaningless- there is nothing to force carriers to accept unlocked
> >> phones on their network. It only allows the unlocking to occur.
> >
> >The carriers currently accept unlocked phones. With CDMA, if the carrier
> >supports a phone, either the locked or unlocked version will work just
> >fine, while with GSM you can generally use any unlocked GSM phone.
> >
> >What doesn't make sense is the fact that the carriers are so sensitive
> >about the subject. You still have to sign a contract to get a discounted
> >phone, and you can't leave for another carrier for one or two years
> >without paying a termination fee. I guess the carriers are thinking
> >beyond those two years, or in the case of quad-band phones they're
> >thinking about international roaming revenue as opposed to having
> >subscribers opt for prepaid SIM cards.
>
> The carriers are actually thinking about fraud.

What kind of fraud are you referring to? Leaving a provider with a
subsidized phone? That's already taken care of with termination
penalties. Stolen phone? Phones can be deactivated by their ID (separate
from the SIM identity).


--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky