Shared publicly  - 
ahdkaw unodaskaw's profile photoDominik Witkiewicz's profile photoShreyas Bhaktharam's profile photoCharles Johnson's profile photo
+Sven Frenzel Yep, just making a comment that the Nexus 4 does not have carrier unlocking, therefore, is not restricted.
I'm very much looking forward to my AT&T iPhone contract running out in March. No more contract services for me, though I don't like the idea of spending $600 on a smartphone!
If I cared about unlocking this phone, i would just do it, since I bought it.

The notion of a spending money on a piece of hardware and then being restricted from modifying it by law is silly.
Fuck the government for passing stupid bills fucking idiots 
+jimmy boun this was not a new bill. The Librarian of Congress issued this as part of his interpretation of a previous anti hacking act
Every company is becoming money hungry and greedy. Why dont be create products and help out the needy. Instead, each company wants maximun profit. Its not even about helping people anymore. We need change!
Is it time for "send your phone to Canada for unlock" overnight service?
Sean M
"how many people are prosecuted for violating laws, versus laws?"
+John McGrath, outside of the extremely inane/obscure laws - and, given the # of people cited, and prosecuted, per law - I would saw the # of people prosecuted is greater than the # of laws.

Also, people don't fully own a subsidized phone anymore than they own a car they took a loan out on. The fact that carriers want to protect their investment until the contract is over should not be frowned upon. However, I think the Early Termination Fee was the answer to this problem, not getting the LoC to enact a part of the DMCA.

EDIT: Perhaps I should note that I probably agree with you, John, that there are extra laws. However, when it comes to practice, the ones that actually "matter" (quotation to reflect differences in opinion) seem to be the ones that are actually enforced. Still, it sucks to have so many "dumb" laws around.
Just another Item that allows Joe Citizen to be Considered a  Criminal.
Sean M
+Joseph Nguyen, sorry, but I don't think profit and success are "new" desires for companies in the 21st century. Companies have never been been about helping the people - at least not as a primary objective (unless they happened to be in some service industry).

Today, most large companies are responsible to their stockholders. CEOs and boardrooms can only do so much before risking getting booted. Although, even if they got booted, they'd probably keep their mulit-million dollar pay checks - lol. Now, this isn't to divert blame from the individuals running the corporations, since there is plenty of problems with the "Big Boy" club...  Just figured I would point out it out.

However, I do think that companies have some obligation to give back to the communities they deal with. Still, it is normal communities and (local, regional, or federal) government that are supposed to look after each other. 
+John McGrath I was going to say exactly the same. I am like you though I thought that was what the early termination fee was for.... 
Business will be good for Google.

I'm not one to carrier hop, but I it's nice knowing that I can with my Nexus 4 and I expect to only buy Nexus phones from here on out, or whatever that mysterious X phone is going to be. 
I also own a Nexus 4 and have no reason to buy into any subsidized plan.  T-mob is now financing phones, if the rep who called me can be trusted. But T-mob charges a lot more than Google. 
Sean M
+Oliver Bouchard, from the various articles I have read, there appears to be some sort of underground exportation business or something being run. (According to some quote I happened upon the other day) Something about large quantities of phones being unlocked and shipped overseas. All this done, presumably, by some shady, untouchable gang or whatnot. At this point, I feel like I just wrote a bad Hollywood script and shouldn't post this - lol
Sean M
+Ilia Rostovtsev, people who pay $600 in the US can still get their phone unlocked. It is the ones that pay nothing or $200 for the same phone (as you) that are whining. The cell carrier cuts the cost to a fraction of the original because the consumer signs a contract. Not much different than someone who has to take out a loan to buy a car; there will be rules. 

The issue I have, is why that this had to be legislated when companies already had Early Termination Fees. I don't understand why that wasn't enough.
We can still do it in the UK, fortunately. This is just going to lead to people doing it illegally.
+Sean McGuire I'll admit that I haven't done much reading on this since it really doesn't apply to me, but are you saying that the people are only unable to unlock the phones if they get it on contract and not if they buy it out right? If that's the case, I really don't see it as being that big of a deal. However, are they free to unlock the phone after their contract period is over? If not, then I see it as a problem. 
I can't understand how unlocking a phone can be illegal. Sometimes lawmakers have nothing better to do than make crazy laws.
Sean M
+Marcus Thomas, that is about right. Once the consumer has finished, or bought out their contract, the carrier should not have any issues unlocking the phone. 

It still stinks that people have to go to their carrier when the phone is completely paid off, so I don't agree with that. However, I am more up in the air when it comes to subsidized phones still on contract.
It's not like you can cancel the contract. You will eventually pay off the phone anyway, so I really don't see the issue with unlocking it early.
+Jace Daniels low life?.. really?.. im out of contract and on stragihttalk cause im tired of att / tmo / verizon bullshit. data caps and what not. i pay 46.92/month for everything.. so yes.. there is reasons to unlock your phone. i've switched 5 friends over to ST. they all love it. 
+Jace Daniels I agree. The txt about data was annoying but to be honest I love them so far. I have no issues and my bill is 46 a month. Service is great compared to Sprint (previous company I was with). And 3g is great imo. I can actually watch YouTube videos without lagging. 
+Sean McGuire "gangs unlocking phones in the US and exporting them"? Sounds like crazy talk!
1) If this business had to be viable, they would unlock phones overseas. So new regulation would not stop this practice, as "gang" would be exporting sim-locked phones. US workers, incl criminals would seek higher hourly compensation for unlocking service than in the majority of other countries (check disposable income per capita over the world). I don't know how it looks now with smartphones, but few years ago unlocking typical Nokia phone cost some $2-$5 in Central and Eastern Europe. Would it make sense to unlock in the US, if phone was to be sent to Central Europe anyway?

2) Subsidised phones are not US-exclusive phenomenon. IMO the only time that unofficial export channels are robust is when some popular model is initially not available outside US. (historically - Iphone 1 and 2 were not available overseas for prolonged time so this encouraged "private exporters").

3) If one buys a subsidized phone and does not make a single minute call / does not transfer a single kb, over 2 years - but pays his contract - this is legal. What's the difference if the phone is not stored in the drawer but sent abroad?
What they are saying. Is your phone is like a car you can't change it until you pay it off
Add a comment...