Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Mar 2013 19:28 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "The White House agrees with the 114.000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs."
Thread beginning with comment 554181
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Read that quote
by andrewclunn on Mon 4th Mar 2013 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Read that quote"
andrewclunn
Member since:
2012-11-05

Since it's still entirely legal to unlock phones once they'r eno longer in contract, that's a big point where I think the White House should clarify just what exactly they mean. To me it seems as if they really aren't disagreeing with the recent law restricting unlocking phones, but in such a way as to make it appear as though they are.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Read that quote
by roblearns on Mon 4th Mar 2013 23:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Read that quote"
roblearns Member since:
2010-09-13

Wrong - it's not legal, but illegal to unlock an off-contract phone.

That's why the change in policy is a big deal.

Look people are always confused on this issue, I don't know why.

Nothing changes your contract. If you owe an ETF to leave early - you owe it.

Nobody is saying that you can unlock a phone and that somehow eliminates your obligations to pay for the phone.

That's what never happened - ever - when there was an DMCA exemption, and today - currently there is not one.

You always had to pay the carrier back for the subsidized phone.
But what the DMCA is now doing, now that the exemption no longer exists, is actually criminalizing the act of unlocking a phone.

Doesn't matter about the contract - in fact, never did, that was always a non-issue.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Read that quote
by andrewclunn on Tue 5th Mar 2013 20:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Read that quote"
andrewclunn Member since:
2012-11-05

Thanks for the info:

EDIT -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hoUmCZjca4

Reply Parent Score: 1