Related
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01...ile-phones-becomes-illegal-in-the-us-tomorrow
I think it applies to a carrier unlock., not a bootloader for custom roms.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
"You have 48 hours."
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
Carrier unlocking is what it's talking about. This is also further proof that the the United States is has become "by the corporation for the corporation".
" Unlocking a phone frees it from restrictions that keep the device from working on more than one carrier's network, allowing it run on other networks that use the same wireless standard. This can be useful to international travellers who need their phones to work on different networks. Other people just like the freedom of being able to switch carriers as they please. "
Assimilated using the interface that interacts with the advanced internet.
unlocking becomes the new jailbreaking lol
I didn't see this thread, hopefully a Mod will have mercy on me and delete my thread.
The basis of this law being passed is so weak that it really does make me quite concerned that the rooting community is going to come into focus before long. The judge ruled that unlocking a phone infringes on copyright laws, which it really doesn't, and I suspect that long term the rooting community will be a target. You can already see from companies like Motorola and now HTC that this is an area of concern for them.
Personally I am concerned for it, but would hope that companies that openly support rooting like Samsung and Google will come to our aid.
If the government DOES take action against rooting, I would hope that a judge would look at an OS like Android and rule that rooting cannot by definition be illegal since everything is open source. But we all know how that is likely to go.
I registered and signed the petition. Not sure if it'll do much, but hope it catches attention.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda premium
It only applies to carrier unlocking, it does not affect unlock bootloaders.
latindor17 said:
It only applies to carrier unlocking, it does not affect unlock bootloaders.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With an immediate outlook you are absolutely correct. The problem here is the precedent that is being set.
If courts rule that simply unlocking a phone that is no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract is copyright infringement, there is not a huge jump for the courts to then apply this to the rooting community. Companies are already laying groundwork against custom ROMs, like HTC, Motorola, and to an extent Apple with the jailbreaking community. This could snowball in the future and make life really miserable for anyone wanting to root.
Copypasta from other thread.
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)
I like how you added in the part about "no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract" as that does change the argument you present, however, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is you 'carrier unlocking' a phone that you specifically agreed to use on their network, so you can use it on another network (technically, this is a breech of contract, and technically you've defaulted if you do this by not following the terms of the contract).
benmatlock said:
Copypasta from other thread.
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)
I like how you added in the part about "no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract" as that does change the argument you present, however, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is you 'carrier unlocking' a phone that you specifically agreed to use on their network, so you can use it on another network (technically, this is a breech of contract, and technically you've defaulted if you do this by not following the terms of the contract).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I have read on this legislation is that regardless of whether or not you are still in the contract you may not unlock the subsidized phone sold to you by the phone company. I am the first to admit my understanding of this is far from perfect, but what I have read indicates that you CANNOT unlock the phone regardless of whether or not you are in the contract. This is, in my opinion, an area that the telephone companies should not be able to regulate. I took the "lease" terminology from the post you referenced earlier. In reality this is not a lease as much as it is a "lease to own" situation. The company does not request the phone back after the contract expires and cedes ownership of the property at that point to the individual. Under these circumstances the contract to use the phone specifically on their network is fulfilled.
I agree with you completely that while still under contract this is a completely valid legislation, and users should understand the terms of the contract, but it has also been reported extensively that the legislation extends beyond the end of the contract and allows phone companies to enforce these copyright laws after the expiration of the contract. THIS is the precedent that concerns me for the rooting community.
Xiutehcuhtli said:
What I have read on this legislation is that regardless of whether or not you are still in the contract you may not unlock the subsidized phone sold to you by the phone company. I am the first to admit my understanding of this is far from perfect, but what I have read indicates that you CANNOT unlock the phone regardless of whether or not you are in the contract. This is, in my opinion, an area that the telephone companies should not be able to regulate. I took the "lease" terminology from the post you referenced earlier. In reality this is not a lease as much as it is a "lease to own" situation. The company does not request the phone back after the contract expires and cedes ownership of the property at that point to the individual. Under these circumstances the contract to use the phone specifically on their network is fulfilled.
I agree with you completely that while still under contract this is a completely valid legislation, and users should understand the terms of the contract, but it has also been reported extensively that the legislation extends beyond the end of the contract and allows phone companies to enforce these copyright laws after the expiration of the contract. THIS is the precedent that concerns me for the rooting community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, what I have read on the legislation (just got done reading the jist of the part about phones) from the verbage, it implies that carriers (like AT&T for example) offer 'unlocking provisions' that allow you to unlock the device after the expiration of the contract.
benmatlock said:
Well, what I have read on the legislation (just got done reading the jist of the part about phones) from the verbage, it implies that carriers (like AT&T for example) offer 'unlocking provisions' that allow you to unlock the device after the expiration of the contract.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will read some more at work tomorrow. Too late for me to put that thinking cap on.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
deleted
VoluntaryMan said:
It's not illegal for me since I'm using Ting which doesn't frown upon customers running custom ROMs or rooting routing their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not illegal to use custom ROMs yet for anyone.
Unlocking phones is still legal for phones purchased before the 27th. For most people, this law will only affect you with the next phone that you buy.
Thinking about this..
How would they ever be able to figure out you've done this? Are they going to call other Service Providers and ask "hey man, you got this imei on your network??"
They aren't going after the users. Just the sellers of unlocked phone as its the process of unlocking that's supposedly now illegal.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
I would say at this point for all of us here in this forum at least would understand that Sprint as our carrier as well as Verizon will not ever ever allow a non carrier specific ESN on there network , even if say someone were to flash one of our devices to cricket or metro they would no longer be allowed to switch that device back.
So this law that is highly geared towards aggravated theft and people being hurt even killed over there very expensive smartphone (let's be totally honest iSuck ) and with out any hassle putting it on a different carrier and not be traced, has nothing to do with the rooting community or custom ROMs especially here on xda where it is moderated to not allow copyright infringement or taking credit for any company's work
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
So with this new legislation claiming that unlocking a cell phone infringes on copyright laws, how long before the question of rooting comes before a judge?
The basis of this law being passed is so weak that it really does make me quite concerned that the rooting community is going to come into focus before long. Would just like some thoughts from everyone.
Xiutehcuhtli said:
So with this new legislation claiming that unlocking a cell phone infringes on copyright laws, how long before the question of rooting comes before a judge?
The basis of this law being passed is so weak that it really does make me quite concerned that the rooting community is going to come into focus before long. Would just like some thoughts from everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)
▀▄► Unlocking Any Phones in USA 100% illegal ! ◄▀▀▄▄ READ!!! ALERT!!
Unlocking Phones Now Illegal in USA
In October, 2012, the US Librarian of Congress changed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent users from unlocking their phones and using them to access multiple service providers. However, the change also allowed for a temporary, 90-day period before the new legislation would be put in place, during which users would be free to unlock their devices.
That period ended on Saturday, 26 January, and it is now illegal for American smartphone users to unlock their phones without permission from their service providers.
Unlocking phones allows people travelling in foreign countries to access local mobile networks and avoid large bills from their domestic providers.
However, in its ruling on the changes to the DMCA, the US Federal Register explained that since several providers offered unlocked versions of phones already, there was no reason that users should be legally allowed to unlock phones themselves. In it's original ruling, the Federal Register explained:
"While it is true that not every wireless device is available unlocked, and wireless carriers' unlocking polices are not free from all restrictions, the record clearly demonstrates that there is a wide range of alternatives from which consumers may choose in order to obtain an unlocked wireless phone.
"Thus, the Register determined that with respect to newly purchased phones, proponents had not satisfied their burden of showing adverse effects related to a technological protection measure."
US service provider Verizon sells pre-unlocked versions of each phone it stocks, while AT&T unlocks any device which is out of contract. Many Us phone users unlock their devices in order to be able to use them abroad with a different network, allowing them to make big cost savings.
In response, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mitch Stoltz told Engadget that the changes to the DMCA would deprive users who unlock their phones themselves of any legal defence, and reduce the value of the used phone market, where locked devices sell for less money:
"What's happening is not that the Copyright Office is declaring unlocking to be illegal, but rather that they're taking away a shield that unlockers could use in court if they get sued," Stoltz said. "This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market."
An online petition to the White House to make the unlocking of phones legal again has already received more than 25,000 signatures:
"As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired," the petition explains. "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
"We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision," the petition continues "and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal."
The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense -- such as a cellphone reseller -- the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.
Cellphone Websites Based in USA or OWNERS living in USA of offshore websites will be Prosecuted to full extent of the law.. Customer's unlocking phones from now will be charged.. FBI will start raiding these people for the customer invoice list.
Education and knowing the new laws will prevent any accidental jail time..
Just want to let everyone know this...
This is all true, no B u l l $ h i t...
Be safe!!
-----------------
unlock baseband htc galaxy s3 prepaid iphone 3 4 5 6 4s ipad jailbreak rtsa samsung flashing firmware Samsung note 2 root tab unlocking androidnck CMEA unlocking codes 5.0.1 6.0 6.0.1 6.1 BlackBerry (Torch/Storm/Curve/Bold/Pearl), Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony Ericsson, HTC, Huawei, Toshiba. Unlock AT&T Tmobile Vodafone Telus Digicel MetroPCS Orange Sprint Verizon unlock apple h20 Net10 Virgin Mobile Nextel Cingular Alltel Boostmobile pageplus Telcel MysimpleMobile Simple Mobile Network Unlocking NCK Calculator
gsm1999 said:
Unlocking Phones Now Illegal in USA
In October, 2012, the US Librarian of Congress changed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent users from unlocking their phones and using them to access multiple service providers. However, the change also allowed for a temporary, 90-day period before the new legislation would be put in place, during which users would be free to unlock their devices.
That period ended on Saturday, 26 January, and it is now illegal for American smartphone users to unlock their phones without permission from their service providers.
Unlocking phones allows people travelling in foreign countries to access local mobile networks and avoid large bills from their domestic providers.
However, in its ruling on the changes to the DMCA, the US Federal Register explained that since several providers offered unlocked versions of phones already, there was no reason that users should be legally allowed to unlock phones themselves. In it's original ruling, the Federal Register explained:
"While it is true that not every wireless device is available unlocked, and wireless carriers' unlocking polices are not free from all restrictions, the record clearly demonstrates that there is a wide range of alternatives from which consumers may choose in order to obtain an unlocked wireless phone.
"Thus, the Register determined that with respect to newly purchased phones, proponents had not satisfied their burden of showing adverse effects related to a technological protection measure."
US service provider Verizon sells pre-unlocked versions of each phone it stocks, while AT&T unlocks any device which is out of contract. Many Us phone users unlock their devices in order to be able to use them abroad with a different network, allowing them to make big cost savings.
In response, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mitch Stoltz told Engadget that the changes to the DMCA would deprive users who unlock their phones themselves of any legal defence, and reduce the value of the used phone market, where locked devices sell for less money:
"What's happening is not that the Copyright Office is declaring unlocking to be illegal, but rather that they're taking away a shield that unlockers could use in court if they get sued," Stoltz said. "This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market."
An online petition to the White House to make the unlocking of phones legal again has already received more than 25,000 signatures:
"As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired," the petition explains. "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
"We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision," the petition continues "and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal."
The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense -- such as a cellphone reseller -- the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.
Cellphone Websites Based in USA or OWNERS living in USA of offshore websites will be Prosecuted to full extent of the law.. Customer's unlocking phones from now will be charged.. FBI will start raiding these people for the customer invoice list.
Education and knowing the new laws will prevent any accidental jail time..
Just want to let everyone know this...
This is all true, no B u l l $ h i t...
Be safe!!
-----------------
unlock baseband htc galaxy s3 prepaid iphone 3 4 5 6 4s ipad jailbreak rtsa samsung flashing firmware Samsung note 2 root tab unlocking androidnck CMEA unlocking codes 5.0.1 6.0 6.0.1 6.1 BlackBerry (Torch/Storm/Curve/Bold/Pearl), Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony Ericsson, HTC, Huawei, Toshiba. Unlock AT&T Tmobile Vodafone Telus Digicel MetroPCS Orange Sprint Verizon unlock apple h20 Net10 Virgin Mobile Nextel Cingular Alltel Boostmobile pageplus Telcel MysimpleMobile Simple Mobile Network Unlocking NCK Calculator
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This belongs elsewhere...
gsm1999 said:
Unlocking Phones Now Illegal in USA
In October, 2012, the US Librarian of Congress changed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent users from unlocking their phones and using them to access multiple service providers. However, the change also allowed for a temporary, 90-day period before the new legislation would be put in place, during which users would be free to unlock their devices.
That period ended on Saturday, 26 January, and it is now illegal for American smartphone users to unlock their phones without permission from their service providers.
Unlocking phones allows people travelling in foreign countries to access local mobile networks and avoid large bills from their domestic providers.
However, in its ruling on the changes to the DMCA, the US Federal Register explained that since several providers offered unlocked versions of phones already, there was no reason that users should be legally allowed to unlock phones themselves. In it's original ruling, the Federal Register explained:
"While it is true that not every wireless device is available unlocked, and wireless carriers' unlocking polices are not free from all restrictions, the record clearly demonstrates that there is a wide range of alternatives from which consumers may choose in order to obtain an unlocked wireless phone.
"Thus, the Register determined that with respect to newly purchased phones, proponents had not satisfied their burden of showing adverse effects related to a technological protection measure."
US service provider Verizon sells pre-unlocked versions of each phone it stocks, while AT&T unlocks any device which is out of contract. Many Us phone users unlock their devices in order to be able to use them abroad with a different network, allowing them to make big cost savings.
In response, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mitch Stoltz told Engadget that the changes to the DMCA would deprive users who unlock their phones themselves of any legal defence, and reduce the value of the used phone market, where locked devices sell for less money:
"What's happening is not that the Copyright Office is declaring unlocking to be illegal, but rather that they're taking away a shield that unlockers could use in court if they get sued," Stoltz said. "This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market."
An online petition to the White House to make the unlocking of phones legal again has already received more than 25,000 signatures:
"As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired," the petition explains. "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
"We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision," the petition continues "and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal."
The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense -- such as a cellphone reseller -- the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.
Cellphone Websites Based in USA or OWNERS living in USA of offshore websites will be Prosecuted to full extent of the law.. Customer's unlocking phones from now will be charged.. FBI will start raiding these people for the customer invoice list.
Education and knowing the new laws will prevent any accidental jail time..
Just want to let everyone know this...
This is all true, no B u l l $ h i t...
Be safe!!
-----------------
unlock baseband htc galaxy s3 prepaid iphone 3 4 5 6 4s ipad jailbreak rtsa samsung flashing firmware Samsung note 2 root tab unlocking androidnck CMEA unlocking codes 5.0.1 6.0 6.0.1 6.1 BlackBerry (Torch/Storm/Curve/Bold/Pearl), Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony Ericsson, HTC, Huawei, Toshiba. Unlock AT&T Tmobile Vodafone Telus Digicel MetroPCS Orange Sprint Verizon unlock apple h20 Net10 Virgin Mobile Nextel Cingular Alltel Boostmobile pageplus Telcel MysimpleMobile Simple Mobile Network Unlocking NCK Calculator
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow that's crazy
This is not related to Note 2 directly. I've already moved a handful of these types of threads to XDA General, I suggest you take this conversation there OR in the Off Topic thread here.
Locked
In case you have not heard
this is important
We the people, have less than one week, to get 30,000 more votes.
lets prove to the world that democracy works.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
This is what the petition says, if you don't feel so inclined to click the link.
The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
So I got this letter from The white house petition site saying this :
*
It's Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking
By R. David Edelman, Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy
Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition*on our We the People platform. Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we're pleased to offer our response.
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.
This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.
The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters: the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf), voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.
Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA. The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process. But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released*today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue. Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.
So where do we go from here?
The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.
Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you -- the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility -- to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.
Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.
Stay Connected
Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration.
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
SOOOO.....TIME TO UNLOCK!!!
*
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda app-developers app
From what I gathered. Still will be illegal to unlock a phone if "bound by a service agreement" so if your under contract they can refuse to unlock your phone
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Haha. I was just about to post the exact same thing as the OP. Just got the email too.
So if bound by a service agreement, they don't have to unlock the phone. But what's stopping anyone from doing it on their own?
+Bound for Valhalla!
Nice to see our government can work for us for a change.
sswb27 said:
Nice to see our government can work for us for a change.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They just wanted it off their desk so they can continue to raise our taxes and make their wallets fatter.
Probably just another Ilumminati trick lol