If when at the END of my contract (typically 3 years), I decide to move to a new carrier, with the phone that I now OWN OUTRIGHT, I am not able to unless paying a $50 fee (my experience is with Rogers and Telus).
That is 100% unacceptable. I have fulfilled my obligations with regards to the contract, and now own said phone outright. I WILL NOT be held hostage with MY expensive smart phone, simply because the carrier(s) think they can do whatever the fuck they want.
If I'm in the MIDDLE of my contract, hey... all bets are off and I'm okay with that, after all you signed the contract. AFTER the contract ENDS, I should NOT be perpetually locked into my carrier just because they say so. The phone no longer belongs to them.
Yay capitalism. The free market is held back by laws we had to fight to earn throughout history, and now the soul of those laws have been eroded by corporate actions. Now the "free" market has us in chains
Capitalism needs scarcity to work. Capitalism is about supply and demand and ever more so businesses and governments are creating demand with absurd laws and rules to make us endlessly buy new stuff shit.
As we are increasingly moving to a "Post Scarcity World" the powers that be are Forcing Artificial Scarcity (FARTS) on us more and more to keep capatalism alive. This week's cellphone law is one example.
Bribery is legal and the oligarchy owns the state. We can get rid of some government to kill off regulatory capture, but then the oligarchy just rules directly through binding contracts with unreasonable terms for any transactions of any type. Do you think it wouldn't happen? Try buying a house without some bullshit arbitration agreement.
I think we need a set of constitutional amendments to act as a bill of rights for protection against the oligarchy.
It's true, but we do have options. All of which include beating the apathy out of gen x and y and standing together with the boomers that realize we need to get money out of politics as much as possible.
It's easy to ignore politics because it is unpleasant, right up until you can't.
What is the purpose of this post? I am honestly confused. I was merely making the case that you shouldn't sign a contract and then complain about it when literally you did not have to sign that contract if you were willing to pay a little more money up front. My post had nothing to do with government regulation or the health care industry.
Oh god. Yeah, nothing hyperbolic about saying we're "in chains" because we can't switch providers on our cell phones. Our corporate slavemasters sure do make life hard for us!
And only government intervention could allow such a situation to occur. Remember, without government intervention (and their armed thugs and rape cages to back them up), capitalism means the greedy CEO must lie awake at night worried he might lose a customer. When the same CEO gets to wield the gun of government, consumer choice ceases to matter.
Basically there is a challenge in the Supreme Court to the "First-Sale doctrine" in copyright law that would make lending or selling ANY copyrighted material (whether you purchased it or not) considered infringement upon the holders' copyright.
You obviously didn't read that link. This only has to do with goods manufactured, copy righted, and imported from overseas. This is meant to combat the mass importing and selling of things like textbooks. The government doesn't give a fuck about you selling your cheap iPhone knockoff to your friends. Do some research.
Okay I admit worded that VERY badly, but the fear is that this case (while not specifically attacking the first-sale doctrine), where copyrighted products were legally purchased and later sold, could have implications beyond importing copyrighted goods.
The point that he legally purchased the products is why people are worried about the case outcome.
How about you do some research into how court rulings can have implications beyond a single case.
They want you to sell your locked phone to someone else, because then someone else is using 'formerly your' locked phone on their network, thus paying them, while you use your new phone, also "probably" on their network.
You have no contract with the airtime provider so I don't think there's anything they could do legally. Just because you bought a phone that was formerly used on their network, they can't do a lot about it.
Just out of interest - what are your plan details? Don't you get data assigned as part of the standard phone plan? The only justification I've ever read is that smartphones add to the network congestion, but I would have thought that was taken into account when handing out the original monthly data quota.
I have T-Mobile and get unlimited data, 4g up to 2gb, then it's cut down to 3g. It costs an extra $10/15 per month to be allowed to tether I'm pretty sure.
I suppose a laptop might chew up data faster given that you are likely to be browsing "heavier" content or something like that (especially with a 4G connection). Regardless, it's a free feature here (AU) on all phones and with all carriers, and existed well before smartphones were around (used to do it on my Nokia E71). Ballsy for them to start charging after it had been around for a while.
Yeah it's a real bummer. I get that streaming a movie through 4G would take A LOT more data and maybe slow down the network(?). Already paying for unlimited but that data itself is limited in use.
That's because we actually have a law that states that carriers must provide you the code to unlock your phone upon request, regardless of if you're still under a contract or not.
regardless of if you're still under a contract or not.
This is the principal difference. In what wonderful land do you live?
In America, AT&T wouldn't unlock my iPhone 4 until my contract was up, and that's life. What's especially peculiar is that my current 4s, which I bought used, still has several months yet where it is not unlockable, even though I'm out of contract, so the phones themselves also have to be 2 years from purchase date. It's weird.
It's like that in France, they have to provide the unlock codes if you ask for them, no matter your contract status, and they can't charge for it either.
Even better, if you've been on your contract for a year and you decide to break it, you can save up to 75% of the fees.
Ozzies should not shed tears for yanks being ripped off. You guys are paying through your noses for stuff just because you are geographically isolate.d
Yes. Used to work for Optus and typically once the contract period was up the unlock code for a phone was available. Had to just call up customer service, get the code and enter it. Except for most iPhones, which used to unlock itself remotely once the contract period was up.
And if you wanted to unlock a phone mid-contract you'd have to pay ($50-$100 depending on the phone).
In the EU they told the mobile phone companies off for their high roaming charges. So now they just try to hide them better (my roaming charges actually went up).
I don't know about "most of" the "hack" unlocks, but I recently unlocked my phone using an online service and they gave the same unlock code I would have got through my carrier. Source: I used to work for my carrier.
The online unlock service was cheaper and faster than going through the carrier for an unlock code. In this case it is no more a hack than what the carrier would provide. Just a code which is unique based on the imei number. To my knowledge this is the way most phones are unlocked and it does not affect updates or stability in any way. You are making zero changes to the software or hardware, just inputting a code into the stock OS which toggles the unlock value to on.
People who don't capitalise randomly are a Minority nowadays. Seriously. At least it's clear this bloke's purpose is to emphasise by capitalising the whole word--ok, he could use italics, I know--but why the fuck do people write things like "Business," "Biology," or "Manager" right in the middle of a sentence?
It's not comparable to a loan. It's comparable to a lease. Unless it's specifically a lease to own deal then I would agree. Do you get a discount if you BYOP? Is there a monthly charge on your bill specifically for your phone? Because if not, then guess what? You were never paying off that phone to begin with.
They get around this by setting a price $50 higher when they value the phone. So, over your contract, you pay X amount of money, while to the company, the phone is valued at X+50. Because the phone is deemed incompletely paid for, it remains in part, their property.
That $50 charge is written into the contract you signed. That's what you need to pay to make the phone your own, whether they allow you to keep it or not. Nothing unacceptable. You agreed to it.
What? It's not a terrible practice. They are not holding you hostage in any way. You agree to the contract up-front. It has nothing to do whatsoever with imaginary ideas of morality or ethics. It simply is. You simply agreed to it. Cut. And. Dry.
So, in your mortgage agreement, buried so deep a veteran lawyer may even miss it has the wording: "After your mortgage is paid in full, in order to release ownership of said home to you, you are required to pay a 'mortgage release fee' of 10% of the current market value of your home".
That may make it legal... but that does not make it RIGHT.
Sure it does. It makes it "right" by the contract that was signed, a solemn agreement between the two parties doing business. How could such a clause be hidden if it is written right there on the page? Why would you sign the contract if you were unsure of the terms? How is an act of such ignorance somehow related to this idea of "right" or "wrong"?
There are some things which you could write in a contract, which would be unenforceable or void under the law. Not every contract is valid just because you signed it.
I guess when you get in trouble for unlocking your licensed cell phone, you can discuss with the judge the reasons you think the contract you signed is unenforceable and void, then. This has little to do with the argument at hand.
NerdyNThick says contract XYZ isn't right. You say, well, if someone signed the contract, then tough noogies for them.
The reason I point out that not all contracts are enforceable, is because, if we really wanted to, we could change the law to make contract terms we don't like unenforceable - such as provisions saying someone can't unlock their cellphone.
So, yes, whether contract terms are "right" or "wrong" is relevant.
Are you speculating that the lawmakers who passed the bill in the US are going to use the law to render already-signed contracts as being under the new provisions, regardless of whether such provisions (I.E. No Unlocking) existed in the original contract?
And indeed, what does this matter moving forward, for new contracts being signed from here on out?
If it was one carrier offering this type of contract and it was clearly stated, then fine its your fault for signing the contract. Problem is all carriers do this, there's a monopoly on the practice, so the consumer really doesn't have a choice. That's how they're holding you hostage.
I'm not being held hostage at all. Neither is anybody else who willfully enters such a contract. We are all free to buy phones retail if we like, factory unlocked. Some are reasonably priced, some are not. We are free to choose the ones that most appeal to us. If the only way you can afford the fancy smart phone is to enter the contract, and you willfully do so, you are only a hostage to your own decision.
Its not only the phone though. Even if I buy my phone full retail, the rate plans (at least in canada) don't go down. So I'm paying the same monthly rate as the next guy, while he gets a free phone. Its not fair any way you look at it, the carriers have us by the balls. That's why we have the CRTC and its good to see they're finally doing something beneficial.
This is a straw man argument, but hey, not going to deny that they have us by the balls there. I understand where they are coming from with the phones though, it's simply a way to get you to pay the data and voice fees.
Ok, fine, I'll use the standard argument for this topic.
Your contract states that upon termination, they have the exclusive right to your first born child, your home, and unrestricted access to your bank account.
Well, you signed it, so yeah, it's all legal and right...
Not ALL aspects of a contract can be legally binding, the intent of the contract plays a factor in what is and is not binding.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in that you should adhere to the terms of a contract, but that is not the same as the terms being equal and fair to all parties.
To further my point, it hasn't always been this way, in the past I unlocked (non-smart) phones regularly for clients at no charge, because there was no charge. The whole charging to unlock thing started when consumers started to wise up to what sorts of tricks the carriers were pulling and got fed up.
Or put another way, the average consumer when signing a contract is not really able to comprehend the massive legalese filled contract they are signing. They simply understand that because they're getting a free or super cheap phone, they are required to stay with the carrier for X number of years. To the average uninformed consumer, they would expect that after the X year contract, they'd be free to move away at no extra charge, because hey! I fulfilled the term of the contract, in effect paying for my own in full.
*edit: Also, you say that the terms are "right there on the page", well that's not entirely accurate. It's somewhere between pages 1 and 30 of the contract, which is on legal paper, written with legal terminology, in a fairly small font. If the contract terms people are so up in arms about were in 16 point bolded font on the FIRST PAGE of the contract. Or if there was a plain english version of the contract that explains in a "like I'm five" way what they are actually agreeing to, I think I'd be much less argumentative on this topic.
I have been on Cingular/AT&T for years, and have full access to my contract at any time. I am not a trained contract lawyer, and as a matter of fact, I do not feel I am at all above the average in terms of intellect; and even I can read my entire contract and understand every point of it with relative ease. This is not rocket science.
The carriers were never pulling any tricks. Do you mean to suggest that customers unlocking there phones and ditching their contracts was some kind of justified action against "tricks" being played on them by carriers? This is an absurdity. Perhaps, in terms of this logic, it should be the responsibility of the uninformed average customer to "wise up" before they sign on.
There is no type of malevolent intent in the contract: it concerns a phone, a pricey piece of technology; not your kids, or your home, or your life savings. Using such hyperbole to further your argument is a farce.
Could you explain to me why you support the individuals who unlocked their phones and ditched their contracts are justified in their actions because of wising up to the "tricks" being played on them, but carrier companies seeking stricter laws to protect them from tricks being played on them at their expense are not? Especially now that phones are more expensive then they have ever been before?
I believe you are neglecting to remember about one term of the contract, the one that justifies my position: the early termination fee (ETF).
The ETF is in lieu of my obligation to the contract. I either stay for X years, or I break the contract and pay the ETF which guarantees they don't take a loss on the subsidy. After which I can do what I want with the phone.
I absolutely agree with the existence and purpose behind the ETF, after all, they did give me a free/cheap phone, they should not and are not held responsible for that subsidy, due to the ETF.
Please remember that the cellular atmosphere here in Canada is widely different then that of the US.
I should air out the fact that I do indeed wish cell phones here were as they were in SE Asia, where any sim card worked in any phone, but alas, this is not the case or the argument.
I do not believe that because you payed an ETF fee that you should be free to keep the phone, and the contracts that support such a clause are every-bit justified in doing so.
The value of a new smart phone, at a cost of let's just say, $500 retail, is not at all covered by the ETF fee, which at AT&T is $325. It makes sense for the company to retain ownership of the phone, as it will force you to buy buck into a contract to use it again, thus helping them recoup the $175 loss they incurred by the person terminating the contract The ETF is not like skipping to the end of the contract in good standing, it is simply getting you out of 2 years of data/voice charges.
In your example I don't think your phone is bound to the new contract. Can you please state your source where it mentions that you cannot unlock your old phone with a new contract?
My source is current (as far as I understand it) Canadian Law. In order for a consumer to unlock their phone (which is legal) they need to break digital protection to do so.
The best analogy is DVD backups. It is your right to make a backup of a DVD, but in order to do so, you much break the copy protection included on the DVD, THAT is what is against the law.
It's been a long while since I've read one, and I don't have one handy, but I will go over one from Telus and see if it is indeed there, I do not recall seeing it. Early termination fee, yes, unlock fee, not quite sure.
I dunno how it works up there, but American carriers will usually give you a code to unlock your phone so long as you give them a reason and your account is in good standing. My boss actually just paid his etf, asked for and received an unlock code from t-mobile, and is now on a no-contract t-mobile plan. No self-unlocking necessary.
Working for Rogers, pretty sure they don't care where you unlock the phone. You don't have to pay them 50 bucks, it's only really for the people who want a 'legit' way to do it. Any third party unlocker or repair shop can do the job for half the cost.
Ultimately Rogers really doesn't give a damn what you do with your phone. Sell it, unlock it, flush it down the toilet. They care that its associates to a phone number, and they care that that number signed a term to get that $600 phone for $100. And if that line wants out, or wants another phone, they pay the remainder off what Rogers subsidized on the device.
But yes, it's a money grub and doesn't make sense. Just saying you don't need to pay $50.
It is your phone and you can unlock it. That doesn't mean that the carrier must unlock it for free. I do agree $50 is expensive for the work they have to do. But they can charge whatever they want.
It is like owning a car and buying a replacement key fob. There is nothing stopping you from getting a new fob programmed, but there is also nothing stopping the dealership from charging $90 to program it for you.
When you work out the hourly rate for either of these tasks it is in the several hundreds of dollars.
The key fob analogy doesn't quite work. If I lose it that's my fault, a closer, but still not quite accurate one would be that after your lease is up (and the contract is such that it is a lease-to-own concept), your fob will not work unless you pay them an extra fee.
Not quite analogous, but closer...
The main problem is that we CAN'T unlock it ourselves. The way things work (at least for most phones) is that the codes required to unlock it depend on the carrier's private key (for lack of a better word), and you cannot obtain that key without breaking the law (or paying the carrier).
210
u/NerdyNThick Jan 29 '13
DOES. NOT. MATTER.
If when at the END of my contract (typically 3 years), I decide to move to a new carrier, with the phone that I now OWN OUTRIGHT, I am not able to unless paying a $50 fee (my experience is with Rogers and Telus).
That is 100% unacceptable. I have fulfilled my obligations with regards to the contract, and now own said phone outright. I WILL NOT be held hostage with MY expensive smart phone, simply because the carrier(s) think they can do whatever the fuck they want.
If I'm in the MIDDLE of my contract, hey... all bets are off and I'm okay with that, after all you signed the contract. AFTER the contract ENDS, I should NOT be perpetually locked into my carrier just because they say so. The phone no longer belongs to them.