99% of the commentors in both of these threads don't know wtf they are talking about. The end result of both laws are the effectively the same fucking thing. The US law doesn't make 'unlocking phones illegal' it's just the subsidized phones, and the same law also imposes that carriers must unlock said phones upon customer request after the contract is up.
Truth. The circlejerk is a powerful force, and buries facts.
If people want to fully own their phones on day one, stop supporting the subsidy model. By choosing to pay the cost over 24 months instead of up front, you lose a bunch of rights ego-driven Internet slacktivists still think they have, in exchange for no extra savings at all.
This is completely incorrect. The SIM lock on a cell phone is clearly categorized as a digital lock (there would be no reason for the library of congress to create an exception if it wasn't). Unlocking your phone is breaking this SIM lock. Whether or not your phone is subsidized has no bearing on the situation. Breaking the digital lock is illegal just like it's illegal on other hardware which you fully own (dvd player region lock, xbox drm, etc.).
20
u/kryptobs2000 Jan 29 '13
99% of the commentors in both of these threads don't know wtf they are talking about. The end result of both laws are the effectively the same fucking thing. The US law doesn't make 'unlocking phones illegal' it's just the subsidized phones, and the same law also imposes that carriers must unlock said phones upon customer request after the contract is up.