yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] Artood2s:
I think this only applies to phones. Tablets are considered PCs and as such can be modified to the user's content.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] XxSHaDoWxSLaYeRxX:
I waited til today to unlock my phone just to say **** you government
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] barondebxl:
Nice! From now on I'll make unlocking phones a hobby!!!
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] moehagene:
The new law now prevents unauthorized tinkering of tablets sold and distributed in the United States. However, the rule applies for devices governed by telcos' exclusive contracts, most of which expire after two years. I added two different links from a basic Google search.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/4277...-smartphone-unlocking-tablet.htm#.UQS1A79EHQg

http://bgr.com/2013/01/24/smartphone-unlocking-illegal-303627/
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] cr1960:
'....the land of the free.....' :D

Isn't there an amendment about phones? I mean you guys have free speech and guns.....
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] TheEmpyre:
So does this or does this not include bootloader unlocks?
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] CheesyNutz:
No just Sim unlocks
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] WookieFan:
There's a lot of FUD going around. Even The Verge (90 Seconds), had a spot that was vague and seemed to suggest that bootloader unlocking was now illegal (already gone through the courts and confirmed legal).

I think the new law is a net zero effect. Nothing really changes except that carriers have the option of pursuing you legally for taking their phone (your phone) off their network. I don't see them putting a lot of resources into enforcement.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] ceo4eva:
Can Anyone clear that up?
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] TheEmpyre:
Thanks for the clarification
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] 954wrecker:
sorry my phone needs a breathalyzer to prevent me from posting nonsense
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] mounttimp:
Bump....
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] a box of kittens:
Why bump this thread?
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] xybur:
Completely wrong thread, my apologies.

Although, while I'm posting here, what is the benefit of a carrier unlock on HTC One X anyway? A friend of mine did it and loaded up a t mobile plan of some kind but could only take advantage of the 2G network on the phone with their plan.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] a box of kittens:
How is that relevant to this topic? but cool you have fun with that buddy
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] xybur:
yeah haha, I posted in the wrong thread meant to post in the jb rom thread. So, I edited my post above :p

I'll be posting in the correct thread now...
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] a box of kittens:
And to reply to your other post it should be no way illegal for me to unlock a device that is mine and switch it another carrier If I want....even if he can't get 4g on it it stil work's...like I want to move from tmobile to att no-one should stop me using the same phone if its gsm
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] CheesyNutz:
Why because more people need to know about it
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] redpoint73:
T-Mobile has launched 3G/4G (HSPA+) on the 1900 MHz band in a number of major cities/markets, and continues to roll this out. This means that folks with unlocked AT&T phones in those areas can switch to T-Mobile and still have 3G.

http://www.airportal.de/#

Also, being SIM unlocked allows users to use pre-paid SIM cards purchased in foreign countries while traveling abroad, instead of using AT&T much pricier roaming service.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] thebobmannh:
So... look. There is a justification for this law, but I can't quite figure something out.

Say you buy a One X from AT&T for 150 bucks. Their logic (and this is reasonable) is that they are subsidizing the 450 or whatever dollars from the retail price, and so if you unlock (carrier), they eat that 450 bucks because you're just going to another carrier.

The flaw in the logic is that they only give you the subsidized price if you sign a contract. Whether you take the phone off the network or not, you're still tied to the contract, right?

The law is absolutely retarded, but at least if I understood the reasoning behind it it might make sense. But to me it makes no sense.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] eraste:
No! At least in America no. The device imei number will always be. All the carrier has to do is push a button and the phone will be void any were. So if they see your taking the device to another carrier this will probably be their way of enforcing it. Why institute a law you can't enforce? Providing unlock codes for said devices I presume will also constitute an offense. All this law did was hurt small businesses that provided these codes as a means to survive. ATT is pretty good however at providing unlock codes so long as you meet the guidelines. But if you have a while left on contract I don't think there going to be willing to unlock it until your almost out of or are out of your contract.

sent from my soon to be sold for note 2 HTC one x. So much for the term "flagship"
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] WookieFan:
I think there is a fair argument to say that a subsidized phone is not really yours until the contract expires. Just like with cars and houses. You're the title owner, but the bank owns the property until you've fulfilled your end. Pretty normal business practice. AT&T is making it more easily enforceable and taking third parties out of the equation. Not sure what is wrong with that from a business standpoint.

If it were your developed app being pirated, you'd have no problem with this kind of law...
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] thebobmannh:
I know, at least for cars, that the title holder is the bank until it's paid off. When I pay a car off, they mail me the title.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] eraste:
Yea it does make sense to me. Ponder this:

I purchased my one x off contract at full price. However the line I put it on still has well over a year left on it. So in all fairness, I own this phone dead to rights as I paid 100% of the price for it. Just for kicks I called ATT to see if they would allow me to unlock it and I was told NO. Reason: Still under contract. So even though I purchased this phone at full price they wont do it since the line I added it to still has a significant amount of time on contract.

I can understand this argument. So just for kicks I called back today 1/30/13 and spoke to a different customer service person and she understood that the phone was "customer provided" and said yes I can assist you in unlocking your phone for international travel, ( took this to mean they would give me the code if I wanted it). So it seems they are still working out the bugs and what to do if someone brings a device they own over to a line still under contract.

Or it could just be the luck of the draw, some reps will do it others will not. However if the phone is subsidized you can hang up trying to get any type of unlock code. Or so thats what they told me ( not in so many words).
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] whodat006:
http://www.androidcentral.com/what-you-need-know-abut-cell-phone-unlocking

Nice little read
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] flar2:
I can't believe there are people out there who try to defend or rationalize silly laws like this. This is clearly a case of huge corporations using their power to influence the law and distort the market in their favour.

The analogy with car loans or mortgages is not valid. First of all, you don't get cheaper monthly plans if you bring your own phone. Subsidizing a phone is not the same as making monthly loan payments, offering the phones for dirt cheap with a contract is more like a loss leader. They make their money off the overpriced, overly complicated monthly plans and contracts. The second problem here is that if you unlock your phone and switch to another network, you still have to either either a) honour the contract, or b) pay a fee to get out of it. So you still end up paying for the phone. Bottom line: the phone is your property, you should be able to do what you want with it.

Anyway, the whole thing is bizarre, it's carrier locking that should be illegal, not the other way around.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] eraste:
Does this effect you guys in Canada to? Thought this was just a silly U.S. law!
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] flar2:
No, just adding my 2 cents

Our carriers would try to get away with this if they could, though

My network, Koodo, charges $50 to unlock a phone. Of course you can do it online for around $10.

Anyway, what I did is got a One V from Koodo for $25 and a $150 tab (their version of a contract, 10% of your monthly bill goes toward paying down the tab). Then I sold the One V on Kijiji for $200 or $250 (can't remember) and bought a Rogers One X off Kijiji for $350, unlocked it and use it on Koodo. If I were to leave Koodo for another network, I would have to pay the remainder of my tab. No loss to Koodo, I'm still their customer. But because phones are unlockable, I was free to use the open market to find the best phone and plan for my needs. This is what US carriers are trying to prevent.

As you can see, these phones are not worth as much on the open market as they are when you buy them directly from carriers. Rogers One X retails for $600, you can easily buy a barely used one for $300.

Now, the low price is partly due to the carriers practically giving away phones. The alternative would be to pay for the phones up front and allow people to switch networks whenever they pleased. That kind of competition would bring down the prices of monthly plans. If that happened, carriers would see a bigger drop in profits than they do from offering cheap phones as loss leaders. The silly unlocking law is an attempt to protect an unsustainable business model.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] eraste:
Precisely what I plan on doing with the One X, Trying to get the Note 2 on ATT is like pulling teeth since im still under contract on the line I want to add it to. Here are my options. Add a line for $9.95 a month extra plus whatever they want for the new data plan, pay $299.99 subsidized. Or Buy it on Ebay from a reputable dealer unlocked or locked from around $475-525 and not be tied down. Ebay has since exploded with "unlocked" phones I guess in response to this stupid law. Then sell my ATT One X I own (paid full price for from ATT) via ebay, Ill end up paying around the $299.99 or less for the note 2 and wont be tied down to another line's contract.

Buying subsidized is good I guess so you don't have to pay all that price upfront like you say is so inflated!

Even if I buy the phone on ebay etc, Att is not out any money as I will be putting it on the line that is still under contract anyway. They shouldn't have issues providing unlock codes for "customer owned" devices. They do it free if you meet the criteria here but the criteria changes on a daily basis lol.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] sm753:
Done and done.

The fact that this was even passed screams that we need new blood in the government. These ignorant backward decrepit old men still think phones are tin cans attached by stings. Why else would they approve something so ludicrous and pointless?
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] mrjaydee82:
Well I made an account and signed the petition... That's some effin bs

My blazingly fast as f*#k One XL fueled with CM10.1
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] WookieFan:
My error, and thanks for clarifying - I was sure I had a copy of my title (my car is still under lien).
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] thebobmannh:
It's entirely possible that it differs by lender or state or whatever.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] tjhooker73:
You guys know that unlocking phones Made/Bought Before this stuff went into effect is still legal.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] redpoint73:
I don't think that is in any way an appropriate analogy. For car loans or home mortgages, you are making an agreement to buy a car or house, and borrow the money to do so. For a cell contract, you are making an agreement to sign up for cell service, not a contract to buy a phone. The device subsidy is just an extra incentive to get you to sign up, and also renew your contract. You don't even have to take the subsidized device. But if you want post-paid service from AT&T you still have to sign the contract and take the 2-year commitment. The device and the service are separate things.

If you don't make payments on a car or house, it will get repossessed or foreclosed. If you stop making payments on your cell phone bill, AT&T is not going to show up at your doorstep and repossess the phone.

Now, I'm no legal expert or anything, and haven't read through all AT&T's terms. But that is how it appears to be on the surface.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] WookieFan:
Wow, ok. So if you stop paying your phone bill, there are no ramifications? They will certainly shut down your service, possibly shut down your imei, and likely send a collection company after you. Have you even read your contract?

You're getting a better price for your device (subsidy) due to the service contract you agree to and guaranteed revenue AT&T will get through that contract. In essence, you're paying for your "discount" phone over time.

There is a definite argument to say that a subsidized phone actually costs more than a retail device, due to this additional cost over time. Honestly, a car loan or mortgage is actually a very apt analogy, considering those factors.

The subsidy is not just an incentive. It's a means by which the provider guarantees two years of increased revenue from you. You're paying for your service and your phone over time. If you break your contract, the remaining retail price of the phone is immediately due.

A contract for a phone (and service) is still a contract.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] SilverFox66:
Noob here. Have done a lot of reading, but finally decided to join and post.

I think the car/home analogy is correct. You are under contract no matter what, with obligations to the persons you signed the contract with. Even though the home and car cost much more than the phone and would represent a bigger loss to the one holding the note on them... you are still allowed by law to alter the car/home, and treat it as if you fully own it. You are allowed to customize it how you see fit. The fact you cant do what you want with the cell hone you paid for, for fear that you "might" do something wrong/illegal, is ludicrous. Also, like pointed out in articles, you cant transfer a car to another person until paid off, or without the lien holders permission. But, the flaw to that argument is that unlocking a phone doesnt mean youre going to another carrier. Thats like saying because you own a gun, youre automatically a murderer.

Phones purchased before yesterday (when this law went into effect) are indeed grandfathered in and not affected.

So far, disabling the SIM on GSM phones, has been how U.S. carriers react if you dont pay your bill, and CDMA carriers shut the handset down by the EID. There is legislature in the works to make U.S. carriers come up with a blacklist program so that GSM carriers will shut down the handset itself. This has been done over seas for a good while. If the U.S. GSM carriers would have got off their lazy rear ends and kept up with whats been going on elsewhere, there would be no need for this law. This law is absurd, and only serves one purpose... to give the big corporation yet another way to control items you pay for and buy.

The U.S. government showed their stupidity, and how corrupt they are by passing this bill into law. The government SHOULD be forcing the U.S. Carriers to do like they do over seas.... all the same network, phones working on other carriers without anyone's permission or interaction. But no... carriers trying to keep these expensive phones carrier specific is what started a lot of this.

Its a joke
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] ECEXCURSION:
Thank you for taking the time to write this! I have never heard the arguement explained better.

Sent from my HTC One XL
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] 954wrecker:
This is all at&t right nobody else cares I mean they want to lock in all those fat bills from even thinking about leaving

Sent from my HTC One XL
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] SilverFox66:
The government should have never got involved in this to begin with. This isnt a "legal" issue, this is a company policy issue. When the carriers approached congress, congress should have said "it isnt our place to get involved in disputes between you and your customers as this isnt a legal matter. If you dont want people running off with your phones, come up with a way to blacklist the, as they do in Europe etc....".

Besides, the law is ridiculous. You dont have to have an "unlocked" phone (SIM or bootloader) to change carriers. I bought a slightly used HTC One X, and put a Straight Talk SIM in it, and am using it on Straight Talk currently. I didnt have to unlock it, or ask anyone's permission to do it. Thats why this law is ridiculous. Without a blacklist and shutting down the handset itself, a change of the SIM can take you to another carrier
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] bloodrain954:
look at all these badass's in the forum!
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] CheesyNutz:
just got shipping info for my nexus 4

Shipper: GOOGLE ANDROID CO UPS-SCS

Approximate Delivery Time: between 10:45 AM and 2:45 PM

UPS Service: UPS 2nd Day Air
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] bimmernut318:
Straight Talk runs on AT&T's network and they say if you have an AT&T phone you don't have to unlock it but if you want to go to T-Mobile you will have to unlock it, to put a sim from another country in it you will have to unlock it. If my carrier will not unlock my phone for me I am screwed when I go overseas and want to use my phone. That is Bull***t and it should not be a law!
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] CheesyNutz:
False you got bad info I sell non contract and contract phones all day i put all kinda of tmoblie phones on straight talk with out unlocking them
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] ECEXCURSION:
But look on the bright side, now AT&T can charge you for roaming overseas! :)

Sent from my HTC One XL
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] redpoint73:
But what if you have an AT&T branded phone, you're using it on Straight Talk (AT&T SIM) and want to switch to the T-Mob SIM?

He has an interesting point. AT&T is probably not going to want to unlock the phone for you. But Straight Talk is all the same company, even though they use the 2 different networks. The new law simply doesn't make a lot of sense in this case.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

None of which has anything to do with the phone hardware itself, or proves your point in the least. I never said there were "no ramifications". You need to read more carefully. I said they aren't going to repossess your phone, and they are not.

I haven't read all the terms word for word. But I looked through them pretty well, and read all that looked like it applied to this topic. There is actually no verbiage I could find that even talks about subsidized phones, much less that the subsidy is any way related to the phone service. If you can find otherwise, let me know. I'd be curious to see it.

I think a better analogy is opening a bank account, and getting a free toaster. Close the account, and the bank isn't going to demand the toaster back.

More broken logic. If what you were saying were true, than those that don't take the subsidy (and there are a good number that don't) would be entitled to lower bills for the length of the contract, which they are not.

My belief still is that the phone belongs to you the moment you buy it, regardless of whether its subsidized or not. Whether the carrier will unlock it is a support issue, not an ownership one.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] CheesyNutz:
To my knowledge you do not have to unlock your phone I have switch people from att to tmoblie and have not had any complaints
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] 954wrecker:
I can confirm I popped my T-Mobile sim in my one xl and did not need an unlock code like I had expected. I just assumed it was a bonus because it was s-off but maybe I was wrong

Sent from my HTC One XL
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] ImagioX1:
What would the unlock code be for then?

Sent from my VenomXL using Xparent Red
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] WookieFan:
I don't intend to have the last word (counter-productive in the xda fora) but it only takes a Google search to see specific terms in section 3 of the post-paid service agreement:

"You agree that you won’t make any modifications to your Equipment or its programming to enable the Equipment to operate on any other system."

Although I haven't specified this in my previous posts, my understanding was that the intention to SIM unlock the Evita was for international GSM networks.

I don't think it gets much more clear than the quoted statement above, and still gives AT&T the option to SIM unlock your phone at your request. This also denies you the option to do so through third parties on your own. And all of us with service contracts have agreed to this.

I trust this isn't faulty logic?
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] aramil:
Really wow. Here in the UK you can.

I own (purchased myself) my phone and my contract is only £6 pm with loads of minutes etc. Etc. For what would be £35 pm with the same subbed phone and minutes etc.

Seems like a rip off if you can't get a better deal when your not having a phone subbed.......

Sent from my GT-I9100
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] redpoint73:
I don't see how this is in any way relevant to the topic we were disagreeing on (ownership of the phone while on contract). I completely agree that the carriers don't want you to unlock their phones, otherwise the new law wouldn't exist in the first place.

The quoted text actually more backs up my point than yours. They clearly say "your Equipment" ("you" being the customer), thereby explicitly stating the equipment doesn't belong to AT&T.

But I also agree that this is beating a dead horse, and no further discussion on that particular topic is warranted. We simply agree to disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Cheers.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

Yup. That's how it is in the US. Seems to me the US has the worst cell service in the first world, in terms of being consumer-friendly (more expensive, for slower data speeds, with too many network/frequency types).

T-Mobile is considering changing the subsidized phone model, and stopping subsidies completely, and offering cheaper monthly service from the savings. But it may/may not happen. And even if it does, other US carriers may not follow suit anyway, since T-Mobile is very much struggling, and not in a good position to influence the industry.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] _atlien_:
This what we get for voting all those lawyers and MBAs into office and ****ting on all the engineers, scientists and philosophers.
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] :
We need 40k more signatures. Spread it like a wildfire boys
[AT&T, Rogers HTC One X, Telstra One XL] Viper4713:
"Even after your contract has ended" that part most of all is ridiculous! its completely your phone after that!, its all a damn money game of course :rolleyes: