Would you pay $10 to get your phone from Verizon to Cricket EASY?

[empouse]

Uhh, I'm pretty sure your entire rant is off base, being that the copyright office just specifically ruled against this concept. There's nothing preventing them from locking the phone, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can refuse to give you the means to unlock it.

Allow me to illustrate my point... the copyright office said "The purpose of the software lock appears to be limited to restricting the owner

[manhattangurl10]

Ok im going to highlight somethings right here

1 "The purpose of the software lock appears to be limited to restricting the owner

[kelli kannibal]

hmm ok it's starting to make sense now. btw: i believe the *228xx will vary by area depending on exactly which channels or frequencies cricket is operating on in your town. i read something pretty detailed on this before, but i can't remeraber exactly where i found it and it was a while ago. if i find it again i will post.

[Rudi]

Tryst303 what area are you in?

[Caribou "QUIT" Barbieâ„¢]

Lol... you know about as much about government as I know about cell phones.

1.Given the context of the "opinion" from the copyright office.. the word "appears" actually means "THAT'S ITS ******* PURPOSE."... See, these "opinions" are completely unreviewable (for 3 years). That means these "opinions" are valid and enforced as law, no matter how vaguely worded they are.

2. See above. In this case, "Opinion" means law. The FTC also gives their "opinion" on consumer issues. It's also a binding "opinion" that is not subject to review. The attorney general of both the U.S. and your individual states also give "opinions", which are binding as law, until overturned by a more senior body. See where I'm going with this line of reasoning. Opinion = law, unless a legislative body overturns that opinion. The judicial branch has NO AUTHORITY to rule contrary to these opinions (the supreme court being the only exception).

3. What verizon does and doesn't do is irrelevant. I made that point simply because it strengthens my point. Does sprint offer something which verizon doesn't? Something that necessitates locking the phone? I didn't think so.

Again, going back to point #1, it has already been ruled that the sole purpose of the software lock is to force someone to use their services. End of story. You're arguing this like it's some ruling/law that's been around for 10 years and has been ignored. THe fact is, it's been around for 2 months. It hasn't had time to be challenged in court, but rest assured, when these things go to court, the consumer always wins. The courts take the copyright offices opinion VERY seriously.

4. If money rules, why weren't the phone companies able to avoid this ruling in the first place? Money rules our legislative bodies, but not our judicial bodies. The only possible way you can disagree with that is that the deeper your pockets are, the longer you can fight the battle. However, there's no lobbying a judge, so ultimately, the evidence is what will sway him, not how much money is behind the evidence.

Have a nice day.

[Codyman]

Nessun he's in Denver.

Thanks Tryst. I am compiling a list. Gonna sask some vx people to help out.. We'll get the codes

[innyorami]

ok so sue sprint/verizon/whatever and let us know how it turns out.

I'll admit you may be right on principle, but in the real world principle is the last thing you should hang your hat on. Principle is set aside so quickly in many situations.

Just because YOU believe your phone should be open to anything doesnt make it so.

Phones are locked mainly because almost all carriers offer free/lowcost phones and make up the initial loss during the 2 year contract period. If they didnt then the phones wouldnt be free or lowcost. All you have to do is look at Cricket to see this.

They lock so you DO end up paying 300 for a RAZR, even though you got it for $49. And they lock so you have to buy their phones. That way they can be sure that all the services they offer will work. It makes it easier to support if you know all your hanRABets have been tested and work with all your services. It's a pretty simple concept.

Cricket doesnt do this because they dont have a contract. Therefore they are not bound to support any particular services. Contracts make life messy because they force the parties in question to adhere to certain conditions. Cricket doesnt have to deal with that. But you do if you get a non Cricket phone.

It's really pretty simple.

[nojoconnections]

Actually, carriers who subsidize hanRABets ensure the subsidy recovery through the contract, which guarantees them a steady revenue stream for 12 or 24 months, part of which will be used to pay off the initial subsidy. If you cancel early, they will hit you with an ETF which will then be used to pay off the subsidy instead. Locking the hanRABet has absolutely nothing to do with this. If Sprint sold unlocked hanRABets and you took it to another carrier, they'd still charge you the same ETF. It's hard to argue that a locked hanRABet somehow ensures subsidy recovery, as the locking doesn't factor into that equation at all.

Likewise, carriers who don't subsizide hanRABets (Cricket/metroPCS) should have no demonstrable need for locking in the first place, since they shouldn't be concerned about people taking the hanRABet to another carrier, after all the customer paid full price for it to begin with, so it's actually a gain for the carrier instead of a loss.

I can see two main reasons for locking hanRABets:

1. It makes it unattractive to take the hanRABet to another carrier, thereby reducing churn. (However, there are very few carriers left that will activate a cross-branded hanRABet in the first place, so this is fairly irrelevant. Wireless net neutrality will eventually address this.)
2. It locks the customer our from modifying certain operational parameters within the hanRABet. This can potentially increase carrier revenue by forcing the customer to use certain carrier-provided services instead of lower-priced alternatives.