Originally Posted by un-midas touch
No. That's not how it works. Like I said, it's part of the millenium copyright act. It's not just your breaking of contract. They are essentially claiming that breaking copyright protection is like breaking into a safe at the bank. At least as far as the punishment reflects.
The ruling originally excluded smartphones based on the ruling of the library of congress (why the hell ever that is), but now they have decided to take that exclusion away. Basically you're getting hit like a professional movie bootlegger.
Well; then the easy solution to "them treating you like movie bootleggers" is to either get the phone from a carrier and abide by their rules, or get a factory unlocked phone.
Originally Posted by Tsumi
Nowhere in the contract does it say you have to keep the device. Nowhere does it say it has to remain locked.
What the contract does say is that you will pay X amount for Y months of service for Z plan. That's it. When you break contract is when you want to not have service anymore, NOT when you want to unlock your device or sell it or break it or w/e.
Also, stop it with the iPOS. I know people don't like it, but it makes you sound like an elitist, if not an ass.
And again, I detailed the situation for consumers in the US. Pay $600 for an unlocked phone, and pay X for a service plan which most people keep for 5 years or more anyways, or pay $200 and be contracted into the service plan for 2 years with the same X cost. One costs $400 more than the other, and what's the benefit? Unlocked phone and ability to leave the service anytime they want. How often do people leave their service after a few months? There's a huge cost penalty for the unlocked phone route with no benefits whatsoever.
Seems to me you're not getting my point. I'm not saying getting a phone from the manufacturer is cheaper. What I'm saying is that if people want to get their phone on the cheap; then they have to abide by the rules that come with said phone.
As for total costs...
AT&T -> Galaxy SIII = $199.99 with 24 month contract. Let's add a voice plan: Nationwide 900 minutes with rollover = $59.99 And we need a data plan: DataPlus 300MB/month = $20.00
And now some math: $199.99 + ($59.99 x 24) + ($20 x 24) = $199.99 + 1439.76 + $480 ---> $2119.75
Now let's check an alternative.
MetroPCS --> Galaxy SIII = $499.99 no contract. Let's add a plan: Unlimited Voice/Text/Data = $60.00
And now some more math: $499.99 + ($60.00 x 24) = $499.99 + $1440.00 ---> $1939.99
The issue then becomes one of whether you want to be told that you can unlock/jailbreak your phone, or you choose to get a factory unlocked phone. There is also the "availability" issue since MetroPCS doesn't have 100% coverage in the US, but there are other carriers that cover other markets and offer similar solutions.
And I do apologize for the jabs at Apple... I have no dog on that fight whatsoever. Never owned an Apple product and probably never will, but then again... I don't own a smartphone either; I find no use for all them features on a phone. Nothing I do or my friends do is so important that I have to have live updates of their Facebook walls beamed to me as I go by my daily endeavors.
All I'm trying to say with my posts is: If people want a "carrier subsidized" phone; then they must abide by the rules set forth by said carrier in regards to what can and can't be done with the devices. And I agree with the carrier on this matter. If they're lending you the $300 balance on the cost of the phone; they have every right to impose some rules on that loan. People that want to get the phone for cheap and be able to root/unlock/jailbreak said phone are simply trying to have their cake and eat it too.