What is the name of your state? CA
When the "Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act" was enacted, I heard that mobile phone carriers were unlocking customer's phones on request if (and only if) their contract had matured. But when I read this:
https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ144/PLAW-113publ144.htm
it suggests no real change to the law as far as the carrier is concerned. Mobile phone operators can still lock phones and they seem to have no obligation to unlock them. The only difference is that consumers may legally hack their devices for the purpose of changing networks -- at their own risk. But if it's true that consumers are simply immune from prosecution/lawsuit, then why are mobile phone operators unlocking phones on request? If if were their interest to unlock devices, they would have done so independent of the law.
So it seems I'm missing some part of the law. When Congress passes a bill, it's a bit of a hunt to pick through the U.S.C and C.F.R to find where the bill manifested. If indeed carriers are *required* to unlock devices on request, would someone please cite the law?
This is leading up to another question. It seems like an oversight that wireless phone customers would have protection from hardware being locked to a specific carrier, but VOIP customers do not get the same protection. That is, Vonage and the like still ships locked VOIP ATAs, and when a customer wants to change carriers or install a PBX, they're blocked. Which ultimately means perfectly functional ATA hardware is being dumped into landfills.
When the "Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act" was enacted, I heard that mobile phone carriers were unlocking customer's phones on request if (and only if) their contract had matured. But when I read this:
https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ144/PLAW-113publ144.htm
it suggests no real change to the law as far as the carrier is concerned. Mobile phone operators can still lock phones and they seem to have no obligation to unlock them. The only difference is that consumers may legally hack their devices for the purpose of changing networks -- at their own risk. But if it's true that consumers are simply immune from prosecution/lawsuit, then why are mobile phone operators unlocking phones on request? If if were their interest to unlock devices, they would have done so independent of the law.
So it seems I'm missing some part of the law. When Congress passes a bill, it's a bit of a hunt to pick through the U.S.C and C.F.R to find where the bill manifested. If indeed carriers are *required* to unlock devices on request, would someone please cite the law?
This is leading up to another question. It seems like an oversight that wireless phone customers would have protection from hardware being locked to a specific carrier, but VOIP customers do not get the same protection. That is, Vonage and the like still ships locked VOIP ATAs, and when a customer wants to change carriers or install a PBX, they're blocked. Which ultimately means perfectly functional ATA hardware is being dumped into landfills.
