Related
http://nationaljournal.com/tech/kohl-seeks-to-block-at-t-merger-20110720
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who chairs the Senate's Antitrust Subcommitteee, is calling for regulators to block the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, saying on Wednesday that it would be "highly dangerous to competition and consumers."
Kohl wrote to the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to argue that the merger would concentrate the market too much.
"I have concluded that this acquisition, if permitted to proceed, would likely cause substantial harm to competition and consumers, would be contrary to antitrust law and not in the public interest, and therefore should be blocked by your agencies," he wrote.
The senator's letter provides political cover to the FCC and Justice if they want to either block the proposed $39 billion merger outright or impose stringent conditions. The approval process is expected to last until at least the end of the year.
Kohl noted that cell phones are a daily necessity. “Therefore, in this industry, perhaps more than any other, full and vibrant competition is essential so that all consumers realize the benefits of this technology at the best prices and with the most choices.”
An AT&T spokesman disputed Kohl's assessment.
“We ... feel his view is inconsistent with antitrust law, is shared by few others, and ignores the many positive benefits and numerous supporters of the transaction," the spokesman said.
"This is a decision that will be made by the Department of Justice and the FCC under applicable law and after a full and fair examination of the facts. We continue to believe those reviews will result in approval of this transaction."
AT&T contends that competition will remain vigorous in the wireless industry even after the transaction.
It says that the merger will allow the companies to offer advanced wireless services to almost all Americans. That pledge has helped AT&T make inroads with lawmakers in both parties as it seeks approval of the deal. A group of 76 Democrats wrote to regulators in June saying that the merger may be beneficial to the spread of broadband access.
The letter from Kohl has been anticipated for weeks and helps set the tone for how Democrats in Congress will view the deal.
Earlier Wednesday, top Democrats in the House also expressed caution about the deal, saying that it could discourage investment and restrict innovation.
"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
"Such industry consolidation could reduce competition and increase consumer costs at a time our country can least afford it."
AMEN! ten chars
788346: SprintFreeMsg: Public hearings on proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger July 21, 25, 27 in Culver City, San Diego, Fresno. More info at www.cpuc.ca.gov/merger
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Cool now I may get back on Tmo when I move to Georgia next year when my sprint contract is up.
"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that's 'cuz 30 years ago a certain little company known as AT&T was broken up into the "baby bells" (Of which Verizon, aka Bell Atlantic was one) because they were found guilty of leveraging their monopoly status unfairly and in harm to the consumer and the market and ultimately innovation.
...to be fair they only stifled innovation in 'the market' so far as the market itself is concerned. There was no market, they owned the whole game. They were actually a very technologically innovative company...though I'm sure Bell Labs was a pretty distant branch from the root of all that evil.
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.
daneurysm said:
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great stuff, dude! If you were running for office, you'd have my vote!
Best news I heard all day... That and it gives me a chuckle to think of ATT still being forced to pay deutsche telekom billions even if the merger falls through
I'm still weary of it. There was an article out the other day talking about lobbyists working as staffers for politicians and guess who had the most of them, AT&T. and they all seemed to work for just the right people.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Self explanatory. If I flash the Virgin Mobile firmware and leaked ROM will I be able to activate my Evo 3D on Virgin Mobile. I know that normally this would all be about the ESN, but it was my understanding that this firmware was specifically created to allow overstock 3Ds to be turned into the VM branded model by flashing the firmware.
Has anyone tried this?
no. no possible.
I have a friend who ordered one from Virgin Mobile and go a Sprint branded 3D in the email and is using it on VM right now. So the device itself certainly can run on VM, but I assume what you are guessing is that that ESN was moved from Sprint to VM list when the new firmware was flashed?
I mean. There's a way you can use your sprint phone on virgin mobile without even flashing the firmware. But its illegal and of course. We cant talk about anything illegal on XDA.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
We discussed this at length about a month ago, so you hopefully will be able to find it. Unlike other carriers like Boost or Metro, Virgin will not activate any phone on their network. As was mentioned, it is illegal and is not discussed here.
Sent from my ICS 3VO with Tapatalk 2
Contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to change your esn to get the phone onto boost, MetroPCS or virgin mobile. It is completely legal as long as the esn that you are changing it to is from a phone that you purchased and own. It is illegal if you use an esn from a phone they does not belong to you.
Sent from my Anthrax infected 3D!
rootfreak said:
Contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to change your esn to get the phone onto boost, MetroPCS or virgin mobile. It is completely legal as long as the esn that you are changing it to is from a phone that you purchased and own. It is illegal if you use an esn from a phone they does not belong to you.
Sent from my Anthrax infected 3D!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would you care to quote the federal law that specifically says that it is legal to clone the ESN from a device that you own? I ask, because there is a law that says it is specifically illegal to clone an ESN:
18 USC § 1029 - FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH ACCESS DEVICES
(a)(9)Whoever knowingly uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses hardware or software, knowing it has been configured to insert or modify telecommunication identifying information associated with or contained in a telecommunications instrument so that such instrument may be used to obtain telecommunications service without authorization;
(g)
(1) It is not a violation of subsection (a)(9) for an officer, employee, or agent of, or a person engaged in business with, a facilities-based carrier, to engage in conduct (other than trafficking) otherwise prohibited by that subsection for the purpose of protecting the property or legal rights of that carrier, unless such conduct is for the purpose of obtaining telecommunications service provided by another facilities-based carrier without the authorization of such carrier.
(2) In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (a)(9), (other than a violation consisting of producing or trafficking) it is an affirmative defense (which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence) that the conduct charged was engaged in for research or development in connection with a lawful purpose.
So, in layman's terms:
(a)(9): If you use software, hardware or any means at all to change the ESN on your device to a different number so that you are able to gain unauthorized access on a carrier's network, you are guilty of a crime.
(g)(1): If you are a person who might be authorized to change the ESN, you may do so provided you are not doing it because you want to use your device in an unauthorized manner on a different carrier's network.
(g)(2): If you change the ESN on your device and are then prosecuted under (a)(9), it is an affirmative defense that you were doing so for research only and the research was lawful.
And, delving even further:
If your goal is to change the ESN on your device, even if you own the device whose ESN will be donated, for purposes of gaining unauthorized entry onto another carrier's network, you are breaking the law.
Unauthorized use of another carrier's network is a pretty straightforward concept. If Virgin Mobile did say or is likely to say that your unmodified ESN is not allowed on their network, then changing your device's ESN to an ESN that you know is allowed on their network is a crime. By virtue of the fact that Virgin Mobile specifically allows only some ESNs on their network, they specifically disallow all other ESNs, thereby making any of the devices they are written to unauthorized.
The law goes even further to say that if you are normally a person who is allowed to change ESNs in order to safeguard a carrier's network, you are still not allowed to do it to gain access to another carrier's network.
And finally, if you are caught changing ESNs, and you are doing it for any purpose other than seeing if you can, you're in trouble. If you are doing it just to see if you can, you had better never used a cloned ESN on any network, ever.
Some might argue that this aspect of the law is unneeded since the advent of encrypted communications (the ESN cloning portion of the law was written when analog unencrypted service allowed snoopers to catch ESNs off the air and clone phones, thereby receiving free cell phone service).
I would tend to agree, though I would also point out that modern smartphones have the capability to do real damage to a carrier's network if the network isn't built to tolerate those smartphones' effects. An example might be the introduction of the iPhone and iPhone 3G onto AT&T's network. The network buckled under the pressure, and AT&T was caught off guard. Think of how off guard Sprint might have been if somehow those iPhones could have been cloned and use on Sprint's network. In other words, if I am Verizon and your latest smartphone is capable of 100 Mbps downloads and will kick everyone else off the LTE bands in your area, of course I don't want it on my network. If you change that phone's ESN to match the Thunderbolt, you are now operating without authorization on my network.
I see both sides. Using your own device on whichever network you choose should be a freedom you have. But that freedom would come at a price: carriers who have spent billions of dollars building their networks are exposed to unknown variables that might result in lost productivity for everyone (including emergency responders). The law should probably stay the way it is.
I won't quote it since it is long, but Zach's post is superb. I hope the mods allow this post to stay as reference when the topic is invariably posted again.
Sent from my ICS 3VO with Tapatalk 2
rootfreak said:
Contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to change your esn to get the phone onto boost, MetroPCS or virgin mobile. It is completely legal as long as the esn that you are changing it to is from a phone that you purchased and own. It is illegal if you use an esn from a phone they does not belong to you.
Sent from my Anthrax infected 3D!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Zach is right. It is illegal.
Sent from my PG86100 using xda app-developers app
Actually if you really read it, it can be taken either way. It all depends on what is considered "unauthorized access". If you have an account that was obtained legally, you are authorized to use their network. Just because you are using a different mobile device does not necessarily mean that you have gained unauthorized access to their network. You are authorized to use the network.
That is the problem with these laws though. Most of them can be interpreted differently by two different people.
Sent from my Anthrax infected 3D!
rootfreak said:
Actually if you really read it, it can be taken either way. It all depends on what is considered "unauthorized access". If you have an account that was obtained legally, you are authorized to use their network. Just because you are using a different mobile device does not necessarily mean that you have gained unauthorized access to their network. You are authorized to use the network.
That is the problem with these laws though. Most of them can be interpreted differently by two different people.
Sent from my Anthrax infected 3D!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's right.
The VM firmware was specifically designed to convert 3d for use on virgin mobile. I am not asking about cloning ESNs in any way. I am trying to determine if Sprint bulk added EVO 3D esn to their VM network or if they only added the overstock they applied the firmware to.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
rootfreak said:
Actually if you really read it, it can be taken either way. It all depends on what is considered "unauthorized access". If you have an account that was obtained legally, you are authorized to use their network. Just because you are using a different mobile device does not necessarily mean that you have gained unauthorized access to their network. You are authorized to use the network.
That is the problem with these laws though. Most of them can be interpreted differently by two different people.
Sent from my Anthrax infected 3D!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did read it. And so will a judge. And nothing about the law, the way it is written, extends any olive branches to any person who modifies his ESN in order to gain access to a network he wouldn't have otherwise had access to with his device in its unmodified state.
In order for this debate to be truly germane to our purposes, we need to be apprised of not only what the law is, but what the law isn't. You've heard of people "getting off" on a technicality, I'm sure. What you don't hear about are the many more people who are convicted of crimes based on technicalities. This is why we hire attorneys to represent us in court.
That time when you were 18 that you stole a CD from Wal-Mart could be the "smoking gun" in a trial against you for ESN Cloning because stealing that CD 15 years ago means you are predisposed to committing a crime. That time you posted to one forum that you successfully cloned your phone yet posted to a different forum that you had trouble and couldn't do it calls into question every single thing you say on the stand at your trial (and you will definitely be taking the stand to offer your affirmative defense). The most innocuous things in your life now could all be used against you in court to hang you for your crime.
Here is an example of a concept that stymies most laypersons, yet attorneys and judges are well versed in: hearsay. Hearsay is testimony in a court that is not a fact with direct knowledge. You can't testify that Tom called you to call the police because **** is beating up Harry. You can't testify that Harry told you that **** beat him up. You can't even testify that **** himself told you he beat up Harry. You CAN testify that you SAW Harry with a shiner and a broken nose, and you CAN testify that you SAW **** running from the scene with blood on his hands.
Or is all of that backwards because of one or more of the 30-40 exceptions to federal and state hearsay rules? Testifying to what Tom said during that call might be admissible because it was an excited utterance. Testifying at Tom's conspiracy to assault trial that Tom told you **** was beating up Harry may be admissible because Tom actually lured Harry there to be beaten up, and anything Tom says he witnessed implicates himself and therefore creates a statement against penal interest. And, testifying that **** admitted to you that he did it may be admissible because it's an admission of guilt.
The bottom line is that hearsay is one of the most common objections raised at trial, and it is incredibly complex with many nuances and much case law. Now think of the multitudes of rules and laws with their thousands upon thousands of nuances and technicalities, and realize that you, the layperson, are clearly outclassed and outmatched by a legal system steeped in its case history.
Sprint intentionally keeps a record of all ESNs allowed on their network and specifically includes those ESNs on their network to the exclusion of all other ESNs in the world. The fact that they specifically include only certain ESNs and will steadfastly refuse to add other ESNs creates a precedent whereby they have reserved the right to choose who and what devices they allow on their network.
If you come along with your device, and you ask Sprint nicely to add your ESN, they will refuse, and therefore your device is not authorized on their network. The fact that you failed to ask Sprint at all to add your ESN doesn't make your device any more welcome on their network. Ignorance of Sprint's desire to safeguard their network and Sprint's policies to that end is no excuse for taking it upon yourself to cram your device down their gullets, just the same as the old adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
The whole thing boils down to one question that you must ask yourself: do you really want to languish in a 6 foot by 10 foot cement block cell while a convict named Bruno eyes your pancakes and grits, while your case meanders its way through an appellate process that takes a bare minimum of three years to get before a federal court of appeals with teeth? Case law is never written through proceedings in courts of original jurisdiction (like the federal court in which you'd be tried if you were caught cloning your phone). Original courts are the finders of fact, and it won't take much evidence to convince 12 jurors or one judge of your guilt. Whether you should have been tried in the first place is the bailiwick of the appellate division, a process that takes patient years and deeper pockets.
Do you really want to be the test case for it? Do you want to be the guy they hang who fights back and wins thanks to a SCOTUS decision five years from now? Do the owners of XDA want to have all of their equipment confiscated and held as evidence because they promoted ESN cloning?
Once again, for the record, I would love nothing more than to legally clone my EVO 3D to work on Verizon's network. I would love networks that all operate in a compatible manner where phones are purchased from any vendor at all and are expected to work on Sprint's network the same way it works on AT&T's. But the fact remains that there are just too many hurdles to be overcome for that to happen and for Verizon to let my EVO 3D on, not the least of which is the fact that Verizon has not had an opportunity to thoroughly test the EVO 3D to ensure that it will not create conditions detrimental to its network or other users of its network.
TL;DR: Hogwash! It matters what a judge says, not what you think. I want XDA to be around for a while, so let's not post how-tos on ESN cloning.
EDIT: Also, my apologies for hijacking your thread with my long-long-winded replies.
I'm with zackfreak on this it can be taken both ways AND I'm not the only one who thinks about it like that. Here in central florida there's alot cell phone flashing companies in
a competition with each other hard core competition with each other one called the cops on the other about a year ago for this and no one got arrested police came figured everything was legit and went on there merry way.
REDACTED
EveryOne Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.
The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
Created: Jan 24, 2013
Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Consumer Protections, Technology and Telecommunications
Learn about Petition Thresholds
It's up to you to build support for petitions you care about and gather more signatures. A petition must get 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov.
Over time, we may need to adjust the petition signature thresholds, but we'll always let you know what the thresholds are.
Signatures needed by February 23, 2013 to reach goal of 100,00087,845
Total signatures on this petition12,155.
PLEASE GO SIGN IT MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...legal/1g9KhZG7
Thanks
I wouldn't ask that _uck up for a glass of water if I was dying of thirst. And why would you want to expand his fingers of incompetence to include your cell?
Umm, why post this? I don't see that it is a huge deal. All this states is that you can no longer buy a phone from (for example) Verizon and take it to MetroPC or some other carrier and unlock it to use with their service.
Most phones now are global ready, and if you buy a Nexus from Google it is unlocked for you to use as desired.
This is NOT saying that rooting or unlocking your bootloader is illegal. So again, I don't see why it is such a huge deal.
jonathon1289 said:
Umm, why post this? I don't see that it is a huge deal. All this states is that you can no longer buy a phone from (for example) Verizon and take it to MetroPC or some other carrier and unlock it to use with their service.
Most phones now are global ready, and if you buy a Nexus from Google it is unlocked for you to use as desired.
This is NOT saying that rooting or unlocking your bootloader is illegal. So again, I don't see why it is such a huge deal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. You'll do what you want to anyway...or atleast I will lol
Plus I think the president has bigger issues to tackle quite frankly
sent from my Note 2
Kinda thought the same thing. Not really a big deal. It's my impression that this is mainly to curb abuse by people who get the phone, unlock them and resell them. Giving authorities a way to prosecute those that fit that category ( that essentially fraud the subsidy that carriers provide)
Sent from my SCH-I605
Lol, you can always buy a phone from your new carrier...? It's not like they are banning cell phones.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda app-developers app
purged363506 said:
Kinda thought the same thing. Not really a big deal. It's my impression that this is mainly to curb abuse by people who get the phone, unlock them and resell them. Giving authorities a way to prosecute those that fit that category ( that essentially fraud the subsidy that carriers provide)
Sent from my SCH-I605
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
TonikJDK said:
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have paid your ETF and/or finished your contract, why would it stop them from unlocking it?
They know they won't keep you by not doing it, and they certainly don't have use of the phone being locked in.
I think things are being blown out of proportion.
I think the real loud ones against this law are just upset that they can no longer default on a contract and sell the device unlocked on another carrier.
OP just wanted to start a political flame thread. Congrats. Mission will be accomplished.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
http://m.androidcentral.com/what-you-need-know-abut-cell-phone-unlocking
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda premium
People that know that they will need an unlocked phone because they will be traveling will either already have one, or go into the store with the intention of buying an unlocked phone for that exact purpose.
I personally don't see the big issue about this new law. If you know you're going to be traveling abroad and need an unlocked phone, then there are several to choose from on most carriers. Plain and simple.
TonikJDK said:
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you realize how hard it is to get new laws enacted. That's why so many existing ones are modified.
You think they are going to go after John Smith that unlocks his phone cause he got a new job traveling? That would be a PR nightmare.
Now Johnny Mule that does it to every major carrier around then sells the phone after to support whoever told him to do it.....Sure.
What about the shops that deal in stolen phones but they are unlocked for other carriers? Contrary to popular opinion, those databases are rubbish and fragmented.
There are quite a few ways that this could help criminal prosecution where right now there is very little.
Sent from my SCH-I605
EveryOne Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.
The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
Created: Jan 24, 2013
Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Consumer Protections, Technology and Telecommunications
Learn about Petition Thresholds
It's up to you to build support for petitions you care about and gather more signatures. A petition must get 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov.
Over time, we may need to adjust the petition signature thresholds, but we'll always let you know what the thresholds are.
Signatures needed by February 23, 2013 to reach goal of 100,00087,845
Total signatures on this petition12,155.
PLEASE GO SIGN IT MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...legal/1g9KhZG7
Thanks
If having an unlocked phone is important to you why not just buy one? They are not available from Sprint but you can get GSM models on Amazon and other websites.
Does this makes it illegal to flash an Evo 3D to Virgin Mobile, Boost or another prepaid carrier? If so, I guess there are some threads here on XDA that might need to be closed.
Edit:
There's a good article here that explains this situation pretty thoroughly and it really doesn't sound like anything to get too excited about.
It's actually a digital media copyright act (DMCA) ruling by the Library of Congress and even allows for exemptions for legacy devices and situations where the carrier won't unlock their phones.
IMO, it really doesn't seem to be anything worth bothering Obama about since he has plenty on his plate already.
ramjet73
ramjet73 said:
If having an unlocked phone is important to you why not just buy one? They are not available from Sprint but you can get GSM models on Amazon and other websites.
Does this makes it illegal to flash an Evo 3D to Virgin Mobile, Boost or another prepaid carrier? If so, I guess there are some threads here on XDA that might need to be closed.
Edit:
There's a good article here that explains this situation pretty thoroughly and it really doesn't sound like anything to get too excited about.
It's actually a digital media copyright act (DMCA) ruling by the Library of Congress and even allows for exemptions for legacy devices and situations where the carrier won't unlock their phones.
IMO, it really doesn't seem to be anything worth bothering Obama about since he has plenty on his plate already.
ramjet73
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i agree totally
Better yet everyone with a cell phone should unlock it. See how they would respond to that.
Sent from my Evo 3D CDMA using XDA Premium HD app
Or move to canada
Sent from my IdeaTabA2109A using Tapatalk HD
I hear that on Saturday 2-2-13 unlocking will be illegal is this true?
Sent from my PG86100 using xda app-developers app
Someone could tell me if a at&t galaxy note with bad imei will work on another country? Like Brazill...
Thank you!
It would depend on the service provider. If the service provider utilizes AT&T's blacklist then no it won't.
If at&t doesn't share with tmobile, you can bet the farm they don't share with other countries.
How come we can discuss blacklisted phones and how to circumvent the law but we can't talk about hamburgers? Moderator?
rangercaptain said:
If at&t doesn't share with tmobile, you can bet the farm they don't share with other countries.
How come we can discuss blacklisted phones and how to circumvent the law but we can't talk about hamburgers? Moderator?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because a phone is blacklisted it doesn't mean it's stolen. I lost mine by throwing it in the trash accidently and they said they will blacklist it. Now if someone finds it and wants to use it.. that's on them and there's noting illegal about it. That's not very nice of you to assume everyone is a crook rangercaptain.
And where on the site do you see anything food related?
Dang it. Now I'm hungry.
Sent from my Big Ass Outlaw Phone
440: I don't assume everyone is a crook. But it is wrong that you assumed I do that.
Closed before bans are handed out... Also instead of complaining about hamburgers (On the largest electronic mobile site in the world) how about reporting what you feel needs to be reported??? All hamburgers are innocent here (until proven guilty in a court of law)...