What is Digg?69 Comments
- Vector713, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20LoL @ yelling at the comment system. :)
- Herv3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18You think they would do the smart thing and try to hire these guys.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17from what I can see, I dont think AT&T have a chance, I could be wrong?
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/tracfone?currentPage=all - inactive, on 11/08/2007, -18/+31STOP DELETING COMMENTS YOU JUNK ***** PHP
hey rose delete this ***** install and wack pligg on, it works better then this joke. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Why shouldn't they charge a small (compared to the actual phone) fee in exchange for their work in unlocking the iphone?
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Do i digg you up for the sensible part of the comment or digg you down for being a pathetic fanboy *****? Hmmmm.....
- Eth4n, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Who cares? Unlocking from ATT means you have to go to T-Mobile anyways. Either way you're not going to get a good data rate and you'll have similar signal coverage. I guess it allows you to buy an even more expensive iPhone. Maybe if it was the European one unlocked for a decent data rate here then it would make sense to unlock it in the first place.
- jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Unlocking phones is not illegal. Just because a corporation doesn't like something, it doesn't mean it's illegal.
- kbro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Is there something wrong with charging for a service? More power to those that want to profit from their hard work.
- eean, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Or just not get an iPhone...
- JoeLeo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Summary:
AT&T doesn't make the iPhone, Apple does – AT&T is just being a bully without legal standing.
The problem is, who can afford to argue a legal case against them?
We all know that it's 100% legal to unlock a GSM phone from its wireless carrier - regardless of method - since last November.
Tirade:
The iPhone is a hardware product purchase - not a software licensing agreement. Once you own the product, you're free to do what you want with it - as long as it does not harm their network; this is supported by the Nov 2006 ruling by the US Copyright office explicitly stating that it's not a DMCA violation to unlock phones from wireless networks (in other words, it's a consumer's legal right).
People say we need Internet network neutrality, but, what is overlooked is the fact that we more urgently need *wireless* network neutrality.
AT&T has been around for more than a century and they're an oligopoly. Due to anti-trust they were broken up once only to remerge with their sister companies. As a service provider, they overstep their lines when they censor content such as the with Pearl Jam earlier this month. A better documented example is that they also censor text message content provided by content providers [i.e. content sent by SMS short codes, for example, PayPal Mobile was disallowed on the AT&T network for payments via SMS common short codes (CSC) for over a year and, currently, T-Mobile in the US disallows any third party SMS payments program, via short codes, on their network]. Limiting porn or betting, via SMS, is understandable, but limiting SMS payments is definitely crossing the line.
Conclusion:
By continuing to censor and bully consumers and companies, alike, AT&T could lose their "service provider" status and be labeled as a "content provider" which would be very bad for the US consumer trying to maintain convenient and free, yet private, communications. - khellendros1984, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Circumventing protection on the phone isn't illegal for purely personal purposes. These people are unlocking it for profit, which is illegal.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7dragonmantank, i know pligg i PHP, i meant the PHP behind digg/comment system is ***** JUNK
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't think Apple actually cares if you have no freedom. Their care factor starts and stops at the checkout.
- canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4suing these guys? doubt they have a chance. trying to recover 'lost revenue' from apple since they paid for exclusive rights and apple's product did not deliver sufficient security to ensure exclusivity? i think that may be a better course of action for them.
- lead2thehead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Companies sell software to unlock *every* GSM phone. I predict that this "crackdown" will fail miserably.
http://www.gsmliberty.net/shop/ - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9It also means you can travel overseas, or if you live overseas you can now masturbate to the lubed up iPhone like all the other stupid fanboys!
- JoeLeo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No - one is GSM and other is CDMA - two competing technologies. It's Apples and Oranges (pardon the pun).
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3exacaly, why buy a locked phone in the first place? you have no discount with the iphone, full price + locked + contracT? lol
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you forgot the fact that Apple gets a share of the profits from AT&T. In fact, many other carriers refused the iphone because of this. apple would lose a lot of money due to unlocked iphones.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Disagree. Apple's contract with O2 and Vodafone includes 10% of the revenue from customers using the phone. If those customers take the phone to another provider, they don't get the revenue. So Apple has PLENTY of reason to stop this.
- bigrodey77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Is it just me or are the comments completely *****?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Are these so called 'groups' in america? otherwise, good luck with that lol. Americans, you cant reach forever.
- Chicken, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Why even buy the phone in the first place and pay to unlock when you can just get a different phone that has more features that are unlocked.
- p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Here's a better idea........if you want to "blow up the death star", why not take your business elsewhere?
- w0ngbr4d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The DMCA exemption says that they cannot stop you from unlocking your phone. It doesn't say they have to provide the unlock.
- gurellia53, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2maybee they'll figure out that fighting AT&T in the courtroom would cost more than they'd make off the software and then they'll release it for free. That would piss off AT&T
- wilhoitm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The visual voicemail wont work anyway! I think?
- Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I can see at&t groping wildly trying to shut this down. Apple on the other hand, I don't see them taking any more than a marginal effort to shut this down. Apple WANTS the iPhone on other carriers, even if it is only T-Mobile in the US.
- twrife, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Would a cracked iPhone ever work on Verizon?
- rickly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The gotcha is... a person unlocking a phone so that they can connect to a wireless carrier of their choice is legal and unlocking a phone with the intent to resell it or providing services to unlock a phone which you do not own is not... so - I propose the following. Have them print up t-shirts (with a snappy slogan - wink wink) which we can buy to support them in their efforts or even just donate directly. Then send the software to AT&T so that they can provide it to iPhone users who call and request to have the phone unlocked - which they cannot legally refuse or deny that a viable solution exists. If AT&T does not provide the software to you in a reasonable time-frame... well... maybe it will be time to turn the tables on them.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It doesn't matter if Pligg wouldn't survive this volume of traffic because it was a joke. What isn't funny is that with all the brilliant people behind digg this is still the same lousy comment system.
- toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why haven't we heard from the other unlockers? Did att contact them? What's the point in stopping
only one method? This week, unlockers will ask "law firm" to explain what legal reason to desist. - PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2They put an effort into it. If people want to pay them for the knowledge, why stop them? Is the profit the only reason why it's immoral?
- sdigroup, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3WTF? This is why digg need to clean up this crap
- lexbaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because T-Mobile isn't in the NSA's back pocket like AT&T is.
- Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But you don't take into account the fact that apple doesn't make these for $0. Your figure still works out but it would take less time for the equal amount, closer to a year.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Do people not own their property anymore? AT&T, you do not have a right to profits. Sour grapes that people do things with their property that you don't like! Maybe if you didn't suck so hard, people might stick with the service (but it would nevertheless have been unlocked).
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Your argument makes no sense. Did you just say that Apple gives the iPhone away for free with the AT&T contract?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"cracking on" isn't the same as "cracking down on".
And this article is poorly researched. This company is shady and surely saw their customer base disappearing to a competitor, so they brought up a story about how they were being held back.
There's no actual evidence AT&T is quashing this. - superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm going to duck-tape an egg beater to my RAZR, then it has a feature the iPhone will neevr have!!
Sometimes feature checklists alone do not make for a better phone. Or even a good one. - rickly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Follow the train of thought with me - If they send it to AT&T they have provided a solution for unlocking the phone. AT&T can review the code for malicious bits... AT&T can release an official solution... and can honor unlocking requests. If users make a valid request per DMCA regs - AT&T is bound to honor the request or face the reality... that a third party may provide a solution without recourse if they follow proper channels. In other words - if AT&T chooses not to provide the unlock... they open the door for third party solutions --- as long as the individual who 'owns' the phone and the third party who produces the unlock does not attempt to bypass revenue streams, discover and/or disclose IP and etc. I think that the path is clear...
- justinkwaugh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1these guys are known scammers
- canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1good thing school is starting back up, you need to get back to class.
happy said apple would want the phone to stay locked b/c apple gets 10% of service contract revenues. but if someone buys an apple phone and unlocks it, apple gets $500 immediately. in order for them to receive $500 from service revenues from their exclusive provider over a 2yr contract, the usage would have to equal >$200/mo. therefore, apple is actually better off selling more phones for $500/ea and increasing market share (more people will buy a phone if they are free to use it on any network) than causing a stink about unlocked phones. more revenue, more market share, win for apple.
clear? - kbro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Good points, rickly. I really do not want AT&T to lose money they fairly invested in the partnership. (Of course Apple will only profit from the unlocking).
But you misinterpreted my comments pretty widely. What I meant to say is:
If it is legal to unlock the iPhone, and if I have to choose between the folks doing it for free, or the folks doing it for profit ... I support those doing it for profit. Those guys' ambitions are pure and honest. - canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1true, there are many factors at play. on the whole though, apple will make more money from having the phone unlocked.
- gh0st3000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I believe AT&T has a very valid reason to stop these people. The clause in the DMCA is that it's allowed "when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone
communication network."
The issue isn't the actual cracking, it's that they are profiting from it. Cracking it for personal use is perfectly legal, making a business based on it definitely is not. On the other hand, if the crackers were to release the tool for free, I think AT&T would be SOL. - LeonardNimrod, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2@ pr5owner.
You don't have to sign up for a contract, you have always been able to go month to month. When you purchase an iPhone there is no lengthy contract that has to be filled out. It's yours free and clear. Walk into and Apple Store or AT&T Store make the purchase and leave. Simple and sweet.
There is a discount with the iPhone The reason the phone only costs $500/600 and not $800/900 like other high-end phones is because Apple is getting monthly payments from AT&T customers using the iPhone, especially for new customers. Recall that half of iPhone customers are new to AT&T. This is a huge bonus to AT&T, hence their desire to keep the phone from being unlocked.
However, with only T-Mobile and a couple MVNOs being the only carriers beign able to support GSM there really isn't much of a threat in the US. Plus, options like Visual Voicemail and YouTube (currently) will not function without AT&T service.
The real issue here is Apple's ability to secure contracts in other countries. With the iPhone unlocked Apple loses a good deal of bargaining power. Will they try to maintain the same contracts by offering a new firmware update that will break the current unlocking feature or will they simple offer the phone to all EU countries at an increased price to supplement the loss of income incurred by not getting monthly dues. I'm going with the former and I expect Apple will offer another service provider tie-in (like Visual Voicemail) that will make customers want to stick with Apple's preferred carriers. - Disodium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nope but most people dont really care about it that much
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is