unlocking a nokia 6680

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

hairydog@despammed.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> I never suggested that all restraint of trade was illegal.
>>> I said that this restraint of trade is illegal.

>> And you are just plain wrong.

> That's your opinion,

Nope, that's fact.

> but I think you are wrong.

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

Or even noticing the huge number of locked
handsets sold in that pathetic soggy little island.

Just a tad unlikely that its actually illegal, fuckwit.

[Ext User(Brian Morrison)]

Rod Speed wrote:

> Or even noticing the huge number of locked
> handsets sold in that pathetic soggy little island.
>
> Just a tad unlikely that its actually illegal, fuckwit.

That depends on whether a case contesting the status quo ever gets to
the European Court and said court finds in favour of the complainant.

Might happen, might not.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:

>> Or even noticing the huge number of locked
>> handsets sold in that pathetic soggy little island.

>> Just a tad unlikely that its actually illegal, fuckwit.

> That depends on whether a case contesting the status quo ever gets to the
> European Court and said court finds in favour of the complainant.

> Might happen, might not.

No might about it, it aint gunna happen, you watch.

[Ext User(Stan Marsh)]

> 3 would be happy to unlock the handset for the registered owner, suggest
> the OP gets him/her to call 3 and request it?
> --
> Regards
> Jon

My mate bought it NIB from ebay, but we don't know the history of the phone
before this.
He says that 3 have flatly refused to help
Thanks for the replies.
Pete

[Ext User(Brian Morrison)]

Rod Speed wrote:

>>That depends on whether a case contesting the status quo ever gets to the
>>European Court and said court finds in favour of the complainant.
>
>
>>Might happen, might not.
>
>
> No might about it, it aint gunna happen, you watch.
>

It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone and it is your
property from day one, you'd think that said phone would be usable in
any way the customer chooses. I'd be happier if the SIM were locked to a
specific phone (i.e. locking processing done on the SIM) but that's not
technically possible I suspect.

I think it would take someone with very substantial means to contest
this state of affairs, and I suspect you're correct because the cost of
establishing a precedent would be so far in excess of the cost of paying
of a contract and unlocking fee as to be pretty pointless.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

[Ext User(Kwyjibo.)]

Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> said

> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>>That depends on whether a case contesting the status quo ever gets to
the
>>>European Court and said court finds in favour of the complainant.
>>
>>
>>>Might happen, might not.
>>
>>
>> No might about it, it aint gunna happen, you watch.
>>
>
> It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone

At a vastly discounted rate, based on the presumption that the money will
be recouped through use of said handset on its network.....

> and it is your
> property from day one, you'd think that said phone would be usable in
> any way the customer chooses.

Not when the majority of the upfront cost of the phone has been payed for
by the carrier.

> I'd be happier if the SIM were locked to a
> specific phone (i.e. locking processing done on the SIM) but that's not
> technically possible I suspect.
>
> I think it would take someone with very substantial means to contest
> this state of affairs, and I suspect you're correct because the cost of
> establishing a precedent would be so far in excess of the cost of paying
> of a contract and unlocking fee as to be pretty pointless.

And if anyone ever did contest it and win (which I doubt would ever
happen), you could say goodbye forever to subsidised handsets.


--


Kwyj.

(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)

[Ext User(Brian Morrison)]

Kwyjibo. wrote:

>>It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone
>
>
> At a vastly discounted rate, based on the presumption that the money will
> be recouped through use of said handset on its network.....

Their presumption. UK law makes it perfectly clear that the phone is the
property of the purchaser, only the SIM is the property of the network.

>
>
>>and it is your
>>property from day one, you'd think that said phone would be usable in
>>any way the customer chooses.
>
>
> Not when the majority of the upfront cost of the phone has been payed for
> by the carrier.
>

Which is their privilege.....

>
>>I'd be happier if the SIM were locked to a
>>specific phone (i.e. locking processing done on the SIM) but that's not
>>technically possible I suspect.
>>
>>I think it would take someone with very substantial means to contest
>>this state of affairs, and I suspect you're correct because the cost of
>>establishing a precedent would be so far in excess of the cost of paying
>>of a contract and unlocking fee as to be pretty pointless.
>
>
> And if anyone ever did contest it and win (which I doubt would ever
> happen), you could say goodbye forever to subsidised handsets.
>
>

Good, then everyone would know the real cost of developing and
manufacturing complex technology.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

[Ext User(Kwyjibo.)]

Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> said

> Kwyjibo. wrote:
>
>>>It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone
>>
>>
>> At a vastly discounted rate, based on the presumption that the money will
>> be recouped through use of said handset on its network.....
>
> Their presumption. UK law makes it perfectly clear that the phone is the
> property of the purchaser,

Which it is. The telco is under no obligation to modify the phone to give it
functionality that is beyond the functionality it had when originally
purchased.


--


Kwyj.

(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)

[Ext User(Brian Morrison)]

Kwyjibo. wrote:

>>Their presumption. UK law makes it perfectly clear that the phone is the
>>property of the purchaser,
>
>
> Which it is. The telco is under no obligation to modify the phone to give it
> functionality that is beyond the functionality it had when originally
> purchased.
>

A fair point....

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote

>>> That depends on whether a case contesting the status quo ever gets
>>> to the European Court and said court finds in favour of the complainant.

>>> Might happen, might not.

>> No might about it, it aint gunna happen, you watch.

> It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone and it is your
> property from day one, you'd think that said phone would be usable in any way
> the customer chooses.

You're always welcome to buy a phone that isnt locked if you want one.

> I'd be happier if the SIM were locked to a specific phone (i.e. locking
> processing done on the SIM) but that's not technically possible I suspect.

You're wrong, some mobile telcos do that.

> I think it would take someone with very substantial means to contest
> this state of affairs, and I suspect you're correct because the cost
> of establishing a precedent would be so far in excess of the cost of
> paying of a contract and unlocking fee as to be pretty pointless.

And you've got the problem that it isnt even illegal under EC law anyway.

[Ext User(hairydog@despammed.com)]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:10:56 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Just a tad unlikely that its actually illegal, fuckwit.

You lose.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote
> Kwyjibo. wrote

>>> It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone

>> At a vastly discounted rate, based on the presumption that the money
>> will be recouped through use of said handset on its network.....

> Their presumption. UK law makes it perfectly clear that the phone is the
>> property of the purchaser, only the SIM is the property of the network.

Irrelevant. What matters is whether they make it clear that the
handset you are buying is locked to a particular network or not.

>>> and it is your property from day one, you'd think that said phone would be
>>> usable in any way the customer chooses.

>> Not when the majority of the upfront cost of the phone has been payed for by
>> the carrier.

> Which is their privilege.....

And their right to lock the subsidised handset to their network too.

>>> I'd be happier if the SIM were locked to a specific phone (i.e. locking
>>> processing done on the SIM) but that's not technically possible I suspect.

>>> I think it would take someone with very substantial means to contest this
>>> state of affairs, and I suspect you're correct because the cost of
>>> establishing a precedent would be so far in excess of the
>>> cost of paying of a contract and unlocking fee as to be pretty pointless.

>> And if anyone ever did contest it and win (which I doubt would ever
>> happen), you could say goodbye forever to subsidised handsets.

> Good, then everyone would know the real cost of developing and manufacturing
> complex technology.

There can never be some nice tidy number like that.

[Ext User(Brian Morrison)]

Rod Speed wrote:

>>It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone and it is your
>>property from day one, you'd think that said phone would be usable in any way
>>the customer chooses.
>
>
> You're always welcome to buy a phone that isnt locked if you want one.
>

And I do, regularly, because I get an unlocked and unbastardised phone
to boot.

>
>>I'd be happier if the SIM were locked to a specific phone (i.e. locking
>>processing done on the SIM) but that's not technically possible I suspect.
>
>
> You're wrong, some mobile telcos do that.

Sorry, I didn't mean that the phone is looking for a specific SIM,
rather that the SIM will only work in a specific phone so that the phone
will work with other SIMs.

>
>
>>I think it would take someone with very substantial means to contest
>>this state of affairs, and I suspect you're correct because the cost
>>of establishing a precedent would be so far in excess of the cost of
>>paying of a contract and unlocking fee as to be pretty pointless.
>
>
> And you've got the problem that it isnt even illegal under EC law anyway.

I suppose it will require someone to get a judgement that it is illegal,
with all the difficulty that goes with doing that, to show that it is.
Most laws are a matter of interpretation.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

[Ext User(Brian Morrison)]

Rod Speed wrote:

>
>>Good, then everyone would know the real cost of developing and manufacturing
>>complex technology.
>
>
> There can never be some nice tidy number like that.
>

Granted, but having phones provided "for free" gives people a false
impression of the cost of the device. It all helps make for more and
more difficulty recouping investment needed to develop new kit.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

[Ext User(JB)]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lps1tF13mm8pU1@individual.net...
> Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote
>> Kwyjibo. wrote
>
>>>> It's a pity, because since the networks sell you a phone
>
>>> At a vastly discounted rate, based on the presumption that the money
>>> will be recouped through use of said handset on its network.....
>
>> Their presumption. UK law makes it perfectly clear that the phone is the
>>> property of the purchaser, only the SIM is the property of the network.
>
> Irrelevant. What matters is whether they make it clear that the
> handset you are buying is locked to a particular network or not.
>

Do they do that in your experience? I don't think T-Mobile or Orange have
ever told me my 'phone is locked to their network.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Good, then everyone would know the real cost of developing and manufacturing
>>> complex technology.

>> There can never be some nice tidy number like that.

> Granted, but having phones provided "for free" gives people a false impression
> of the cost of the device.

Only the fools.

> It all helps make for more and more difficulty recouping investment needed to
> develop new kit.

Nope.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Brian Morrison <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote

>>> I'd be happier if the SIM were locked to a specific phone (i.e. locking
>>> processing done on the SIM) but that's not technically possible I suspect.

>> You're wrong, some mobile telcos do that.

> Sorry, I didn't mean that the phone is looking for a specific SIM, rather that
> the SIM will only work in a specific phone so that the phone will work with
> other SIMs.

You're still wrong, some phones are locked so that you cant
even use a different sim from the same mobile telco in them.

Mainly to lock you into a plan with higher than
normal call charges with that subsidised handset.

>>> I think it would take someone with very substantial means to contest
>>> this state of affairs, and I suspect you're correct because the cost
>>> of establishing a precedent would be so far in excess of the cost of
>>> paying of a contract and unlocking fee as to be pretty pointless.

>> And you've got the problem that it isnt even illegal under EC law anyway.

> I suppose it will require someone to get a judgement that it is illegal, with
> all the difficulty that goes with doing that, to show that it is. Most laws
> are a matter of interpretation.

Not on something as basic as that most arent.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

hairydog@despammed.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Just a tad unlikely that its actually illegal, fuckwit.

> You lose.

Nope, you do.

[Ext User(Brian Morrison)]

Rod Speed wrote:

>>Sorry, I didn't mean that the phone is looking for a specific SIM, rather that
>>the SIM will only work in a specific phone so that the phone will work with
>>other SIMs.
>
>
> You're still wrong, some phones are locked so that you cant
> even use a different sim from the same mobile telco in them.
>
> Mainly to lock you into a plan with higher than
> normal call charges with that subsidised handset.
>

Yes I know that, but I'm thinking of the process in reverse, instead of
the phone deciding whether it likes the SIM it should be a case off the
SIM deciding whether it likes the phone.


>>I suppose it will require someone to get a judgement that it is illegal, with
>>all the difficulty that goes with doing that, to show that it is. Most laws
>>are a matter of interpretation.
>
>
> Not on something as basic as that most arent.

One thing I wouldn't describe competition law as is basic.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

[Ext User(Matt Wheeler)]

"Brian Morrison" <scrapspam@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:GuSdnU-feLqO0GXfRVnyrw@eclipse.net.uk...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>>Sorry, I didn't mean that the phone is looking for a specific SIM,
>>>rather that the SIM will only work in a specific phone so that the
>>>phone will work with other SIMs.
>>
>>
>> You're still wrong, some phones are locked so that you cant
>> even use a different sim from the same mobile telco in them.
>>
>> Mainly to lock you into a plan with higher than
>> normal call charges with that subsidised handset.
>>
>
> Yes I know that, but I'm thinking of the process in reverse, instead
> of the phone deciding whether it likes the SIM it should be a case
> off the SIM deciding whether it likes the phone.
>

Interesting idea... would you lock the Sim to one phone, or to, say,
all (or a subset of) handsets branded by that operator ?
eg would a "3" sim only work in the 6680 it came with, all "3" 6680's
or all "3" handsets ?

Reason for asking is that, I'm wondering what happens if I have a
handset fault which means it needs to go off for repair... if my sim
will only work in that handset, will I need a new Sim as well as a
temporary handset ? What then happens to the new sim when I get my old
handset back.



>
>>>I suppose it will require someone to get a judgement that it is
>>>illegal, with all the difficulty that goes with doing that, to show
>>>that it is. Most laws are a matter of interpretation.
>>
>>
>> Not on something as basic as that most arent.
>
> One thing I wouldn't describe competition law as is basic.
>
> --
>
> Brian Morrison
>
> please observe reply-to address