Cricket Is Kyocera in breach of FCC??


New member
Jan 8, 2004
Sprint SERO, Framily, Freedompop GSM
So many.
I have a Hydro VIEW / c6742. It is currently locked to Cricket.
As per the FCC's latest ruling on unlocking, I believe every carrier has to make it possible to unlock their phones when certain criteria are met (using it for 6 months, being deployed overseas, etc). However, it appears this particular handset is having trouble being unlocked by Cricket. Other phones have no problem being supplied with the code from the carrier, however I have confirmation from 2 users on youtube and another forum member who owns a handful of these handsets, the code supplied by the carrier to unlock DOES NOT WORK. It appears to be only 6 digits every time as well, whereas I believe other Kyocera phones have longer unlock codes. My theory is that Kyocera dropped the ball somewhere and ISN'T SUPPLYING THE CARRIER WITH THE FULL UNLOCK CODES.

If true, I'm sure this is simply an oversight- I don't think Kyocera has anything to gain by making a phone not-unlockable by the carrier, and the carrier certainly has no trouble unlocking other phones that meet the necessary criteria. However, I'm afraid that neither may be motivated to actually do anything about it (cricket seems to insist this is the code they are given from Kyocera).

I wonder, since phone locking has become such a heated topic that it reached federal law proportions, does failing to repair this situation make Kyocera and/or Cricket somehow in breach of the FCC regulations?
Turns out this was a misunderstanding, Kyocera or Cricket has either rectified the issue or there was some other cause of the previous handsets problems that is no longer applicable.

Can a moderator delete this thread? Thanks!