Bill Introduced to Re-Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking

http://allthingsd.com/20130307/bill-introduced-to-re-legalize-cell-phone-unlocking

by rjsamson • 13 years ago

84 24 13 years ago

allthingsd.com

maaku• 13 years ago

> "...to switch carriers"

What about roaming overseas? Anyone know?

showerst• 13 years ago

For reference this is S.481 113th. The full text isn't up on THOMAS yet, but when it is this link should work:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:481:./list/bss/...:

nicksergeant3• 13 years ago

That was fast. Are we in the same country still?

ollysb• 13 years ago

Guess they had their minds made up on this one already.

nicksergeant3• 13 years ago

That's kind of what I'm thinking - the response to the petition was so fast and detailed that it seems they'd already been planning a fix of this legislation.

Either way, it's a win.

afarrell• 13 years ago

I suspect this is a consequence of this not being an existing battleground and there being a small core of people intensely interested enough to help write legislation supported by a broad enough base to convince legislators that they can buy some votes at the polls by supporting this. The only people who will pay attention to it are those who might sign the petition, or the cell phone companies.

Obscure special interest issues are easier to detect constituent consensus and come to agreement on in general.

sinak2• 13 years ago

As the article states, I don't think I'm in support of this right now. We'd much rather see broader DMCA change, as highlighted at http://fixthedmca.org

I'm waiting on someone in DC to forward me the text of the bill. Will post here once I have it.

csense• 13 years ago

If you're not willing to support a measure that doesn't give you everything you want, you're really not cut out for politics.

I'm actually more in favor of making changes to the law in small patches, because they're less likely to contain bugs.

Monoliths like the 900 pages that is Obamacare -- how can anyone really figure out what the effects will be ahead of time?

AnthonyMouse2• 13 years ago

A much better fix for this is actually shorter than the proposed legislation. All you need is to add one line to DMCA 1201 that says it doesn't apply in the absence of infringement or to tools that have significant uses other than infringement.

DannyBee2• 13 years ago

I'm not sure what you expected past "do something simple nobody will oppose, which may or may not actually solve anything, declare victory" :)

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_t...

juanpdelat• 13 years ago

I wonder how much money things like this cost to countries. Not that they're not important, but going back and forth on some consumerism laws when there are still education, health and security issues, makes me thing politicians are just wasting tax payers' money all the time.

Symmetry• 13 years ago

I'd say that figuring out the right thing to do with respect to unlocking cell phones is certainly two and likely more than three orders of magnitude simpler than a useful change in security, health, or education. And I suspect it's just as important as the sort of things the Federal Government (as opposed to state or local) does with respect to education.

sinak2• 13 years ago

Here is the full text of the bill. It fails to address the DMCA at all, and I'm not sure I understand how it would fix the problem. It says that "the agent of such subscribers" should be allowed to unlock any devices, but if the primary way of doing that is illegal as per the DMCA, it's not clear at all what it would actually achieve.

---------------------

A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to direct that wireless providers permit the unlocking of mobile devices.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Wireless Consumer Choice Act". SEC. 2. FCC DIRECTION TO WIRELESS PROVIDERS.

Pursuant to its authorities under title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Communications Commission, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, shall direct providers of commercial mobile services and commercial mobile data services to permit the subscribers of such services, or the agent of such subscribers, to unlock any type of wireless device used to access such services. Nothing in this Act alters, or shall be construed to alter, the terms of any valid contract between a provider and a subscriber.

nicksergeant3• 13 years ago

It reads like "you, the provider, should allow subscribers to unlock their device so long as you don't have a current contract with them".

saurik• 13 years ago

> It fails to address the DMCA at all...

So, I will again state[1] that this was the expected outcome of a bunch of press surrounding a petition that narrowly focusses on a problem with a specific use case (unlocking cell phones) that didn't have much to do with the DMCA in the first place.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5202461

In this case, my prediction that we would see legislation similar to Canada's Cell Phone Freedom Act is seeming like it is going to happen. That act says nothing about consumers being able to bypass protections and themselves unlock their phone: it simply adds regulation around the business model of locking, both requiring that consumers be strongly informed that locks exist and insisting that phone companies unlock devices when the contract expires.

That said, I was surprised that the Wireless Device Independence Act[2] put together a few days ago actually does "address the DMCA": it is a modification to the anti-tampering clause in the DMCA that directly states that it does not apply to this specific situation. That act was drafted by Wyden, whom is generally really good about this kind of thing (so while I was surprised it happened at all, there was no surprise when I saw who did it).

[2] http://1.usa.gov/XUJv4C

What I don't quite understand yet, however, is whether this Wireless Consumer Choice Act is now "the chosen front-runner", or whether the Wireless Device Independence Act has any chance of still happening (maybe in later discussion). That said, I can't imagine the latter actually winning after an argument: the former, in fact, actually better solves the specific demands of consumers, as it guarantees their older devices will actually be unlocked.

To be clear about that, no one has been making the public argument "even devices under contract should be unlocked", as far as I've seen, even if that's what they want. The discussion is just that unlocking itself should be legal, and the brunt of the argument made in defense of doing that to groups like the Library of Congress has always been that devices outlive the usefulness of their contracts, and then get forgotten, requiring the need for third-party unlocks.

For older devices, you then have the choice between 1) the Wireless Consumer Choice Act, which states that these devices must be unlocked by the person with the key, or 2) the Wireless Device Independence Act, which adds a probably-unnecessary exception to the DMCA to allow people to unlock the devices if they can figure out a way to bypass the key, which is never guaranteed and for many devices (such as all iPhones currently on sale) still hasn't happened after years of effort.

> but if the primary way of doing that is illegal as per the DMCA, it's not clear at all what it would actually achieve

You really need to demonstrate this, as I maintain that the DMCA doesn't apply to unlocking devices ;P (the more complete argument having been made by me on reddit[3] in addition to the previous HN post[1], which was less complete). However, even if the DMCA were to apply to unlocking cell phones, it certainly doesn't keep the people selling the locked phones from doing it, which is what this act would require: if you have the keys you don't need to tamper with the lock.

[3] http://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/19niw6/white_hous...

woobar• 13 years ago

This is still a half measure. Why wouldn't they make cell phone LOCKING illegal?

patejam• 13 years ago

Because it is completely reasonable for providers to give you a locked phone for a price subsidized by a 2 or so year contract. Nothing stops you from buying an unsubsidized, unlocked phone.

StavrosK• 13 years ago

How is it at all reasonable? Why should the carriers care if I want to sign a 2-year contract, get the iPhone and then use it with another network?

That's how things work in Greece. Carriers have no business messing with phones in any way (putting apps on them, locking them, etc), and they don't. Every single phone in Greece, no matter how long the contract, is stock unlocked from the provider.

Bill Introduced to Re-Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking

Related Stories