Reps Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Legalize Mobile Device Unlocking 133
New submitter tomservo84 writes "It seems some people in the House of Reps have their heads screwed on straight. A bill would 'make it permanently legal for consumers to unlock their mobile devices, and consumers would not be required to obtain permission from their carrier before switching to a new carrier.' 'This bill reflects the way we use this technology in our everyday lives,' Rep. Lofgren said. 'Americans should not be subject to fines and criminal liability for merely unlocking devices and media they legally purchased. If consumers are not violating copyright or some other law, there's little reason to hold back the benefits of unlocking so people can continue using their devices.' Now, what chance does this have of actually passing?"
No chance of passing (Score:3, Insightful)
This administration is owned by enormous corporations - and Obama just nominated a Telecom lobbyist to head the FCC (after promising during his campaign that there would be no lobbyists in his administration). Seriously. There is zero chance he would sign this bill were it to find its way to his desk.
WTF did he just say? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Americans should not be subject to fines and criminal liability for merely unlocking devices and media they legally purchased"
MEDIA???? No way the media cartels will give up all the monstrous legislation around copyright circumvention.
Certainly the good Congressman misspoke.
Re:No chance of passing (Score:5, Insightful)
This administration did criticize the Librarian of Congress for the unlocking rules change though.
Re:No chance of passing (Score:5, Insightful)
How many things have they criticized about the Bush administration, and then copied?
Criticism means nothing without actions to back it up.
Re:No chance of passing (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I think "nominating Telecom lobbyist to head FCC" is an action that soundly trumps "feigned criticism of the LoC."
Re:CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS (Score:2, Insightful)
There already is a loophole. Devices made for CDMA2000 typically can't do GSM/UMTS, nor vice versa. Even within a particular mobile system, carrier-branded devices tend to have the competing carrier's frequency bands blocked off.
Good point. This is alot like that loophole in the food heating industry. I can't believe you can't turn a toaster into a microwave. I mean they both heat food right.
Re:A bit late (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understood why they bother to lock the phones in the first place.
Oh, I can think of some reasons:
1. So they can sell the right to install an app on a phone that a consumer can't get rid of.
2. So they can set up "app stores" that collect a significant cut of whatever the user wants to buy.
3. So they can prevent third parties from creating and selling alternative services to their own products that are cheaper and/or better.
4. To reduce the number of ways a user can mess it up.
Re:CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Congress.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply Repeal the DMCA. Making NEW laws to fix broken ones is not the answer. Start repealing laws that have no use except to force an iron fist around consumers.
Re:Paying off a subsidy that's already paid off (Score:4, Insightful)
I got a fully paid phone (won as a door prize) unlocked by AT&T back around 2005, but I had to go through multiple levels of customer support to do it-- took a lot longer than a minute. It is somewhat surprising that they unlocked a phone for you while still under contract, but technically they don't need the phone to be locked if the contract's early termination fee covers the phone subsidy.
Manufacturers generally have no interest in locking the phone (definitely not to a carrier and often not even the bootloader). It does not benefit them. It's the carriers that want locking and will usually make that a requirement before subsidizing or promoting the phone.
Re:No chance of passing (Score:4, Insightful)
While Obama had majorities in the House and Senate for two years, saying he had control is overstating the situation considerably because his majority in the Senate was not enough to force cloture.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-16/news/ct-oped-0617-zorn-md-20120616_1_minnesota-democrat-al-franken-filibuster-proof-majority-barack-obama [chicagotribune.com]