Bill Introduced to Re-Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking
allthingsd.com
allthingsd.com
---------------------
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.
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).
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...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:481:./list/bss/...:
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.
Outlawing locking phones would drive phone prices up, I'd think.
So have an early termination fee that constitutes the amount of the subsidy on the phone.
One use case for unlock-at-will (or no lock) proponents: The user is in the U.S. and has a GSM phone. The user travels to Europe. Roaming rates on that GSM phone are very expensive. If the phone is unlocked, the user can purchase a European SIM and take advantage of local, European rates (probably using a "preloaded"/"reloadable" cash-balance SIM).
The user is still paying his US$60/month or whatever on his home contract. S/he is merely avoiding high roaming rates while traveling, without having to purchase a "disposable" phone that 1) Probably has less capable physical specifications and does not have any of the user's data; 2) Is more likely to be discarded and become a disposal problem / waste at the end of the trip.
Unlocking is not just or primarily about post-contract use, nor is it about escaping a contract without compensating the provider for the unpaid portion of their subsidy. It's about being able to use the phone the way you want, once and as the obligations one has committed to have been met.
And... it potentially helps the waste stream / disposal problem, by allowing the transfer of older devices to other parties who may be happy to use them, effectively extending their useful lifetime while avoiding now unnecessary production of additional units.
Either way, it's a win.
Obscure special interest issues are easier to detect constituent consensus and come to agreement on in general.
I'm waiting on someone in DC to forward me the text of the bill. Will post here once I have it.
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?
Instead, they are doing the smallest and least objectionable thing possible, in an attempt to stunt any legislative momentum around his broader initiative.
This is how the game is played. Now he has to make a move to try to either broaden a political coalition (he has the industry part down) to go further than what the administration explicitly supported, and deal with the silent but definitely existing industry coalition that is opposing it, or accept the smaller "fix" and use it to establish the legitimacy of his advocacy efforts, and save the actual legislative fight for a time when their isn't as much industry opposition.
Despite what folks here may think of congress in general and their intelligence, they are usually quite good at politics, or they would not be playing at this level.
What about roaming overseas? Anyone know?