Slashdot Mirror
White House Petition To Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal Needs 11,000 Signatures
On January 26th, unlocking a cell phone that is under contract became illegal in the U.S. Just before that went into effect, a petition was started at whitehouse.gov to have the Librarian of Congress revisit that decision. "It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full. The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked." The 30 days time limit on the petition is almost up, and it's about 11,000 signatures shy of the amount necessary to ensure a response from the Obama administration (100,000 total, recently increased from 25,000). The creator of the petition received a Cease & Desist letter from Motorola in 2005 for selling software that would allow users to unlock their phones, and he thinks it's only a matter of time before such legal threats begin again. This is part of a larger battle to protect the way consumers can use their devices. While it's still legal for people to root their phones, the Librarian of Congress failed to expand that legal protection to tablets, even though the devices are incredibly similar. The Librarian's decision (PDF) needs further review, and if the White House petition doesn't get enough signatures by February 23, such a review may not happen.
Will generate a flood of clicks... but will people actually create logins and sign the petition?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
"...have the Librarian of Congress revisit that decision" != "Make Cell Phone Unlocking Legal"
That is all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's my phone, I paid for it and I honestly don't give two shits if some asshole in congress thinks I can't do what I want with something I own. Go ahead, make it illegal, fill up the jails and prisons just a little bit more. My guess is that a small handful of people might get into trouble over this, but the vast majority of us will do what we want WITH OUR OWN PROPERTY.
Thanks for the support Slashdot. As CanHasDIY notes, it doesn't mean that the decision will be reversed, and I think at best this will be the start of a process to getting the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions revisited by Congress. But hopefully it'll help.
answer is easy, stop selling locked phone at $20 with a footnot with a 70 years contract. Or include a condition in the 2 year contract that there is a huge fee per remaining month if you decide to cancel your contract. But why keep it locked?
Do you know why their doing this?It's because of the problem of so many people getting cells/droids under a contarcted agreement then deciding they want to switch to a diferent carrier without having to pay a large fe to get out of the original contract so I can understand why the major company's want this law.The people themselves are the reason this is happening,it is not the fault of the providers whatsoever,it is the fault of the users
If you get out of your contract agreement, you're going to pay a fee which is dependent on how long you have to go on your contract, regardless of whether you can unlock your phone or not. The fee is for breaking the contract, not to unlock your phone.
Are there any examples of a "We the people" petition actually doing anything even if successful?
Do you know why [they're] doing this?[ ]It's because of the problem of so many people getting cells/droids under a [contracted] agreement[,] then deciding they want to switch to a [different] carrier without having to pay a large [fee] to get out of the original contract[,] so I can understand why the major [companies] want this law.
Whew, much better - that poorly typed shit is hard for me to read.
Here's the issue with your argument - cellular carriers already charge hefty fees for early contract termination, so your main talking point here is demonstrably false.
Also, this "law," which BTW isn't really a law as the Librarian of Congress is not a fucking Legislator , merely adds insult to injury by preventing everyone from unlocking their phones, up to and including folks who unwittingly bought a locked phone outright (it happens), and people like me that actually fulfilled our contractual obligation, and now possess a fully paid for, albeit nearly obsolete, device.
The people themselves are the reason this is happening,it is not the fault of the providers whatsoever,it is the fault of the users
Psychologists refer to this sort of behavior as victim blaming, and is oft employed exclusively by narcissistic assholes.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
albeit nearly obsolete
IMO, a phone is not obsolete so long as it is capable of making calls.
I see. Your time is better spent bitching about said Internet petition on Slashdot.
Here in Brazil, it is illegal to sell locked phones.
Circumcision is child abuse.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-susan-crawford-fcc-chairman/73mtqt0q ,
Susan Crawford, law school professor and author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, says “Truly high-speed wired Internet access is as basic to innovation, economic growth, social communication, and the country’s competitiveness as electricity was a century ago, but a limited number of Americans have access to it, many can’t afford it, and the country has handed control of it over to Comcast and a few other companies.”
In a recent TV interview, she pointed out high speed access in Hong Kong costs a fraction of what it does in New York city, because the US providers don't enter each other's markets. She wants to change that.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/susan-crawford-on-why-u-s-internet-access-is-slow-costly-and-unfair/
Oh, so stupid contracts that disadvantage a huge business over the customer need criminal protections for said huge business? Sheesh
[And that's even assuming such a "disadvantage exists - which it doesn't.]
But lets just assume it does.
So, if I'm "too large to fail" I'll get the government to enact criminal penalties to help me enforce a stupid contract I made, outside of the civil court system? This is no different than getting "Vinny," with his bat, to break the knees of anyone who renegs on a deal nad cuts into your profits. Spare me.
Hey, mobile-telco boffo's - take it up in civil court like everyone else. Your contractual stupidity shouldn't be enforced by draconian criminal punishments from a government who should have no interest in any contract you make.
Free market my ass.
-Greg
And what about when the people doing this purchase a dozen subsidized phones, unlock them and resell them, and then simply refuse to pay the fee for breaching the contract?
What the hell? What about people who enter any contract, and then breach it? Contract law is a thing, go to the courts. If the problem is so widespread that this isn't cost effective, then that business model is broken, and I guess it's just not going to be worth it to you to offer subsidized phones.
Try offering another incentive instead, like a lower monthly plan if under contract.
We the people don't owe you a law to make your business model work.
If this is anything like previous petitions, I expect the response to be farmed out to an cell phone carrier exec who will ignore the petition's content and instead talk about how much they are spending on building out their network. Bonus points if they end on a riff about how the DMCA protects consumer rights and why ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA would be great for the American public (if we could only get them passed... contact your congressperson!).
No, read the law. The executive (specifically, the Librarian of Congress) has the power to issue exemptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, which they did 6 years ago to allow cell phone unlocking. They then declined to renew that exemption.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I read the FAQ, and the only thing the whitehouse says they'll do if the petition reaches the threshold is "respond" to it, which so far seems to be little more than long-winded non-answers. I get the feeling that this is intended to keep us preoccupied with the hope they'll do something so we don't notice that they don't actually do anything.
Looks like Slashdot still holds some of its power. 100,000 was reached sometime this morning 2/21/2013.