Slashdot Mirror
White House Petition To Make Unlocking Phones Legal Passes 100,000 Signatures
An anonymous reader writes "A White House petition to make unlocking cell phones legal again has passed the 100,000 signature mark. Passing the milestone means the U.S. government has to issue an official response. 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.'"
Break them up or replace them with a state run monopoly. Discuss.
Why is the government protecting a business model that is based on selling equipment at a loss?
Palm trees and 8
The Obama administration, no matter how many accusations regarding some sort of "Socialism" get lobbed at it, is a *corporatist* White House. It's only slightly less corporatist than the Bush Jr and Clinton admins.
Nothing will happen. The corporate cheerleaders and know nothings thinks this somehow protects corporations from the great unwashed.
Create a new amateur license class, that allows individuals to run 4g networks; encourage cooperatives, meshes, and other citizen-run communications systems. Give the spectrum the carriers have to the people and let us manage our communications without relying on monopolies.
Palm trees and 8
Is anyone tracking how many of these petitions result in actual policy change? It seems most get a canned response explaining the Administration's position. I don't recall any responses that said, "that's a good idea, we'll go do it" or "we've added that to our legislative agenda."
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
No, what we have now is:
You go to buy a phone
Carrier offers you the unlocked version for $600 or the 2-year contract version for $150
You buy the $150 model
For the next two years you bitch and moan because you can't unlock the phone and switch carriers.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
On January 26th, unlocking a cell phone that is under contract became illegal in the U.S
I don't have a big problem with that, but this is the really important part:
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Seriously, Obama talks a great game about a transparent government by the people, for the people.
But from what I can tell, the petition website is, at best, a case of him failing to follow through on his aspirations. At worst, it's meant to give the American public a false sense of being listened to.
Replace "for the next two years" with "for the next infinity years".
The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA makes it illegal to ever unlock the phone without the carrier's permission, regardless of whether the contract is up or not.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
No, they're selling equipment. After 30 days, it's yours according to the contract - at least it is for the one I signed. I pay for the equipment, and the State agrees that it is a sale at the offered price - charging me sales tax. I have a service agreement which states if I choose not to keep the equipment I have to give it back for a full refund within the first 30 days, after 30 days, I am required to keep the phone.
Nonetheless, you've just made the point that locking/unlocking is unnecessary. I quote, "And early termination fees protect their investment." Which is exactly the point - the contract with my provider states that I will keep in force a minimum level of service for 2 years in return for the reduced purchase price. If I break the contract , I owe them $350 (prorated per the schedule).
Locking is an unnecessary and burdensome business practice which should be illegal, and is instead enforced as a result of a law which was - by it's nature - not intended to apply to physical transactions.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Sure, but just to make sure we're clear on this point, when I sign that two-year contract, I actually bought the phone. I'm required to pay sales tax on the full, unsubsidized price of the phone up front. And if I bought the phone, I should be free to use it how I want. The contract is in place to make sure I don't jump carriers without adequately compensating my current one, and it already suffices. Why we need to add an additional technological roadblock that increases friction between switching carriers is beyond me.
Actually, no, it's not. What the carriers want is to increase friction so that they can lock you in even after your contract is up, so it's no surprise things are this way. But the government stepped in a few years back to help ensure that phone numbers can be transferred between carriers, and they need to do the same here, ensuring that phones themselves can be transferred between carriers, barring any legitimate technological limitations.
See, we "bitch and moan" because we bought a phone, and then the government told us we are not allowed to do what we want with the phone.
No, you bought a subsidized phone under a contract. You're free to unlock it as soon as you fulfill that contract, or you're free to buy the unsubsidized/unlocked version in the first place and never enter the fucking contract in the first place.
What you're asking for is to have your cake and eat it too. If you want freedom, BUY THE UNLOCKED PHONE!
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
This petition is for cheapskates who want to buy subsidized phones, but not fulfill their contract.
There are already mechanisms to penalize people who do not fulfill contracts. So not unlocking a cell phone for that reason is unnecessary.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I still don't see why a phone on contract should be locked. In the UK I could buy a subsidised phone with a contract and move it between carriers as much as I want. Of course I would still be under my contract with the original carrier and have to keep up those payments (or pay an early cancellation fee) regardless of what I do with the phone.
Except that you did not take out a loan to buy your phone. You bought it at the price the carrier offered. The law says you cannot unlock the phone regardless of your contract, even when your contract expires, even if you pay the carrier the extra fee to cancel the contract, even if the carrier goes out of business. Stop trying to pretend that people are being offered a fair deal here; a fair deal is one in which you can buy something and do whatever you want with it.
Palm trees and 8
The problem is that for all carriers sans T-Mobile, the person who pays the premium for the unlocked phone still has to pay out their ass in the plan costs which are designed to recoup money lost from subsidizing phones by grossly inflating the price.
Once all of the carriers start offering cheaper plans for people who buy their phones outright, then I'll be satisfied.
What sort of consensual delusion is it that makes people continue to believe the "Whitehouse Petitions" mean SHIT?
Yes, Derek Khanna just mentioned it. Hooray. They hit 100k signatures.
But please: point to a SINGLE THING that the stupid "petition" website has started, stopped, or otherwise changed?*
*except to prompt some White House drone to hit the button 'generate response email': "Thank you for your interest in (issue). Please be assured that the (current president) administration takes your concern, and those of your other petitioners very seriously. President (current president) has reviewed the situation regarding (issue) closely with a team of experts and while you raise important concerns, feels that we should continue on the current policy course. Once again, thanks for your concern, (current president) appreciates your engagement on (issue)."
Phht, and people say that religion is dying. If this isn't a demonstration of naked, unsupported faith, I'm not sure what is.
-Styopa
People should examine how DMCA is involved at all, or why an exemption is needed.
Even if you take a hopelessly naive view of the purpose of DMCA's circumvention prohibition, even if you think it's a good idea to use force against everyone in order to address the 0.0001% case where someone accesses a movie for infringing purposes -- this scenario is still abuse of that law, roughly comparable to the Lexmark ink cartridge case.
On an optical disc containing an encrypted movie, the "work" whose access is limited by a technological measure, is the movie.
On a printer ink cartridge, or a mobile phone, the "work" whose access is limited by a technological measure, is ... hey, waitaminute! It's some kind of weird normally-not-copyrightable thing. Ink, really? Access to a network?! Even if you put all cynicism aside and read DMCA at face value, are you telling me Congress passed that law, for the purpose of granting vertical monopolies to product-tie terminals to networks?! Even if you get more realistic and say DMCA was to product-tie content with players, that purpose still doesn't apply to the phone situation.
The LoC's decision to not exempt phones, was purely malignant and indefensible. But even so, an exemption isn't enough of a correction. DMCA needs to be fixed so that it at least stops being so broad that it's applicable to the phone situation. Propose that to Congress, Mr. President. (Better yet, just toss the circumvention-prohibition crap altogether; if you do that, then everyone (consumers and also copyright holders) will win. But maybe learning the lessons of the last 15 years, is too much to expect this time around.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.