Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Investigate Cell Phone Unlocking Ban
Edgewood_Dirk writes "In response to the recent White House petition, the FCC will be investigating the viability and possible harm of the ban on cell-phone unlocking. Gregory Ferenstein met with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at a TechCrunch CrunchGov event Wednesday, where the Chairman said the 'ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns.'"
This line from the end of the article fails to inspire confidence: "Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has, but if he finds any, given the tone of the conversation, it’s likely he will exert his influence to reverse the decision."
""Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do and specifically to
" Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities;
Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution;
Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally;
Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism;
Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure."
The FCC has done a lot of similar things, say for example mandating that cable companies can't sell boxes that don't include a cablecard, or requiring all cable companies to permit self install of cablecards.
What would stop them from outright forbidding cell phone locking?
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
FCC will be investigating the viability and possible harm of the ban on cell-phone unlocking.
Possible harm to customers or to the mobile providers?
There is very little to investigate -- if I don't explicitly seek out an "unlocked" phone, even the phone that isn't subsidized may be locked by the providers. Why isn't that strictly illegal already?
Like all things coming from the White House Petition Site, this is an opportunity for the President to appear like he is in touch with the common man. Expect an official looking executive directive and a press release from the relevant agency. After that... We'll see.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Not much use petitioning the Executive Branch anyway. The directive (not actually a law, but authorized by a law, and so has the force of law) came from the Librarian of Congress. I'm going to guess he's Legislative Branch. After all, his title even has "Congress" in the name. In other words, the Office of the President has no authority over him.
Which goes a long way towards explaining the wrongheadedness of the decision, and should give a fine hint as to exactly what the FCC Chairman can expect to do about it. (Nothing.) Any time your freedoms are curtailed, you can reliably trace it back to Congress. (Yes I know that's almost a tautology, considering the structure of US government, but it makes for a good sound bite.)
The FCC is front and center in the core of the ban; they desperately want it, the White House (agencies within) desperately want it, the State Department desperately want it, the Department of Defense desperately want it the CIA desperately want it, the Department of Justice (what a joke of a name) desperately want it, the Department of Interior desperately want it.
With so much desperation within the US Federal government no wonder that the 'Sequesteropalas' is a dead and deaf issue.
Obama should just pen another 'Secret Executive Order' and start killing US citizens, his most hated of enemies.
Perhaps I simply lack the imagination. Perhaps someone here could offer up a reasonable rationale as to how a carrier locked phone is protecting ANYONE's copyright? You understand this is being done, apparently, under the DMCA.
The carriers have no copyright over which carrier I use.
Now if they are talking about rooting a phone and loading custom firmware? That's a different matter. Because as we know, "media" such as flash drives, recordable CD/DVDs and such have been the target of pre-emtive fines/taxes which presume people will use them for violating someone's copyright and these measures are meant to compensate the largest of the copyright NPEs. (I love that -- NPEs: Non-Practicing Entities. They don't create music or art... they just buy it, limit it it and control it. We should all start calling the copyright houses copyright NPEs to better identify how they contribute to the arts.)
But that's the thing about phones. The software/firmware is a part of the functional device. The software/firmware is copyrightable... but also patentable... it is erasable... replaceable. The software which carriers peddle contains things which the consumer has no interest to say the least and often arguably serves to harm the consumer. It is not about copyright as much as it is controlling the device and the consumer by extension. This exceeds the intent and purpose of copyright AND the DMCA.
Napalm bait: People of USA are too stupid.
That is why US politicians have decided the stupid people
of America are allowed to carry guns but not carry
unlocked phones around.
Imagine the consequences of walking around with
unlocked phones. You could kill someone if you
threw it hard.
You silly boy. The DMCA is not about protecting copyrights. It's a tool (weapon) to be wielded about to stop you from doing whatever the corporations (whose bill the DMCA is) don't want you to do.
I don't understand why all you whiners about all of this cell phone locking don't understand the issue here. So read my lips...
You don't own that phone.
Let me say it again, in case you missed it:
You don't own that phone.
You people who are buying subsidized phones are buying them on credit, no different than taking a loan out to buy a car or a house. In all of those cases (phone, car, house), you don't own what you took the loan out to buy until you have paid the loan off. Anyone who has had a house or car repo'd can explain that to you.
So, if you want an unlocked phone, save up for it and pay for it up front. If you can't afford to buy that overpriced iphone or whatever else with cash, up front, then sadly, you cannot afford to own a phone and don't get the rights that come with phone ownership. You should have stayed in school.
You are an idiot. The issue here is that it's illegal to unlock a locked phone without the carrier's permission EVEN IF it was paid for up front or you have finished paying for it via a contract. Do try to pay attention.
.
the way you gain authority, remember, it to use it. a court or a mob may signal if you overreach. but since all radio wave communications is regulated by the FCC, as well as commercial broadcast, and considering that the operation of cell phone systems is licensed in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, ol' Frank Charlie Charlie can do whatever they want, up to and including seizing equipment, levelling a fine every time carrier comes on, and jailing people found in violation of regulations.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The DMCA prohibits bypassing "access control measures", in this case, carrier locks that control access to cell networks. There is no requirement that they be controlling access to copyrighted material.
Reason $BIGNUM why the DMCA is a horrible law that should have been strangled in the crib.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time