White House Urges Reversal of Ban On Cell-Phone Unlocking

netbuzz writes "In a dramatic call for action directly prompted by 114,000 signatures on a 'We the People' petition, the Obama Administration moments ago urged the reversal of a federal regulatory decision that had rendered the act of unlocking a cell phone illegal. From the reply: 'The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.' Statements from the FCC and Library of Congress indicate that they back the administration's position."

Comments

Political stunt

[crazyjj]

Obama knows that such a ban stands no chance of getting through Congress (the big telecommunications companies bought and paid for them long ago). He's just politically grandstanding on a popular issue. Nothing will actually come of it, and he knows it.

Re:Political stunt

[Frosty Piss]

He's just politically grandstanding on a popular issue. Nothing will actually come of it, and he knows it.

Stating his position is "grandstanding"? He should be silent on it so you can trash him about that as well?

Re:Political stunt

[dreamchaser]

The decision was made by the Library of Congress, removing unlocking from the list of things exempt from the DMCA I believe. If they reverse that decision, and it sounds like they will, then the problem is solved unless Congress drafts specific legislation to make it illegal.

Re:Political stunt

[shentino]

All Congress has to do is let the 3 years expire again and we're back to the status quo.

Re:Political stunt

[Hatta]

Actually, I expect this to get some traction. Cell phone unlocking has been legal for a year or two now, and telcos aren't suffering too much from it. This is a small issue that will win Obama some major positive PR. He needs to deliver on small issues like this so people don't notice he hasn't even tried to deliver anything important.

He doesn't even need to get Congress involved. He just needs to have a chat with the Librarian of Congress and work out some quid pro quo. This won't be hard for Obama to actually accomplish.

Re:Political stunt

[crazyjj]

No, grandstanding is going for the easy applause when you know there is absolutely no political price to be paid for doing do (and no chance that it will matter).

Re:Political stunt

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The decision was made by the Library of Congress, removing unlocking from the list of things exempt from the DMCA I believe. If they reverse that decision, and it sounds like they will, then the problem is solved unless Congress drafts specific legislation to make it illegal.

In addition to(as you say) the matter being out of Congress' hands unless they amend the DMCA to change the Librarian of Congress' role, it is in some sense the purpose of these goofy little exemptions to protect the DMCA as a whole.

How better to protect the fundamental overreach of the DMCA(ie. just by combining virtually anything copyrighted with even a totally crap DRM system, anybody can code rules into their product, with those rules being given force of federal law, or at least serving as a presumptively very strong basis for lawsuits) than by having a tame process for throwing the opposition a bone on a few relatively minor; but culturally, educationally, or otherwise symbolically significant issues?

If the intention were to open a real exemption in the DMCA, it'd be legal to break DRM for any purpose that is otherwise legal, and development, use, sale, etc. of circumvention tools and devices would only constitute aggravating factors in copyright infringement cases, rather than crimes in themselves.

Re:Political stunt

[crazyjj]

The decision was made by the Library of Congress [emphasis mine]

Is the "they" you're referring to Congress? Because *they* haven't said anything about reversing this.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it sound like they will reverse the decision? Last I heard the Library of Congress did not answer to the Executive Branch.

Re:Political stunt

[squiggleslash]

According to the White House response, the relevent parties already had a chat with the LoC, at the normal time, who said "No":

The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters: the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf), voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.

Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA. The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process

The response goes on to say - with some agreement - that the LoC feels that the problem is the DMCA, and that legislation would be a better way to move forward than trying to hack around the DMCA all the time.

So I think the Whitehouse is deliberately avoiding the LoC route. It's not clear whether they would prefer the LoC take action, but it's clear that executive policy is that the situation needs to be resolved permanently, in legislation.

Re:Political stunt

[crazyjj]

The Librarian of Congress doesn't answer to the President.

Re:Political stunt

[Hatta]

No, he doesn't answer to the president. That doesn't mean the president can't influence him.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Like, what you're trying to do, but failing?

Re:Political stunt

[Artraze]

Technically it's not so much the "Library of Congress" as it is the "Librarian of Congress", a position appointed by the president, that delivered the decision. The current guy was appointed by Regan in '87, and while it's not terribly clear if he was reappointed by Obama or was just left in place, it is fair to say that he answers to President Obama. (There isn't a specific term on the position; it's life by precedent but there's no reason he couldn't be removed.)

The point is, that this is something that the office of the president has a fair amount of control over. If Obama wants it to happen, there's no real reason it shouldn't. As far as the GP's post, a public "urging" could be seen as grandstanding since this would be a bit like your boss holding a press conference to urge you to change your decision on something. However, as it was publicly asked, a public response is warranted.

With that in mind though, if the ban on unlocking isn't reversed, and rather quickly at that, it'll highlight some serious problems with the system and "grandstanding" would be about the nicest thing you can say about it...

Re:Political stunt

[crazyjj]

Hi, welcome to /. You must be new here.

Re:Political stunt

[MartinSchou]

The really silly thing is that the Library of Congress gets to decide the legality of cell phone unlocking.

Yes, I know, it's because of the travesty that is DMCA, but that doesn't make it any less silly.

Re:Political stunt

[hrvatska]

So the Obama administration shouldn't have taken a position on this? I guess I expect a presidential administration to take a position on important issues regardless of whether or not the issue is controversial. The Obama administration takes positions on plenty of other things that generate political heat.

Re:Political stunt

[detritus.]

Considering that Obama was the top donor recipient from Verizon, is it of any surprise? Yet he can't issue an executive order for this stuff but can to restrict guns or assassinate people because it's somehow within his authority...

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Stating his position is "grandstanding"? He should be silent on it so you can trash him about that as well?

I'm not the gp, but I think the "grandstanding" accusation speak more to the regular function of that website and the administration's public positions, than the answer to this one small thing. The answer to everything is, "Hello chumps. Not my problem, go away.", unless it's something ridiculously safe.

"Yeah, we totally think you should be able to unlock your awesome iphone" requires as much political gumption as, "We definitely think someone should do something about cancer."

That thing exists as a PR circus, and people seem to love it. But then, people loved Jersey Shore. The purely superficial hat-tip to transparency and open dialog only serves to disguise the fact that he's just-another-Democrat. Though, admittedly, with the best marketing team money can buy.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Obama administration shouldn't have taken a position on this?

I'm pretty sure anything Obama does is wrong. Even when he does the "right thing" the anti-Obama crowd claims he did it for the wrong reasons. It's a form of insanity.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Please change your username to trollingjj and be done with it.

Re:Political stunt

[Chris Burke]

Yes, I know, it's because of the travesty that is DMCA, but that doesn't make it any less silly.

No, no, of course not, but it does mask it. Like, a man wearing a tutu, bunny slippers, and a singing Billy Bass as a hat is pretty fucking silly. But put that man on a giant merry-go-round with a troupe of nuns yodeling the dictionary backwards, an upside-down pie-eating contest, a poo-flinging monkey in a pope outfit on stilts, and so on, and suddenly the guy in the tutu doesn't stand out so much.

Of course the rational response to all this silliness is to bulldoze the entire merry-go-round into a big hole and cover it with hot tar.

Re:Political stunt

[RazzleFrog]

This would go against Verizon - not for - so not sure what your point is. What executive order is restricting guns right now?

But yes as commander in chief he can call the shots in this factitious "War on Terror" - including using drones.

Re:Political stunt

[msauve]

There is no "they." The GP is wrong. The decision is made by the Librarian of Congress, in accordance with Section 1201(a)(1) title 17, United States Code. Any "they" would have to be referring to the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, who work in an advisory role.

But, the statement issued by the Library of Congress says about as little as is possible with so many words. I certainly don't get the feeling that the LoC will revisit the decision, and I don't see where the law provides a mechanism for that, even if they wanted to. The statement refers to a benefit to "review and resolution" in the context of telecommunications policy, says the rulemaking "was not intended to be a substitute for deliberations of broader public policy," and ends with a door slam - "The most recent rulemaking has served this purpose."

Re:Political stunt

[drinkypoo]

How better to protect the fundamental overreach of the DMCA(ie. just by combining virtually anything copyrighted with even a totally crap DRM system, anybody can code rules into their product, with those rules being given force of federal law, or at least serving as a presumptively very strong basis for lawsuits) than by having a tame process for throwing the opposition a bone on a few relatively minor; but culturally, educationally, or otherwise symbolically significant issues?

If you're really going to be paranoid, why not just assume that they want to prevent you from removing the trackify software from your phone so you don't have the man up your ass every time your phone sends a packet?

Re:Political stunt

[hedwards]

Um, so whom does the Librarian of Congress answer to then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librarian_of_Congress#Librarians_of_Congress

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, the telcos got to try it on, won, the might politicians do the customer a favor, but in reality, we are exactly back to where we were.

Re:Political stunt

[SomePgmr]

Exactly. Case in point:

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.

Not exactly a condemnation of aggregious overreach with the DMCA. It's a soft response that anyone can safely cheer for.

Re:Political stunt

[Dynedain]

Just like all Congress has to do is let the Patriot Act or the Bush Tax Cuts expire, but you don't see those happening do you?

Re:Political stunt

[godrik]

It probably is just some PR stunt. But it indicates they actually do read them and consider them. Let's not cast them a stone since they are listening this time :)

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure anything Obama does is wrong. Even when he does the "right thing" the anti-Obama crowd claims he did it for the wrong reasons. It's a form of insanity.

I have a friend who, in response to exactly this kind of insanity, simply adds his thanks to Obama for everything good that happens in his life. Having beautiful weather? Thanks Obama! Finding five dollars in a jacket you haven't worn for months? Thank goodness Obama is President! Getting engaged? We might never have met if it wasn't for Obama!

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the "right thing" that helps his handlers and Washington lobby groups and other special interests, but by and large it's the American people who are getting screwed over in this economy. If he appears to be doing the "right thing" it's only to get more votes or brownie points.

Re:Political stunt

[SomePgmr]

How better to protect the fundamental overreach of the DMCA(ie. just by combining virtually anything copyrighted with even a totally crap DRM system, anybody can code rules into their product, with those rules being given force of federal law, or at least serving as a presumptively very strong basis for lawsuits) than by having a tame process for throwing the opposition a bone on a few relatively minor; but culturally, educationally, or otherwise symbolically significant issues?

If you're really going to be paranoid, why not just assume that they want to prevent you from removing the trackify software from your phone so you don't have the man up your ass every time your phone sends a packet?

I'm not usually the hyper-paranoid type, but from a political perspective, I think he's right on this. The best way to protect something ugly like the DMCA is to knock the sharpest edges off it.

Meanwhile, and either way, the DMCA is preserved with relatively minor caveats.

Re:Political stunt

[icebike]

Technically it's not so much the "Library of Congress" as it is the "Librarian of Congress", a position appointed by the president,

With the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
It is not clear that the Librarian answers to the President. Nor is it clear that the President can remove him.

Re:Political stunt

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, I would love to see both of those. I'd also like to see a bunch of other worthless programs expire so we don't have to keep threatening Grandma and her "special needs" grandkid with "Draconian budget cuts"* ** (* cuts in growth, not actual cuts) (** less than 2% cut in growth), and all the other mind numbing scare tactics and blame the (R) rhetoric coming out of the regime in DC.

Seriously, does anyone other than Low Information Voters believe the shit coming out of Obama's Mouth lately? Hell, even some of them have got to catch a clue when the world doesn't end on March 1st like Obama promised.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this article, the position is part of the legislative branch NOT the executive branch.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/28/fcc-to-investigate-cell-phone-unlocking-ban/

Re:Political stunt

[msauve]

The President appoints judges, too. That doesn't mean they answer to the President in any way. The LoC was created by Congress. It's part of the Legislative branch, not the Executive one.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

cuts in growth, not actual cuts

Are you doing that thing again where you look at budget items in non-inflation-adjusted dollars while at the same time bitching about all the inflation the administration is causing?

Re:Political stunt

[mabhatter654]

For starts he has no authority.... It's the Library of CONGRESS, so who is he to tell them what to do???

Re:Political stunt

[Lazere]

*Slow Clap* I have to say, sir. You've given this silly scene far more thought than most sane people. I'm impressed.

Re:Political stunt

[Nidi62]

No, no, of course not, but it does mask it. Like, a man wearing a tutu, bunny slippers, and a singing Billy Bass as a hat is pretty fucking silly. But put that man on a giant merry-go-round with a troupe of nuns yodeling the dictionary backwards, an upside-down pie-eating contest, a poo-flinging monkey in a pope outfit on stilts, and so on, and suddenly the guy in the tutu doesn't stand out so much.

So.....Congress?

Re:Political stunt

[hawguy]

It's the "right thing" that helps his handlers and Washington lobby groups and other special interests, but by and large it's the American people who are getting screwed over in this economy. If he appears to be doing the "right thing" it's only to get more votes or brownie points.

Isn't getting more votes the "right" reason for a president to do something? Would you be happier if he consistently did something that would get him less votes?

Re:Political stunt

[Artraze]

> With the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

"With the Advice and Consent of the Senate." applies to most appointed positions. Take, for example, the Secretary of State, which is a very clearly executive branch, close to the president position. So you can't really infer anything from that.

> It is not clear that the Librarian answers to the President. Nor is it clear that the President can remove him.

That's certainly true, and quite probably why the position's term has defaulted to life. Still, there is more to influence than 'can vs can't fire'. If Obama says "reverse that" it would take some serious balls and justification to tell him off, even Obama doesn't threaten his job directly. And that's what I was touching on with my last statement... If the Librarian can just say 'no' without any accountability, that a pretty serious problem and some amount of shit will probably hit the fan, be it changes to the DMCA in terms of who's in charge of these exemptions, or what accountability the Librarian has to the government/people.

Re:Political stunt

[spiffmastercow]

Obama knows that such a ban stands no chance of getting through Congress (the big telecommunications companies bought and paid for them long ago). He's just politically grandstanding on a popular issue. Nothing will actually come of it, and he knows it.

IIRC he is bound to respond to petitions over 25,000 signatures... It's not like he's giving an unsolicited opinion.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Wise up and follow the money!
Do you really think the LoC did an in-depth investigation and made this decision without influence?
If you want to know who paid for this decision and their supporters, you won't have a long wait.

Re:Political stunt

[Archangel Michael]

So, by "budget cuts" you mean "growing budgets, just not as fast as we'd like", then yeah, we are in agreement. Baseline Budgeting is horrible paradigm and leads to inefficiencies, since no program has to fight for its existence, and all programs are treated as equal. Which is why Obama likes to say crazy things like he has over the last month or so about how budget growth limits is going to be Armageddon. Meanwhile his little romp with Tiger Woods and Michelle's expensive vacations could offset some of those cuts. But he chose those instead of helping Special Ed Kids and grandma from going hungry.

Re:Political stunt

[Cajun Hell]

In theory, the FCC could effectively overturn LoC's decision, by saying that no one may traffick in a radio device, if any usage of the device requires committing a DMCA violation. i.e. if you want to sell DMCA-enforced-locked phones, then those phones are not allowed to use public spectrum. That would either put an end to locked phones, or make it so that the DMCA arguments aginst unlocking could no longer be applied.

FCC already has tons of regulations on what phone makers and sellers are allowed to do, and this amount of power and regulation generally has bipartisan support, so there would be few claims of it being overreach or beyond FCC's authorized powers. Trying to prevent the breaking of Congress' own laws (DMCA), well, who in Congress would argue FCC isn't allowed to do that? ;-)

Re:Political stunt

[Artraze]

That is hardly clear from that article, at best it is a very weak conclusion drawn from "the Federal Communications Commission will investigate ... if the executive branch has any authority to change the law" which can mean any number of things.

It is pretty clear that the Library of Congress isn't terribly well defined in many aspects. It was created "for Coongress", but the Librarian is appointed by the president (without any oversight from congress, until the Senate started being required to approve presidential appointees). Given the fact that the person in charge is appointed by the president and the lack of any other clear control from either the president or congress, it does seem that the LoC falls under the executive branch, to the extent that really matters. (Realistically, the branches aren't so formal, it's more like reports to the president or doesn't, as most government entities are created and funded by acts of congress, so such things aren't really very telling.)

Re:Political stunt

[icebike]

Agreed, except the bit about not saying NO to the President.

The board of the Federal Reserve are probably the closest equivalent. Pretty much immune to presidential meddling once appointed.

From Wiki:

As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years. Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy opinions. The chairman and vice-chairman are chosen by the President from among the sitting Governors for four-year terms; these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't reverse the decision until the next triennial rulemaking.

Re:Political stunt

[Artraze]

Congress created the Secret Service, the FCC, DHS, and damn near every part of the executive branch outside the military (which is, essentially, created by the constitution rather than a legislative act, though congress still basically created it.)

While it's true that presidential appointment doesn't mean that it's accountable to the president, being created by congress is even more meaningless as far as the part of government to which it belongs. Sure, you could argue that congress has greater control as it can rewrite the legislation that created it while the president has no clear powers, but the former would be true for most executive organizations.

Re:Political stunt

[sycodon]

In other words

If it feels good, do it.

If ya got it, spend it!

etc.

Sometimes what is best for the Nation is not what is popular.

A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
Paraphrased, Elmer T. Perterson, The Daily Oklahoman

Re:Political stunt

[hawguy]

In other words

If it feels good, do it.

If ya got it, spend it!

etc.

Sometimes what is best for the Nation is not what is popular.

A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
Paraphrased, Elmer T. Perterson, The Daily Oklahoman

"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve"

Re:Political stunt

[msauve]

The Librarian of Congress reports to the Joint Committee on the Library, composed of 5 Senators and 5 Representatives. The Executive branch has nothing to do with the operation of the Library of Congress, as if the name itself doesn't provide a clue.

Re:Political stunt

[AK Marc]

The way checks and balances work, all three branches must agree to restrict our freedom. If the president doesn't, then it's legal. If the courts don't, then it's legal. If the law (Congress) doesn't, then it's legal. The system wasn't designed to be run by two complicit parties controlling all three branches.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

because he wanted to be the first president to tell a government body, which he has no control of, what to do. yup. no other president has ever done anything like that.

how is different than a president telling congress to make laws for whatever societal malady? he can't make them, so i do sure hope you have a history of calling this out everytime it happens with every president.

Re:Political stunt

[shentino]

True, but the laws are on different sides of the seesaw.

Re:Political stunt

[Grishnakh]

Good question. According to your link, the President appoints the Librarian, with the consent of the Senate. However, the current guy has been serving since 1987. The link doesn't say when the President is allowed to appoint a new one: can the President decide to "fire" the Librarian whenever he feels like it, or does he have to wait until the Librarian dies or decides to retire, like the Supreme Court justices? If it's the latter, then there really is nothing Obama can do. If it's the former (which I actually doubt, given how long those Librarians' tenures in that list have been), then we can blame Obama for doing nothing here.

Unfortunately, while Wikipedia doesn't specify, I suspect Obama has no power to "fire" this guy, so as much as I like to complain about Obama's total lack of progress and making all kinds of promises on the campaign trail and then reneging on them, this is probably an instance of someplace where Obama really can't do anything (unless you go with Cajun Hell's comment below about having the FCC (which Obama does control) effectively overturn the LoC's decision with some new regulations about what phone makers and sellers are allowed to do.

Re:Political stunt

[tompaulco]

Are you doing that thing again where you look at budget items in non-inflation-adjusted dollars while at the same time bitching about all the inflation the administration is causing?

My salary is not automatically incremented by inflation, so why should theirs be? I have to get by on the same amount that I made 6 years ago. They need to learn to do so, too, or even less. Because they are the federal government, so they should only be in charge of things that need to be done at a national level,

Re:Political stunt

[iamgnat]

Isn't getting more votes the "right" reason for a president to do something? Would you be happier if he consistently did something that would get him less votes?

No the President is meant to lead the country by representing what the majority want. The same is true of all the idiots down the street from him that are so childish they refuse to talk to each other. What this country needs is people leading it that are more concerned with doing something than trying to make sure their party gets more votes in the next election.

I'd just like to see a politician with some convictions and backbone for a change.

Re:Political stunt

[kermidge]

+5 informative
and you nailed it, besides. Thanks.

Re:Political stunt

[The Dancing Panda]

I'd just like to see a politician with some convictions and backbone for a change.

See...you don't, really. People with convictions create standstills. What you want is people who are willing to compromise. People who are willing to see both sides of an argument and will try to get the best of all of it. You need "flip-floppers". You need people that will accept that they can't have everything they want. Stop voting for people that are "strong leaders". Vote for people that work well in groups.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That's what you're trying to do and failing.

Re:Political stunt

[FatLittleMonkey]

A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
Paraphrased, Elmer T. Perterson, The Daily Oklahoman

Can you point to three examples where a democracy failed because the masses voted themselves largess? For every single example you give, I'll give three examples of a society failing because the aristocracy voted themselves largess from the public treasury.

If you can't point to three clear examples of democracy ending because "the voters discovered they can vote themselves largess", can you please just stop regurgitating this hateful bullshit fucking meme.

Frankly, most voters are vastly more decent and selfless than those at the top. Which is why political arguments about "belt tightening" and "sacrifice" resonate so much with them. And "fairness" and "family" and "American values". Even when you give them free stuff, you have to couch it in terms of caring for the poor, or creating a decent society, something larger than "hey look, free shit".

Now I'm not saying people are all that bright, hell half of them have below average; which is why they don't always see when politicians and lobbyists using terms like "fairness" and "values" are lying and stealing from them. But they are trying to vote for the right thing. And this constant war against the integrity of the masses (the "takers", the "47%", the "welfare mentality") is not only disgusting, it is the real cause of harm to your nation.

Re:Political stunt

[FatLittleMonkey]

The difference is there's no "pro-cancer" lobby.

There is, however, a large and well-funded anti-handset-unlocking lobby; which is why the LoC reversed their original decision allowing unlocking. So the President coming out in favour of a completely unfunded public group, against the will of the funded business lobby, is actually a much greater gesture than a "Cancer bad, m'kay."

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since you are obviously not part of our nation, you can shut your fucking pie hole and hope the putrid steaming pile of shit masses that we have here, voting themselves years of unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc. don't move to whatever fucking paradise you live in. of course, you would welcome them with open ares I bet eh?

And if you want local examples, I give you Detroit. They elected their own POS politicians to further the raid on the public funds. In fact, every city in the U.S. that is in dire financial straights is run by Democrats, the Patron Saints of the "takers", the "47%", the "welfare mentality". States for that matter too.

Which brings me back to my original statement. You obviously know nothing of what's happening here so I repeat: Shut your fucking pie hole and hope it doesn't happen where you live.

Re:Political stunt

[iamgnat]

What you are describing is just pandering of a different sort. It is possible to have convictions and still be able to make compromises and get things done. What I'm talking about wanting is politicians that will actually make real attempts to accomplish the things they (and those they represent) want. I don't want the idiots we have now that all cry and pout when they don't get what they want, I want representatives that actually move things forward.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure anything Obama does is wrong. Even when he does the "right thing" the anti-Obama crowd claims he did it for the wrong reasons. It's a form of insanity.

Guess even Obama doesn't even know what his own administration is regulating. This rule came at the end of his first term.

Re:Political stunt

[fustakrakich]

Talk is cheap. He can issue an execute order (or signing statement), like he's doing with the drones, or sticking his nose into Libya.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't getting more votes the "right" reason for a president to do something? Would you be happier if he consistently did something that would get him less votes?

It's a selfish reason to do something. And worse when he can't be voted into office again as a second-term president. ..Unless he plans to submit legislation to change that.

Re:Political stunt

[rastos1]

If A may vote against my wishes (in order to avoid "creating standstill"), then obviously B may vote for my wishes - for the same reason: to avoid a standstill. All that with A and B declaring opposing viewpoints before election. How is then voting A better then voting for B?

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this mental picture.

Was that supposed to be inspirational or depressing?

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

3/5th of a person was a compromise.

Re:Political stunt

[karnal]

It seems like there's enough other people who blame all of the US's problems on Obama, so there is the balance.

Re:Political stunt

[thermowax]

Not debating your points, but I'd like to see people stop regurgitating the bullshit fucking meme about "half the people are below average". Half the people are below the *median*. Half the people are below the *mean* only if the data happen to fall that way, a perfect bell curve being one distribution for which this is true.

Data: 1, 1, 1, 1, 10. (n=5).
Mean: 2.8.
Q: How many points are below the mean? (Hint: it ain't 2.5.)

Re:Political stunt

[interkin3tic]

Good example. Yes, it was a compromise. One that no one liked and that probably allowed our nation to be formed. Had our founding forefathers stuck to their convictions and refused to compromise on whether or not slaves were people, it's anyone's guess what would have happened, but I can tell you what would NOT have happened: slavery would NOT have magically ended in the south, racism would NOT have declined sooner.

Perhaps the US would have split off as two separate new nations, and maybe that would have worked out for them. But I'm guessing both would have failed and/or the civil war would have happened sooner.

Compromise is necessary in politics. Unless you all magically agree, or you kill the other side, or your side has absolute power, you need to compromise. Failure to compromise is just being immature and stupid, especially when both sides feel strongly that they're right about the issue.

Re:Political stunt

[Chris Burke]

You've given this silly scene far more thought than most sane people.

Ah, see, that's the secret. Sanity is crutch that's also a shackle.

Re:Political stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

See...you don't, really. People with convictions create standstills. What you want is people who are willing to compromise. People who are willing to see both sides of an argument and will try to get the best of all of it. You need "flip-floppers". You need people that will accept that they can't have everything they want. Stop voting for people that are "strong leaders". Vote for people that work well in groups.

The scary thing about this post is that it was voted Insightful.

Look in the mirror. You are a failure. YOU, and others who "think" like you, are the direct cause and result of what's wrong with this country.

Re:Political stunt

[dcooper_db9]

As I understand, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create executive offices, the President the power to appoint, Congress the power to confirm, and the Judiciary the power to review. The power to appoint and to remove go hand-in-hand, so the president can fire an appointee almost at will. Congress could slow down removal through forced testimony but couldn't actually block it. Congress could also dissolve the office itself except those designated by the Constitution. The only power they have to remove an individual officer would be through impeachment. I was surprised to learn that Congress could theoretically impeach any executive officer. Some useful info here: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/federalism/presidentialpowers.asp

Re:Political stunt

[dcooper_db9]

Congress creates all executive offices except those designated in the Consitution. They're still Executive offices and subject to the Presiden'ts consitutionally designated power to appoint and remove.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

in politics, being silent is often the best choice. you will be attacked by someone no matter what you say.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

taht was not a troll post.
personal belief is irrelevant to the notion of grandstanding. he may very well believe in it.
he states quite clearly what grandstanding is, and that the president risks little by doing it.

which is true.

it's not within the presidents power to change it. best he can do is submit a bill to congress, and given how deeply they are in teh pockets of the lobbyists, that bill will die.

so again, not a troll, stop abusing the mod system to silence things you dont agree with.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

What in the world does Obama need votes for?

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

Civics fail.
Hardcore.

The President is not a representative.
The President is a leader.
The two concepts are at least partionally, if not fully, mutually exclusive.

A Representative does (ignoring our disfunctional congress for a moment) what you tell him to do.
He acts in your behelf, representing your wishes. In effect, he is not entrusted to do anything more than be a mouthpiece.

A Leader tells you what to do, which is pretty much the exact opposite of a representative.
In electing a leader we give up some measure of our power to him, entrusting him to make decisions on our behalf and in our best interest, even when those things are not the things we tell him to do. A leader is entrusted to do things for you without waiting for your input, and even at times ignoring it.

So there is no truth to the idea of the "president is supposed to represent the majority".
That's total BS. He is not supposed to do any such thing.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

You do realize that the POTUS has the power to introduce bills into Congress for consideration, dont you?

No president has ever forced any congress to ever pass any specific law.

Your post is 100% troll BS.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

the LoC's decision had exactly squat to do with the lobbyists.

the Librarian is appointed by the POTUS and the Library is part of the executive branch.
yes, even though it's the library of -congress-, the responsibility of running/maintaining it falls under the executive.
though in practice it's a joint effort, but that's where ultimate responsibilty goes.

And the POTUS can no more direct the LoC to make a specific decision in this matter than the Congress itself can (without passing another law). For the POTUS to do so is to reach beyond his powers, because even though he is the titular boss of the LoC, when the LoC is given certain powers/responsibilities by law, it is his duty to carry them out regardless of what others tell him to do. Just like the POTUS, as commander in chief, cannot dictate the result of Bradley Mannings courtsmartial (because it is a court of law) even though the officers work for him, he cannot tell the LoC how to carry his duties under the DMCA.

Likewise, Congress cannot tell the LoC what to decide, though they can simply make a new law and take back the powers they granted him.

The LoC's decision has more to do with the fact that his powers under the dMCA are restricted to fair use of copyrighted works, and thus limited to copyright law. and unlocking phones is not a copyright issue, EVEN THOUGH it is what the phone companies use as an excuse to block the unlocking of the phones.

And while fighting fire with fire, which is what hte LoC did when he allowed (improperly) the exemption for unlocking phones, is tempting, it is not legally viable. The better option is to clarify the law to stop the phone companies from misusing the copyright laws to block unlocking.

Re:Political stunt

[msauve]

Saying that executive offices are executive offices is a tautology. The term appears nowhere in the Constitution, ITYM "executive Departments," which is to say - Departments which are part of the executive branch.

The LoC is not an executive Department, it was created as a service to Congress ("for the purchase of such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress ... and for putting up a suitable apartment for containing them therein."), and the Librarian of Congress is not part of the President's cabinet (i.e. not a "principal officers in [an] executive department...",).

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

you get pay raises?
ya, they dont say it, but that's what those are for.
if you dont get them, ya, you got screwed.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

stop using word games to perpetuate that myth.
they are cuts.
they are real cuts in real budgets.
right now, already, all federal employees (non military) of the department of defense, have had their take home pay for the remainder of the fiscal year cut by 20%, via mandated furloughs of 1 "no-work, no-leave, no-pay", day per week from NOW until the end of hte fiscal year.

That is not a cut in in growth.
That is a real cut, happening right now, that affects real people.
More than 800,000 of them.
Similar cuts are happening across all the agencies. That means to FBI agents, USDA food inspectors (already some meat plants have had to shutdown operations either a few days a week, or altogether due to lack of inspectors), etc.

And while you can argue about what the federal spending should be all day long, those are real people performing real jobs, that are now facing having 20% less money to meet their financial obligations for the rest of the fiscal year (now to september). many of thsoe folks are on contract so they cant just leave for better work. and the cuts in pay are likely to stick around, unless the work consolidates, which instead means more work spread across fewer people; dont you love when that happens in a project??

Re:Political stunt

[FatLittleMonkey]

Thing is, it was the same Librarian of Congress making the two contradictory decisions. The same person. Why would you reverse your own decision if no one was pressuring you to? Especially at the very next consecutive review. You've solved the issue, you've given your decision, if no one was pressuring you, you wouldn't even consider the issue again. That's what makes it unusual, and suspicious.

I suspect that a lengthy legalistically-complex application was made by the cell-operators' lobby at the newest review, and the LoC basically said "Fuck it, why is this my problem?" and intentionally made the worst decision he could to try to force the issue back onto Congress. But, IMO, he didn't realise (or perhaps doesn't care) that Congress would be perfectly happy (or at least well funded) with the LoC's reversal, because there is no paid unlock-cellphones lobby.

Which is what makes the Whitehouse response to the petition particularly unusual.

Re:Political stunt

[dcooper_db9]

I don't think I used a tautology there. As I understand it, executive officers are by definition answerable to the executive branch. It doesn't matter who creates them. The power to execute is defined in the constitution, and that power belongs to the president. Cabinet members are, as defined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, "principal officers of the executive departments". Principal officers answer directly to the President and his power to appoint and dismiss is clearly defined.

Heads of other agencies are secondary officers and the power to dismiss them is a bit more complex. Congress has enacted legislation that limited the Presiden'ts power to remove appointee's from office, and been upheld to an extent. In Humphrey's Executor vs. United States the court ruled that the FTC was an "administrative body [that] cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or eye of the executive."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_officer

This apparently defined the general rule. The basis of Congress's ability to prevent firing is that the agency isn't executing, therefore Congress can limit the President's power. The Library of Congress can interpret the law but it it tries to enforce the law it's exercising executive power. An officer of the government that executes power is answerable to the President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

Re:Political stunt

[msauve]

Whoosh. You obviously don't understand what you wrote, which was clearly a tautological argument. You simply have no clue.

The LoC isn't an executive department. As I said, and you ignored, it was created as a service to Congress, under the necessary and proper clause. The Librarian of Congress reports to a joint congressional committee, not the President. The position isn't much different than that of a Sergeant at Arms or the Architect of the Capital, which are answerable only to Congress.

I'm done - I see no point in wasting further time explaining things to a Googletard, which are easily researched, and obviously apparent.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

i take it you've never made a decision you've had to retract?
the LoC is not a lawyer. nor is he likely an electronics guru.

Re:Political stunt

[Archangel Michael]

So, buy "using word games" you mean you want "increase" to mean "cut" when you don't get the "increase" you wish for?

They are not "CUTS" to anyone except Washington DC Political hacks and Low Information Voters.

And I don't care if Government workers have to take a "cut" in pay, because so have I and a whole lot of people, including all those who are unemployed or under employed. IF they don't like the job, they can quit, and find a private sector job that pays more (hahaha). Times are tough, government workers need to STFU and suck it up like the rest of us.

I'll argue against wasteful spending all day long, and explain that one golf trip could save the pay of 1000 Government workers, but that wouldn't matter to you (drop in the bucket). Or the Holidays in Hawaii, Vail, Florida ..... or the perpetual AF1 trips to campaign against the Constitution or ....

Is that a drone I hear overhead?

In other words, I don't have any sympothy to people whining about their cushy Federal Jobs or the doom and gloom predicted by Obama that will never manifest because ... well they aren't cutting anything, except the rate of growth. Baseline budgeting is "word games" where "cuts" really mean "growth, but not as much as we want".

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

you are a f*cking moron who didnt read a single thing I stated.
those are facts.
happening RIGHT NOW.
800,000 in the DoD alone being hit with a forced 20% pay cut, with no way out.

the cuts, the sequestration was "never supposed" to happen, even though cynics like me knew that both parties would GLADLY drive right over that cliff, knowing full well they could get away with it by blaming the other side while ignoring their own complicity, and their electorate would LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.

its win/win for the politicians all around. they get political captial out of it no matter what, and it never actually affects them safe in their ivory tower.

and then, instead of one side flinching, the republicans decided, hey, F*CK IT, LETS DO IT, and stepped on the accelerator!
and then they've convinced the morons among their voter base it was actually a good thing; more intelligent parts are in shock at this deception.
and the democrats go along with it, because they really can blame the other side.

this is exactly why brinkmanship should not be allowed in politics.
and also why half of voters should be barred from voting by some sort of cognitive test, because this stuff is absolutely retarded.

republicans are not the conservative party.
democrats are not hte common man's party.
the parties each care about only one thing: staying in power.
and they will lie, cheat, and decieve the public in whatever way is needed in order to do so.
and they do not give a flying F if they drive the country into the ground in the process.

And i feel sorry for you, because you are simply one among many who have simply fallen for the most recent deception.

Re:Political stunt

[dywolf]

"suck it up liek teh rest of us" ???

even int he recession most people didnt come into work and get told because their ELECTED LEADERS ARE IDIOTS they are now taking a forced 20% pay cut, with no options around it. hell, most people didnt face pay cuts, period.

suck it up like the rest of us? you bloody moron. the rest of us have it pretty damn easy right now comapred to them.

these are not cuts in growth. these are real cuts, happening right now. you're just too bloody stupid to see it

Re:Political stunt

[The Dancing Panda]

This is really the issue. We're breaking everything down to "for my wishes" and "against my wishes". What we should be voting for is a group of people who can break the country's wants and needs down to their base impulses, and then coming up with legislation that satisfies as many of those as they can.

It's basic project management, turning customer statements into a list of requirements. The worst project leads just write down everything the customer says in the requirements. This generally causes a project with logical fallacies. The best ones take what the customer says and tries to figure out what they really want out of their idea. Then they propose a solution that meets all their real needs. We need good project managers in congress.

Flying Pigs

[Frosty Piss]

Because of the current anti-Obama and anti-Democrat poison in DC right now with the obstructionist Party of No having a hissy fit, don't expect this to take place anywhere except in the courts. The FCC certainly doesn't have the balls to stand up to their Corporate Masters.

I know, I know, "troll", "Flamebait", whatever. But it is none the less true.

Re:Flying Pigs

[BenSchuarmer]

Only terrorists and socialists would want unlocked cell phones

Re:Flying Pigs

[Anonymous Coward]

Only terrorists and socialists would want unlocked cell phones

And neck beards. Let's not forget the neck beards.

Actually, the tinkerers, the hobbyists, the security crowd (black hats and white hats), the Linux world, and other small segments of the population want (and sometimes need) to "unlock" a phone (however the powers-that-be define it). What's next, you can't remove/replace/downgrade the OS on your Windows 8 computer?

Re:Flying Pigs

[Austerity Empowers]

You could also say that it's easy to say "Yes" but haven of intention of making this a priority, which is indistinguishable from saying "No".

Talk is cheap.

Re:Flying Pigs

[narcoleptic5052]

There you have it! Obama is both!

Re:Flying Pigs

[Anonymous Coward]

Only terrorists and socialists would want unlocked cell phones

And neck beards. Let's not forget the neck beards.

Nope, you're wrong: neck-beards don't a cell phone - all they want is a programmable device, and a locked cell phone isn't one.

Link to the response

[entropiccanuck]

Would be nice to have in the summary.

Re:Link to the response

[Anonymous Coward]

Karma whore.

Re:Link to the response

[SomePgmr]

It's the one link we would've expected to be in the summary, but isn't there. It doesn't make sense to bitch at someone for, you know, actually providing it.

Re:Link to the response

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting your post in the title field: -2
Title field being relevant to the contents of the post: +1
Continuing title field sentence without so much as an ellipsis: -5
Link to response on the word 'summary': -20

Total: -26

Re:Link to the response

[Anonymous Coward]

Karma whore.

Step 1: Slashdot adds Karma in order to reward/encourage people to post good content.
Step 2: Someone posts good content (possibly in hopes of earning Karma).

The system works!

Re:Link to the response

[tqk]

It doesn't make sense to bitch at someone for, you know, actually providing it.

The AC is the Karma Whore, and is failing miserably in understanding the concept. Offering useful information is Karma Whoring? No. Bitching about someone doing that as an AC, now that's serious Karma Whoring.

Don't worry. Karma knows what's really going on. Karma Whoring to be modded "Funny" gets you reborn as coprolite.

[apologies to whores everywhere]

Re:Link to the response

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, karmawhore posted second. Frost Pist is on vacation, entropiccanuck is filling in the number one spot on this topic.

Re:Link to the response

[DarwinSurvivor]

Karma whoring as an AC is kind of poinless...

Re:Link to the response

[tqk]

Exactly my point.

Confused

[karmawhore]

ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.

Since when do we have that?

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

chicken butts

Re:Confused

[game kid]

Yeah, I love that "continue to have" part too...can't tell if the WH is being sarcastic or the telco money actually convinced them so.

Re:Confused

[tqk]

ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.

Since when do we have that?

Does this mean he's going to outlaw Six Strikes and break up the telco/ISP/provider territorial monopolies too?

Re:Confused

[denis-The-menace]

Yes, right after he regulates Hemp.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be sure to treat this with the same gravity as the Death Star petition response.

not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

What about being able to install the software of my own choosing, from the store of my own choice?

The Real News

[CanHasDIY]

The real news item here is that a We The People petition actually garnered a thought-out response, instead of a boilerplate restating of current policy.

First time for everything...

Re:The Real News

[Hatta]

The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy. It's not an important issue, when compared to drug reform, single payer health care, drone strikes, or jailing bankers. It's just a shiny bauble Obama can use to misdirect us away from these important issues.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

Responses are a dime a dozen. Actions speak louder than words.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

The real news item here is that a We The People petition actually garnered a thought-out response, instead of a boilerplate restating of current policy.

First time for everything...

True, but the cynic in me says they only made effort for this one because politically it's one of the lighter-weight ones, so now they can ignore the really important ones while still giving off this impression that this We The People Thing is worth having.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, some of the responses are well thought-out. Generally, these are ones that respond to actual issues, instead of, for example, "LET SECEDE FROM THE UNION" or "HAVE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA RESIGN." And yes, they get a lot of these. Pissed off hicks with access to computers are, surprisingly, a nontrivial demographic.

Re:The Real News

[Overzeetop]

That's one more than we got out of the last two presidents combined. (I won't go further back, since the internet didn't exist in any meaningful way for the public before 1992).

Re:The Real News

[zugmeister]

In reading the response, my takeaway was
1) The Obama Administration agrees with the ideas in the petition.
and
2) This is the fault of the Librarian of Congress who can legally make this call.

This is followed by some vague talk of how they "support a range of approaches to addressing this issue" and how other agencies (FCC, Congress, mobile providers) should consider doing something about it.
Oh yeah, I'm just holding my breath to see the action commence!

Re:The Real News

[the_saint1138]

Exactly, this is a step in the right direction, and I'm glad to see something coming of the We The People petitions.

However, the skeptic in me is worried that the administration is just throwing us a bone, and the next 1000 petitions will go ignored.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy.

You mean if a lot of people unlock their phones and move to another carrier, their current providers won't lose much?

Re:The Real News

[i kan reed]

To be fair, a lot of successful petitions also lack what could be called "well thought out" qualities. A lot of really successful petitions are asking the president to do unconstitutional things, or override a decision made by congress, or, terrifying to me, I've seen numerous instances of people asking the president to interfere with criminal proceedings.

Not to mention the outright jokes that the site is used for. We use one of the constitutionally protected tools for fixing our government to ask them to build a death star.

Also, I've seen several cases where simple oversight was handled well through a petition, like the use of apes as chemical weapons test subjects on bases(for learning treatment and protection, not increasing the deadliness of weapons, it's not quite as barbaric as it sounds). My overall opinion was that this site was one of Obama's better ideas when he was running for office.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't go further back, since the internet didn't exist in any meaningful way for the public before 1992

Not coincidentally, that was when Al Gore became Vice President.

Re:The Real News

[1s44c]

The real news item here is that a We The People petition actually garnered a thought-out response, instead of a boilerplate restating of current policy.

Exactly. There is some hope that the white house actually listens, and just maybe actually cares.

Re:The Real News

[steelfood]

It's a start. With 100K+ signatures, it might even turn some representatives' and senators' heads.

And that's the point of the system. It hasn't fulfilled its ultimate purpose yet, but it's headed there. We'll see how far this gets in 4 years, and if anything significant and meaningful comes out of it.

Re:The Real News

[1s44c]

Uou are going to get dictated to on the important matters, but isn't it nice that your dictator gives you a shiny bauble?

He could just shoot you for being a trouble maker.

Re:The Real News

[CanHasDIY]

To be fair, a lot of successful petitions also lack what could be called "well thought out" qualities.

To be truly fair, you'd have to go read all the petitions that received answers; a large number of them, including every single one about marijuana legalization, received the standard, boilerplate B.S. response, regardless of how "well thought out" they may have been. I tend to agree with other posters, who point out that this is likely an attempt by the Obama Administration to trick the public into thinking that they take our grievances seriously.

Not to mention the outright jokes that the site is used for. We use one of the constitutionally protected tools for fixing our government to ask them to build a death star.

The lack of proper response to serious petitions came long before the whole 'build a death star' thing, you know. One follows the other, not the other way around.

Also, I've seen several cases where simple oversight was handled well through a petition, like the use of apes as chemical weapons test subjects on bases(for learning treatment and protection, not increasing the deadliness of weapons, it's not quite as barbaric as it sounds).

Ah, I see, so they respond to issues the general public generally doesn't give a rat's ass about, whilst ignoring the petitions that affect and are followed by the public at large. Good plan.

My overall opinion was that this site was one of Obama's better ideas when he was running for office.

Well, sure it was! It's never a bad idea to make the peasants think they actually have a say in how the government is run, they're far less likely to realize the gravity of the true situation and revolt that way!

Re:The Real News

[CanHasDIY]

Nah, some of the responses are well thought-out. Generally, these are ones that respond to actual issues, instead of, for example, "LET SECEDE FROM THE UNION" or "HAVE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA RESIGN." And yes, they get a lot of these. Pissed off hicks with access to computers are, surprisingly, a nontrivial demographic.

Isn't it interesting how quickly these "majority rules" types change their opinions the second the majority in question is one they don't agree with?

And yes, I mean that as a 2-way dig.

Re:The Real News

[CanHasDIY]

I dunno, man... I think I almost prefer Bush's 'not-even-pretending-he's-listening' approach.

No false sense of hope.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be correct.

Say 2000 people move from carrier A to carrier B. Another 2000 will move from carrier B to carrier A. Because y'know... they're the exact same fucking thing anyway. That's kinda how oligopolies work. Welcome to the last decade or so, you've missed a lot.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not.

It's pick-and-choose politics. I guarantee that 500,000 signatures for something the Administration disagrees with will not be given a second thought.

Re:The Real News

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

But that does not always happen. They just gave a flippant response to the one I signed, "We are not in the business of blowing up planets".

Re:The Real News

[SomePgmr]

The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy.

You mean if a lot of people unlock their phones and move to another carrier, their current providers won't lose much?

Their position is that your phone should remain locked (and you remain subject to DMCA reprisal) at the carriers discretion, until your contract has expired and you've fullfilled any and all "service agreement[s] and other obligations".

Many of them will do that by request after your contract is up anyway. As far as they're concerned you've paid off the subsidy and generated the profit you were expected to.

This was the easy response.

Re:The Real News

[tlhIngan]

The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy. It's not an important issue, when compared to drug reform, single payer health care, drone strikes, or jailing bankers. It's just a shiny bauble Obama can use to misdirect us away from these important issues.

Actually, they do. Local in-network service is practically provided on a at-cost basis (except for data, which is pretty much the only profit center available). What makes them money is roaming - when you roam and pay the expensive roaming fees that can easily be $1/minute+, $0.50/text, $1/MB, etc., that is split up between the foriegn carrier and your carrier.

It's why carriers offer "travel packages" - hoping you'd go over, as well as being able to charge you a little more.

An unlocked phone, even on contract, using another SIM deprives them of this revenue source.

Re:The Real News

[stephanruby]

Yes, but that policy doesn't go far enough. We need a law that mandates cross-compatibility between cell networks (just like the laws they have in Europe).

An unlocked Sprint CDMA phone doesn't get me anywhere in the United States. Verizon won't accept it on its own CDMA network. And the other networks are not compatible with CDMA, so they couldn't accept it even if they wanted to.

Recently, my Sprint phone became useless where I live, at least as a data connection, as a phone it still worked. Although, I had an unlimited data plan, the 4G speed where I lived stopped working, a couple of weeks later -- the 3G data stopped working. This was all because Sprint didn't have the money to upgrade/maintain its towers in my area (in other areas, it still works). That's what they told me at my local Sprint store.

Re:The Real News

[CanHasDIY]

But that does not always happen. They just gave a flippant response to the one I signed, "We are not in the business of blowing up planets".

To which I would respond, 'your terrestrial policies indicate otherwise.'

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

what was made illegal? Unlocking phones under contract.
What is Obama'a position? Unlocking phones should be legal while not under contract.
In what way is this not a restatement of current policy?

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you looked at PagePlus? It should work fine with a Sprint phone. Great coverage and much cheaper than Verizon. 3G only though.

Re:The Real News

[CrimsonAvenger]

Did you note in the WH response that they supported unlocking of cells/tablets "when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation"?

If you read the LoC's original decision, the "you can't unlock your phone" applied while you were under contract.

In other words, no real change there.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop inserting "drug reform" into every single news story that comes up. Not all Americans are pot addicts like yourself, and weed isn't the only thing on our minds 24/7.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like some bread with your circus?

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy.

How can you downplay taking a huge cash cow away from the telecommunications industry (which spent millions on lobbying last year) as if it is nothing?

Locked phones keep people coming back to the same service no matter how hard they get screwed. Consumer rights are important and they are a battle that can be won.

 

It's not an important issue, when compared to drug reform, single payer health care, drone strikes, or jailing bankers. It's just a shiny bauble Obama can use to misdirect us away from these important issues.

The things you listed are still important. Unfortunately they are also very complicated.

Someday the things you want to get accomplished may come to pass, and on that day I hope some kid posts on slashdot about how completely useless it is because it isn't world peace because that's what's really important.

Re:The Real News

[adolf]

Roaming?

I use Verizon and live in a semi-populated area (Ohio), and travel to all manner of little podunk town for business, often on back roads to keep the driving interesting. The only time my phone has been "roaming" in recent years has been down at a buddy's farm down in a random Kentucky holler where the nights are quiet, the stars are magnificent, and you have to climb a hill to get any signal at all.

Otherwise: West to Chicago? Verizon. East to Connecticut? Verizon. South to Florida? Verizon. In the depths of rural Indiana? Verizon. Do I see occasional coverage caps on twisty mountain roads in Tennessee? Yes. Roaming? No.

I dare say that roaming surcharges and kickbacks mean very little to the most giant of cell phone giants. And AFAIK, as it stands today, I can pop a European SIM card into my still-on-contract Verizon-sourced Motorola Droid 4, and use it overseas without involving Verizon at all or any particular fuckery.

So again, it's not roaming that is the big deal.

Instead, I offer an alternative theory on why unlocking hurts operators: Second-hand sales and after-contract use. When you bring in an old, used phone and have it activated, AFAICT you don't need a multi-year contract with any US carrier. As these contracts provide the sort of captive market that such companies (including local independently-owned dealers) thrive on, the more lock-in they have the more money they tend to make.

If you can take your old phone to any other carrier and it just works, neither the original carrier nor the alternative carrier makes as much money as they would have if you were forced to buy a new phone.

To use my own anecdote: I'm married to Verizon for service (which is OK - it's good service, though expensive). My family has multiple contracts that all expire at different times, and it's easiest to just keep going with it. But in theory as the contracts expire I can just unlock my phones and use a different carrier. Simple, as long as unlocking is not illegal.

However, if unlocking is illegal, I'd have a choice to make: If I want to switch carriers, I would either have to buy new phones (probably under contract, because phones are all bloody expensive), or commit the illegal act of unlocking phones that I already own.

In other words, my choices would be to spend more money to replace good hardware and sign another contract, or commit a crime, or stay with Verizon.

But with the freedom to unlock, I can just keep the devices and pick any compatible carrier. I, the consumer, win because the market becomes inherently more competitive and I have more choice. The competitors in that market might tend to lose because they don't have as much control over how I use their services, or the sources by which I acquire new/different/used hardware since I'm not locked in forever, but that's no longer my problem.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're restating policy why even bother to asked them in the first place what their policy is on the subject?
Petition: 'Hey Obama legalize pot'
Them: 'Blah Blah Blah NO Blah Blah Blah'

What's there to be mad at?
The real problem with the site isn't that they don't give thought-out responses it's just that most of the postions are on topics which fall into one of three catagories.
Are either petitions that are aginst the white house postion and therefore get a negitive resposne.
Are postions that are in agreement with the white house, but beyond it's power to do (Obama can't fix congress!)
Or are just pointless anyway.

Can you provide an example of one where they didn't provide a good response?

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind of drug reform I'd like to see is making drug manufacturer lobbying to doctors illegal, and putting an end to doctors letting drug commercials do housecalls for them and prescribing the drugs they were lobbied to people who just diagnosed themselves by walking from the bathroom mirror to the boob tube. Might as well be OTC, ffs.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's a cheap service, but for me the large data connection is what's important to me. Thanks anyway.

Re:The Real News

[Anonymous Coward]

Late, but yep... Been up in the boondocks in the UP(think lake of the clouds area, i.e. near WI area where astoundingly bars outnumber dwellings in some of those podunk towns) and still had signal with Verizon. That said, yep, charges up the wazoo when in ON...

A Good Start...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now to see if the people of the United States can get it by the American Taliban people who keep trying to screw this nation over.
I am hopeful but far from confident.

Re:A Good Start...

[1s44c]

Now to see if the people of the United States can get it by the American Taliban people who keep trying to screw this nation over.
I am hopeful but far from confident.

Serious question - what group are you actually talking about?

Re:A Good Start...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tea Partiers. He's been watching "Newsroom".

Is this the website's first "yes"?

[mark-t]

[nt]

Re:Is this the website's first "yes"?

[FatLittleMonkey]

They also did the thing with getting (eventual) public access to publicly funded research.

Re:Is this the website's first "yes"?

[canadiannomad]

This wast my first thought when I saw the article....
I thought I'd see a "First" post that actually went somewhere :)
But thinking about it further, maybe this was just a conspiracy to give the petitions some legitimacy.

A win for common sense

[PPH]

I guess we can recall the death star from over Washington DC.

Re:A win for common sense

[canadiannomad]

common sense

What is that? I haven't seen that from government within my lifetime.

Don't get too excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get too excited. Even after (and if) the decision making authority on the issue is moved to the FCC, the FCC rules process is intentionally slow and deliberative. It will take quite some time before any changes will occur.

So why not ban vendor locking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're serious about this, it would be the logical consequence.

Re:So why not ban vendor locking?

[Darkness404]

The ideal thing is to let vendors sell us whatever they choose but let us modify/unlock/break them however we wish. This allows for the most freedom on both sides.

CDMA Carriers

[ZildjianKX]

"...you should be able to use it on another network". Outside the scope of unlocking, but why are CDMA carriers allowed to block activating phones on their network that they didn't sell to you? This seems worse than cell phone locking. Both Verizon and Virgin Mobile both told me I couldn't use an iPhone 4S (CDMA/GSM phone) on their network unless they sold it to me.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

> Both Verizon and Virgin Mobile both told me I couldn't use an iPhone 4S (CDMA/GSM phone) on their network unless they sold it to me.

Sounds like you should vote with your wallet :)

Re:CDMA Carriers

[hawkbug]

You are absolutely correct. It is worse than locking. The Sprint and Verizon iPhone 4 and 4s are identical hardware-wise. But both companies colluded together to keep you from registering phones they didn't sell.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[jader3rd]

but why are CDMA carriers allowed to block activating phones on their network that they didn't sell to you?

Because they don't want something connecting to their network that can do damage to their network. But you say, "Shouldn't they have defense in depth strategies for dealing with a rogue client?" Yes, they should; but apparently they don't, which is why they're so worried about (and have extensive tests around) every software update that could possibly be pushed out to existing phones.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you could always download the provisioning software and do it yourself. Verizon won't give it to you but Google will.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

I was able to easily use a used HTC Rezound on Verizon that I didn't buy from them.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't want something connecting to their network that can do damage to their network.

What's to keep someone from flashing something nasty onto a device that's already on their network?

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument goes out the window when you think about the level of modification you can achieve on an android device. If this was a valid concern you would think those types of damages would have shown up already. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about an android device (or an apple device) that wasn't sold by the carrier that you want to use it on. They both can be equally modified to damage a network if so desired and they both come in a configuration by default that does no harm, especially the apple devices. It would be trivial to design a test program that any desk monkey can operate on an android or apple device before allowing it on the network, making sure the phone is in a safe state.

If small differences in software between devices could bring down or damage an entire cellphone network simply because the carrier didn't "certify" the device it would have happened many times already. Next excuse.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[JonBoy47]

Don't worry, T-Mobile and AT&T would love to be able to lock down the phones on their network the way Verizon and Sprint do. They can't, because GSM networks authenticate and provision phones entirely via their user-replaceable SIM's. The network must accept any phone with a valid SIM. Thus all mechanisms to lock the phone to a given carrier are necessarily localized to the phone itself. By comparison, CDMA's authentication and provisioning mechanism is integral to the phone. This has the net effect of allowing the carriers to use IMEI or MEID for authentication on the network side (whitelist), in addition to software lock functionality in the handset. Thus, Verizon and Sprint can disallow use of 3rd party equipment, such as unlocked iPhones, even though they include the necessary CDMA hardware. Things will get interesting as Voice over LTE rolls out. We're maybe a year or two away from a LTE-only smartphone, with no fallback CDMA functionality that Sprint/Verizon can rely on for authentication.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

As a business its their right to bundle their own products as they feel necessary. You have other options. You're trying to find the cheapest possible solution which fits in your rulebook but nowhere does it say they have to change their rulebook to allow it. They're not a monopoly, you can go elsewhere.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

but why are CDMA carriers allowed to block activating phones on their network that they didn't sell to you?

Because they don't want something connecting to their network that can do damage to their network. But you say, "Shouldn't they have defense in depth strategies for dealing with a rogue client?" Yes, they should; but apparently they don't, which is why they're so worried about (and have extensive tests around) every software update that could possibly be pushed out to existing phones.

Um...no. If a customer brings a phone from Carrier A to Carrier B and it is able to handle frequencies from both carriers there is *nothing* keeping that phone from operating on Carrier B's network. It is a matter of choice/policy by Carrier B not to allow activation. Any security matters that could arise from a normal pleb citizen is a non-issue. A new policy stating any used phone being activated on Carrier B's network from Carrier [insert random carrier] will be wiped prior to activation. Hell depending whether a manufacturer has different models sold to different carriers then a full firmware re-write would fix any OS issues related to a specific carrier if a soft-reset isn't enough. - What I mean by this is if a manufacturer does have different models of the same basic phone (ie: iPhone 4S on multiple carriers) then that could pose an issue as it means either some hardware/software is unique to that phone which would pose an issue when swapping carriers if not making it nearly impossible. The point of the matter is that it doesn't have to be that way.

Security is a moot issue from a civilian position. If you're concerned about security issues further up the chain (ie: nation states, rogue hackers) then this sort of swap is the least of a carrier's concerns. Til this day you can *still* clone cell phones, I'm sure it isn't as easy as it was when Mitnick first did it back in the late 80s early 90s, but it isn't impossible. (FYI - I have never done this nor know how to do this; these are just my opinions).

Re:CDMA Carriers

[Rich0]

Because they don't want something connecting to their network that can do damage to their network.

That's why it is illegal to buy a phone at Walmart instead of renting it from the phone company, and why you had to plug your phone into an acoustic coupler before you could send data over it.

Oh wait, it isn't 1962 any more...

If I connect the copper pairs of the phone line to my mains supply I imagine that it will cause all kinds of mess to my neighborhood's phone system - it might even kill somebody. If I do that, then I'm liable for all the damage I cause - perhaps including criminal liability. The same applies if I backfeed UPS power onto the mains, and so on.

The solution to these problems is proper liability for damage caused, not encasing phone lines in concrete and making it a law to attach your own devices to them. GSM networks work just fine without the draconian policies the CDMA networks employ - they are purely anti-competitive measures under the guise of technical concerns.

Re:CDMA Carriers

[ZildjianKX]

I wonder what happened to Verizon's "Any Apps, Any Device" policy back from 2008: http://news.verizonwireless.com/news/2007/11/pr2007-11-27.html

The ban needs revoking, but not for why most think

[mark-t]

In fact, the very reason that they gave for why it was felt acceptable to have a ban on cell phone unlocking (the alleged wide availability of unlocked cell phones as alternatives for consumers) is the very reason that it should *NOT* be illegal for consumers to unlock cell phones.

Because by creating laws which protect locked cell phones from being tampered with by consumers, the system ends up creating an incentive (however slight) for cell phone providers to actually distribute locked cell phones, usually in place of unlocked ones, so that the distributors can enjoy whatever additional benefits that the legal protection actually offers. It's the same problem as with outlawing the breaking of encryption on copyrighted works... the lawmakers end up supporting a particular business model or technology that may not actually reflect what consumers really want. And because providers of such devices have been given some additional incentive to distribute such locked devices, the availability of unlocked devices will gradually start to decrease over time, ultimately leaving a consumer with little to no choice but to either purchase a locked technology, or else ultimately simply not be be part of the modern culture that regularly uses such technologies at all.

It might not be immediately obvious, but it's certainly not rocket science either. I only wish more people could see it.

So now what?

[pitchpipe]

So now that Obama has come out in favor of this, what reasoning will the Republicans use to oppose it? Will they appeal to their libertarian ideals that telcos should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to their consumers?

Re:So now what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasoning? They can reason?

Re:So now what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The libertarian ideal is that customers can't be stopped from doing whatever they want to their phones.

Don't forget, it's a legal ban on phone unlocking, not the "free market" creating a problem.

Re:So now what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! The huge corporations should be able to sell whatever it is they want to sell us, and buy any law they can afford to purchase. It's the AMERICAN DREAM!

Insufficient

[Overzeetop]

FTFR: "neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."

Emphasis mine. It doesn't matter what service agreement you have, it should not be illegal to unlock the phone. If you have an agreement (aka a contract), then the contract language states what you may do with your device to remain within the bounds of the contract, and if you choose to violate that agreement what the injured party is allowed to recover as a result of your default. It's basic contract law - and it's straight forward. The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service. If you buy your device, unlock it, and go buy service with another company they really don't care - just as long as your check clears every month for the next two years. Hell, I'll bet AT&T would sell unlocked iPhones for $2000 with no commitment at all ($200+$75/mo for 24 months) if they though they could sell enough of them.

Point is - this should not be a criminal statute. It's contract law; civil stuff - plain and simple.

Re:Insufficient

[babywhiz]

Thank you. I have been reading reactions across all different sites, and it seems that every single person cheering totally bypassed reading and comprehending this part.

If I had points to give, I would.

Read closely people. It doesn't say what you think it says....

Re:Insufficient

[Anonymous Coward]

They could sell plenty of phones at 2k, (or more realistically 1k). The reason they don't is not that there is no demand for that price model, but rather how the mere mention of that price model would affect sales at the traditional price model. E.G.

"Let's see, I can get an iPhone for $200 +75 a month, or $1k..... hmm... wait why are those prices so different? Oh I see, they're not different, damn this phone is expensive."

Re:Insufficient

[Overzeetop]

It's actually close. It wouldn't be the end of the world to get a partial victory. I'm not sure it it's the nuances they don't understand* or this is big telco making sure to keep their thumb on top of subscribers, but it's better than the alternative. I'd like to see this as the first crack in the DMCA dam.

*The people who work at the top of the administration are not, in any way, intellectual midgets - they either know what they've written or they simply haven't put much thought into it. I'm betting on the former.

Re:Insufficient

[Anonymous Coward]

They *give* a rats ass, simply because if you unlock "their" phone and use it on another network, you're going to use less of their service - not everything is flat included in their monthly fees. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But, you *agreed* to that contract, so what makes you think you should have a right to unlock a phone before your contract expires??

Re:Insufficient

[jader3rd]

The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service.

They might care. What they don't want you to do is to load software that they haven't validated and then your device magically starts taking down cell towers.

Re:Insufficient

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine...then sue me...but don't make it a criminal offense. This is kind of a "no shit" issue. If I break my lease for an apartment or car do I go to jail...even if I replace the locks or the engine? No. You, Sir AC, need a swift kick in the vajayjay.

Re:Insufficient

[j-beda]

The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service.

They might care. What they don't want you to do is to load software that they haven't validated and then your device magically starts taking down cell towers.

Those foreigners in other parts of the world without this "locked phone" business model seem to be able to handle it. Those crafty foreigners.....

Re:Insufficient

[Rich0]

That was the argument for having to rent your phone for $20/month from the phone company. That practice was banned, and for good reason. The irony is that before was banned people were doing all manner of exploits to make free calls, generally due to the prevalence of in-band signaling.

LoC a regulatory agency?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to rub my eyes there for a minute, but apparently the DMCA puts exemptions in the hands of the Librarian

I never envisioned a librarian making rules beyond, "keep quiet", "no reference checkouts", and fines for being overdue.

So. Among other oddities we can now cite the DMCA for making the LoC a regulatory agency!

Re:LoC a regulatory agency?

[icebike]

I had to rub my eyes there for a minute, but apparently the DMCA puts exemptions in the hands of the Librarian

I never envisioned a librarian making rules beyond, "keep quiet", "no reference checkouts", and fines for being overdue.

So. Among other oddities we can now cite the DMCA for making the LoC a regulatory agency!

Clearly Congress did not want this power to be in the hands of the Executive Branch. They wanted it out of control of any elected official.
Their reasons for this are not exactly transparent, but I suspect money was exchanged.

Most of the DMCA deals with books, music, movies etc. That much seems sane for the Librarian to handle.

But cell phones only fell under the DMCA due to the necessity to circumvent encryption to bypass carriers locks. This is clearly
a tangential area for the Library, and anytime a manufacturer wants to invoke the DMCA simply encrypting some vaguely necessary key
is all that is needed.

The librarian, with no prior powers of doing anything beyond sushing patrons, is now a quasi-legislative body, which is clearly beyond the
scope of tine institution.

This whole thing could be circumvented by the FCC making rules stating that carrier locked phones may not be imported or sold after
some date. Other countries have done this, and it works fine.

Every valid reason for carrier locks on a phone are obsolete. Carriers can kill IMEIs of stolen phones (including customers who walk away without satisfying their contract on a subsidized phone).

Re:LoC a regulatory agency?

[narcoleptic5052]

" Clearly Congress did not want this power to be in the hands of the Executive Branch. They wanted it out of control of any elected official." Obama constantly places himself above Congress, laws, etc. It's easy. He'll just (again) misuse and abuse his office and issue another of his infamous "executive" orders, LOL.

Re:LoC a regulatory agency?

[Abreu]

Actually, the rules for Librarians are:

  1.Silence
  2.Books must be returned no later than the last date shown
  3.Do not meddle with the nature of causality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-space#L-space

Re:LoC a regulatory agency?

[Rufus Firefly]

The first rule of the Library of Congress is you don't talk about the Library of Congress.

Re:LoC a regulatory agency?

[Phroggy]

The Librarian of Congress isn't a real librarian.

A Special Award

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "federal regulatory decision" suggests that somebody made the decision to do criminalize activity.
If anybody knows who that person(s) was, please let us know their name(s).
This kind of decision requires a special award, and I'd like to give it to them at the next election.

Re:A Special Award

[moeinvt]

The authorization for the regulation goes back to the DMCA. Unfortunately, we don't elect government bureaucrats who make some of these rules.

Conspiracy..

[greywire]

Its an evil Obama plot to take away our cell phones.. no, I mean, its an Obamanation conspiracy to give away cell phones to lazy welfare bums.. ah.. no.. it must be a liberal democrat plan to make Obama the first dictator of America by screwing the kind hearted telecom companies and making us all love him with our free unlocked cell phones and thus we'll abolish the 2 term limit and all become muslims and be overly healthy with our free health care and and and..

SHHHHHHH!

[Thud457]

TAKE THAT James Hadley Billington!
This guy's so out of touch he thinks books are relevant to anything.

Easier to put a humiliating slapdown mandated by the proles on some obsolete government functionary rather than smash the Hollywood hydra that wants to throw our childrens in jail.

or something

Re:SHHHHHHH!

[mabhatter654]

I'd be careful... They might hire Agent Paper to come after you.... What library DOESN'T need a cadet of super-spies!!!

—> IF YOU PAID <—

[Anonymous Coward]

If you signed up for a "free" contract phone enjoy your leash. You are propping up the bundle model and making cell service suck.

Thanks.

"Urge"???!?!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The White House would order the lifting, not urge it.

Part of the legal shenanigans that lets Congress devolve its legislative authority to regulatory agencies (words out the mouth of regulators specify actions that place you in jail rather than Congress) means it falls under the executive branch enforcement, i.e. the regulaltions-qua-enforcement are words out the mouth of the president.

Re:"Urge"???!?!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

In other words, legally and constitutionally, the president is clownishly urging himself to change it.

Re:"Urge"???!?!

[RazzleFrog]

The President can order it to not be enforced but he couldn't tell the Librarian to change his rules. Different branch.

Re:"Urge"???!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be unconstitutional for someone outside of the executive branch to "execute the laws". Congress can't bypass the executive or judicial branches with the laws they pass.

the real fear should be

[Anonymous Coward]

that if the White House agrees with the people about something you'll find another thing in the background that they'll be able to use against the people.

perhaps unlocked phones can be thought of as an indicator that someone is a possible terrorist. Certainly, current entertainment is full of examples of what are called burn phones. I'm in Canada and after hearing about the abuses by DHS at the border there is no way I would carry any of my own electronics through the border now. For a long trip I'd buy or rent what I needed in the States and leave it there when the trip is done. If it's confiscated, the government and the rental company can argue over it and I can go home.

Kinda sorta

[onyxruby]

What they actually did was say they would support allowing you to unlock your phone only after it was paid for / off of contract. That is not at all the same thing as saying they are supporting a ban on cell phone locking and the story submission is misleading at best.

Your two year old cell phone could be unlocked and transferred to another carrier under their proposal, not your current cell phone that your actually using (if your the average smart phone user). For most people that have a modern cell phone the White House initiative is nothing more than feel good words in the air.

Re:Kinda sorta

[RazzleFrog]

It means if you buy a cell phone without a contract, however, you can unlock it. Contracts are still bound by contract law. This wouldn't change that. If you want to save a ton of money by tethering yourself to a particular vendor then that is your choice.

Re:Kinda sorta

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that basically what the ban was about in the first place? Banning the unlocking of phones that are under contract? You don't own the phone until the contract is up.

I don't think this is a reversal.

[waspleg]

Read what they say. It pretty much says implicitly that if you've got a contract, fuck you, otherwise "yes we believe". That covers the telecom bases. Wanna get your "free" upgrade as part of your contract and sell it to someone on CL for $200 off MSRP? Still under contract? Then Fuck You.

Wanna switch your phone midstream?

"This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated"

What does that mean? That means AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT otherwise FUCK YOU.

This is way less liberal than people seem to be interpreting it. They've also let the FCC in and other red tape that will ensure this moves at a typical snails pace. Read between the lines, read what it doesn't spell out.

Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it a full retraction and concession to public pressure? Fuck no.

PS, I read this on Hacker News hours ago.

Re:I don't think this is a reversal.

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is your problem with lock-in for the life of the contract? This is about giving consumers rights to the hardware *they have paid for*, not giving consumers free phones.

Re:I don't think this is a reversal.

[adolf]

But that just brings the debate to another (also important) point: Is the contract for the service, or the hardware, or both together?

Frankly I think I should be able to use my hardware however I want to, even if it is subsidized by that contract, as long as I keep paying for the contracted monthly service (or the early termination fee).

Who does it harm if I use my phone on dozen different carriers, as long as I keep the money flowing according to contract?

But there is precedent that goes the other way: When I buy a house on a mortgage, the bank makes me agree to keep the house in good shape and properly insure it so that it stays that way. Same as a car with a lien from a lender. And in the case of some local buy-here, pay-here lots, the car has a mechanism to disable the vehicle in the event of non-payment and a GPS receiver so they can find it easily....and if they find out that the only reason I stopped paying for it was because it was totaled in a wreck/race/demolition derby and I didn't bother to insure it against that, lawsuits will happen.

Perhaps the question is this: Does an unlocked, under-contract phone destroy the value of that phone for the carrier in the event of default? I don't think so (because I realize that it's just software), but I'm not in charge.

What about pre-paid?

[whoever57]

Service providers would like to be able to sell subsidised phones for use with pre-paid plans, knowing that the subsidy will not be lost because the phone is used on a competitor's service.

Re:What about pre-paid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I would like to sell a pacemaker on a payment plan that would automatically stop the patient's heart if he's more than two payments behind, but the FDA won't let me do that. Sometimes them's the breaks and a service provider just can't do everything they want to do.

Re:What about pre-paid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still a contract issue.

A lot of people and companies would like to do a lot of things. That is not a good reason to transform civil legal issues into criminal ones.

What about preinstalled Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers should be sold without the operating system installed allowing everybody buy/download the system of their choice.
"It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs."

Re:What about preinstalled Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers should be sold without the operating system installed allowing everybody buy/download the system of their choice.
"It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs."

If one out of a thousand cared in the slightest about installing the system of their choice, I'd be floored.

Re:What about preinstalled Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if one cares. They don't because most don't understand what an operating system is.

It is all about they should care. They should separately buy an operating system. See its true price. And consciously decide which one they choose and are willing to pay for (or not).

you don't own your phone until your contract ends

[genericmk]

I think what's going to come out of it is that the contracts with carriers will be re-written. When you "buy" your smartphone at a discounted price from a carrier by all means they should own the carrier lock as it protects their "investment" into subsidizing the handset in hopes of making it back with profit (albeit disproportionately large profit) on your contract. Until your contract period is in place, I don't see why it should be allowed for you switch carriers? I suppose the gray area is oversea travel where the carrier lock forces you into paying an exuberant amount for calls. But then, they technically till own your handset so you may as well just get a prepaid phone locally and keep your smartphone as a computer with wifi access only.

buy it on installment plan

[Chirs]

Rather than subsidizing the phone for pre-paid plans, just sell them on instalment plans. That way the end-user pays the full price of the phone no matter what, and also gets the benefit of not paying extra money to the carrier after the phone is paid off.

Re:buy it on installment plan

[dremspider]

http://www.androidauthority.com/t-mobile-carrier-strategy-dual-4g-164618/ T-mobile is rumored to be doing just that. They already kind of do with their value plans and having you bring your own phone. We switched to it recently from Verizon and bought two Nexus 4 phones. I have calculated that if I keep the same phone for three years which I feel is reasonable we will have saved $1200 over the three year period. The only issue is we had $750 to lay out up front which most people probably don't have. Our new plan has 1000 minutes which we will never touch vs. Verizon's unlimited and 2GB per phone vs 2GB shared on Verizon (which we probably would have broken that mark occasionally). So far the coverage has been fine but we live in a major metropolitan area so I have no idea what it it is like outside of that.

Re:buy it on installment plan

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile has started doing this with their Value Plans. It's a wash compared to their individual plans for the first 20 months. The "down payment" is the same as they charge for the phones on their individual plans, and the monthly payment on the phone ($5 for dumbphones, $20 for smartphones) exactly offsets the price advantage of the Value plan. But the device is paid off in 20 months at 0% interest, after which point the monthly cost is reduced by the phone payment amount. Curiously though, the Value plans are paired with only a subset of T-Mobile's phone portfolio. You can get a GS3 or a Note 2, for example, but not a MyTouch 4G or a Nexus 4.

my reaction as well

[Chirs]

The locking of the phone is completely orthogonal to whether or not you still owe the carrier.

There should be no reason why I can't use the same phone with another carrier as long as I'm still paying the original carrier for the phone subsidy.

Re:The ban needs revoking, but not for why most th

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure everyone sees it. It's just not the spin they chose to give it. Very different things.

It does what, now?

[damn_registrars]

Maybe other people feel they are on networks that deliver

innovative products and solid service

... but that certainly doesn't describe my experience of the past 7-8 years. If anything, my coverage has become worse where I live, and my carrier doesn't generally carry phone that I want (at least, not at prices I want to pay). In fact the only thing that seems innovative about my carrier is that they keep coming up with new "innovative" ways to pull more money out of me for the same shoddy product.

Early termination fee

[tepples]

You mean if a lot of people unlock their phones and move to another carrier, their current providers won't lose much?

They'd still have to pay their ETFs.

Agreeing completely with you, I'm just nitpicking

[stephanruby]

It's basic contract law - and it's straight forward. The carriers don't really give a rat's ass what you do with your subsidized phone, as long as you fulfill your 24 months of minimum service.

Or pay the early termination fee which is its equivalent.

You're totally right.

BTW

[sycodon]

My comment makes no judgement on the phone unlocking issue.

They never should have made it illegal

[GREYS8]

in the first place. Don't they have more important issues to address?

Re:They never should have made it illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is a bunch of idiots and traitors, and they are there just for money.
They either:
1) cannot address more important issues because of their lack of competency
or
2) address important issues in a wrong way (often on purpose) and create some different problems for you/media to be attracted to and do not interfere with their decisions on important matters

Continue to have competitive wireless market?

[kawabago]

The FCC must be smoking everything the DEA seizes!

So, who's done the accounting?

[holophrastic]

I want to know how much government time and money, in terms of tax dollars, were spent on this whole back and forth. Seems like a big huge waste of all three.

You could have always purchased unlocked phones, instead of locked phones in the first place. Welcome to voting with dollars.

You could have always unlocked your phone anyway, it's not like anyone would have checked, and you wouldn't have gotten any jail time unless your last name is capone.

This isn't an example of political "checks and balances". This is an example of financial cheques and balances.

Hope you paid your taxes. Hope you enjoy your deficit. Oh, and your unemployment too. Also your health and your education.

What a waste of focus.

One thing to notice

[TsuruchiBrian]

Obama does not have to worry about re-election. He no longer has to worry about raising money from lobbyists. I don't know if term limits are a good thing or a bad thing overall (e.g. they force removal of good representatives), but it seems like winning elections tend to be the primary focus of most politicians, and removing this incentive drastically changes things (for good or bad).

Executive Branch Can Do It

[Anonymous Coward]

The Library of Congress doesn't need to do anything. The executive branch can pardon anyone convicted of an unlocking violation and the president can issue an executive order telling all the feds not to prosecute anyone unlocking.

There are checks and balances that can be used. By not using them, you can tell the executive branch isn't serious.

See? Told you White House doesn't make laws.

[xyourfacekillerx]

I predicted in a thought out post here on /. that the White house petition system was a joke, and that the White house is not the legislative body of the U.S. government and could do nothing of itself to affect the requested legal changes. I got modded down, as I recall. For being uninformative, ignorant, flamebait, what was it? Nevermind, now I'm vindicated. Wow. And I was so ignorant before. ... so I wonder how many days I'll be "sitting in the corner" for having THIS opinion on /.

Re:See? Told you White House doesn't make laws.

[moeinvt]

You probably got modded down because this ban was a somewhat arbitrary decision by a federal agency, not an actual change to legislation. Congress did not pass a new law stating "Thou shalt not unlock your cell phone" with associated criminal and civil penalties. Instead, they empowered some unelected bureaucrats in the Library of Congress to make regulations under the DMCA. The bureaucrats decided that the 'unlocking' of a cell phone was the equivalent to un-DRM-ing copyrighted material, which is illegal under the DMCA.
Also, the administration isn't reversing the ban, just changing their stance. Apparently, the actual policy decision is in the hands of the Library of Congress.

Re:The ban needs revoking, but not for why most th

[kermidge]

And it fits right in. The great no such agency signals vacuum machine, the not-yet-armed drones (yes, there's a few states making noises; it won't get far, and eventually fade), the continual erasure of public domain, the illegality or at least, impermissability of public protest (e.g., when both Fox and msm unite in denigrating members of occupy, celebrating the spray, beating, fractures, etc., you know the fix is in) - and that fix is the continued spread of a frame of mind, from school on, from children's television to pulpit sermons, that we must bow our heads and kowtow to all that's inimical to freedom, choice, privacy in the name of safety, democracy, and for the children; and most eat it up with a spoon while they're otherwise so busy with their lives. "Fixing the world, one lock down at a time."

Over the years some here have railed against the developing de facto if not de jure police state; I say it's worse: we are led to shuttering our own minds, to forge our own chains on heart and intellect. And, just in case you're an edge case, a malcontent, there are ever more laws, and ever more prisons, and plenty of prosecutors itching to make an example of you. (Or simply a quiet arrest, a quiet little court appearance, and.... gone. "Hey, whatever happened to $dude? Dunno, man, just stopped showing up.")

For years I've tried to maintain some hope - there are still plenty of good people, even in government. Perhaps it's encroaching age and the promise of death and the continuing pain, but over the past ten years.... no, I really don't think there's much hope left. Best of luck if you do.

Not with a bang, not with a whimper, just an old geek crying "Hey, what happened to my Internet?"

Re:you don't own your phone until your contract en

[BradleyUffner]

I think what's going to come out of it is that the contracts with carriers will be re-written.
When you "buy" your smartphone at a discounted price from a carrier by all means they should own the carrier lock as it protects their "investment" into subsidizing the handset in hopes of making it back with profit (albeit disproportionately large profit) on your contract. Until your contract period is in place, I don't see why it should be allowed for you switch carriers?

That's why you get charged an ETF for breaking the contract early. The ETF is supposed to make up for the part of the subsidy that hasn't been paid back yet.

Orwellian Complex At Executive Office

[Anonymous Coward]

Barak Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, All Executive Office Staff, All Cabinet Officers and Staff are untrustworthy.

Do not buy into the disinformation.

Stay objective.

Maintain suspicion.

Obama needs VOTES in the upcoming Congressional Elections so to put into place his death camps, Nazi Style.

Tablets? You mean like Nook and Kindle?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for it if they force Barnes and Noble to free up my Nook so I can load the latest 'droid version and get apps at Google Play without having to give B&N my credit card number even to load "free" apps.

Re:you don't own your phone until your contract en

[LiENUS]

So then if they still own your phone you should be able to return your phone at any point in the contract and get out of it right?

Just out of curiosity

[Chrisq]

If a US citizen were to visit Canada, buy a phone, unlock it, and return to the USA would this be legal? What if they brought a phone in Canada that had been unlocked by someone else? Or at the other extreme visited Canada with a locked phone, unlocked it and returned?

Re:Just out of curiosity

[d3jake]

Depends upon whether or not the law says that the act of unlocking is illegal, or the posession of an unlocked phone. I don't know either way.

LoC is above the President?

[ThatsNotPudding]

The Library of Congress made this bone-headed decision (or was bribed to do so); why can't the POTUS tell them just to undo their decree? Everyone is treating this bureau-level policy finding like it was already codified law blessed by the Supremes.

Another Viewpoint...

[nate_in_ME]

OK, the early termination fee is meant to recoup the cost of the subsidy on the phone if you back out of the contract early. I don't necessarily like the practice, but I understand the reasoning behind it. However, the current wording of most(all?) cell phone contracts is that if you pay the ETF, you are released from the contract. By extension, would that then fall under the no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation stipulation you quoted?

Re: IF YOU PAID

[moeinvt]

How do you escape from the "bundle model" even if you buy your phone at full retail price? The only way I've been able to get month-to-month service is at the end of contract expiration.

I think Sprint has a monthly service model, but choices are very limited in my area. Basically AT&T and Verizon. When I wanted to switch, Verizon insisted on the two year contract regardless of the hardware. If I have to sign the same contract and pay the same price for the service, it would be silly not to take the subsidized phones.

Contract Buyouts?

[Phucilage]

What about contract buyouts? You know,
"switch over to us and we'll buy out your old contract" type deals? The question may sound a little redundant, but I'd like it clearly defined if it's legal to unlock your phone under these circumstances.

Re:The ban needs revoking, but not for why most th

[Anonymous Coward]

Was not the purpose of the law to prevent smartphone theft and the violence that can accompany it? If so that would it not simply be sufficient for the law to say that "your" phone company is required to unlock your phone when you as the lawful owner of it requests it. You walk into your local T-mobile store show your ID hand them the phone and they are REQUIRED to unlock it. No ID no unlock.

Seems to damn simple, I must be missing something.

That's one branch of the government

[d3jake]

I'll believe it when the bill hits the President's desk. I get the distinct feeling that heaps and heaps of special-interest is going to quickly rush toward DC.

why the telcos just sell telecommunications ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a phone, buy it...

Locked phones should be illegal...

Maths for fun and profit

[FatLittleMonkey]

Since we're being pedantic: Anyone who uses a mean to refer to the "average" person is generally lying to you (or they have been lied to or they are merely ignorant and you can safely ignore anything they are saying.)

The mean is about finding the average of the total value. It has nothing to do with the objects/people having those values. The median is about the average object/person. So mean is appropriate for total birthrate over time corrected for population size, but not for "average number of children per family" at a given time as a measure of the "average family". But good luck finding anyone who can give you the median number of children per family. (And yet, weirdly, judging by google, it's a standard maths homework problem.)

Hence I was, even when joking, referring to the average person, the median.

Even more pedantically, perfect bell curves for positive value ranges do not match mean/median. A perfect bell curve will only match mean/median when the median is at zero on the x-axis.

Think of a X-axis scale from 0-100, and a perfect curve with a median at 50 (Y-axis is the number of members.) The right side of the bell curve is from 50-100 and has exactly the same number of members as the left side, 0-50. For a perfect curve, the number of members at, say, 75, matches the number at 25. Clearly you are going to have a mean which is well to the right of the median. [If it's not clear, grab a piece of graph paper and draw a small bell-curve (say nine by nine) and actually count the value. Eventually it will "pop", the right side is "heavier" than the left, even though it has the same number of members.]

Now a production curve, where the Y-axis is the number of units of production, and the X-axis is time, you will generally want to know the mean (which is simply area under the curve divided by time. Note: that's the total Y-axis value divided by X-axis. The mean for the population-curve (bell-curve) is the X-axis area under the curve (total value) divided by the Y-axis area under the curve (total number of members). The opposite.)

tl;dr - I'm rubber, you're glue...

phone locking is anti-competitive in any case

[cas2000]

And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network.

even if you purchased the phone with a service agreement you should still be able to use the phone on another network.

locking the phone and the legal obligations of a service contract are two separate issues.

i.e. regardless of whether the phone is locked or not, or whether you're using it on the original telco service or not, you're still obligated to pay your monthly fees for the original contract (or paying whatever early termination fee you agreed to).

The sole purpose of locking the phone in that situation is to be an anti-competitive obstacle to using your own property (the phone) as you see fit once the service agreement has expired or been paid out.

i don't know if such anti-competitive behaviour is illegal in the US or not, but it should be.

Re: IF YOU PAID

[Anonymous Coward]

You can walk into a AT&T or t-mobile store and buy a SIM with prepaid minutes and refill as needed. I don't know what CDMA device people have to do.