Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Would be nice to have in the summary.
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?
=kw= lurkin' to please
Only terrorists and socialists would want unlocked cell phones
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.
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...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
All Congress has to do is let the 3 years expire again and we're back to the status quo.
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.
"...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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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!
Like, what you're trying to do, but failing?
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...
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.
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..
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
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.
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
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."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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?
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
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!
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.
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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?
> 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.
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.
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"
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,
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
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.
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.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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."
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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??
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.