Slashdot Mirror
US Government May Not Be Able To Fix Cell Phone Unlocking Problem
An anonymous reader writes "We recently discussed what appeared to be a positive response from the Obama administration on the legality of cell phone unlocking. Unfortunately, the Obama administration may not be able to do anything about it. It has already signed away our rights under a trade agreement with South Korea. Lawyer Jonathan Band, who works for the Association of Research Libraries, wrote, 'The White House position, however, may be inconsistent with the U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This demonstrates the danger of including in international agreements rigid provisions that do not accommodate technological development.'You can read more about this issue in a short eight page legal primer by Jonathan Band (PDF). An interesting, related note that the U.S.-KOREA FTA is possibly inconsistent with our domestic patent/drug law in the Hatch-Waxman Act as well. The trade agreement requires us to grant injunctions until the patent is invalidated as opposed to thirty months under current domestic law."
I really don't see why phones are locked in the first place. You're already tied to the carrier with a legal contract. There shouldn't need to be a technical measure in place to make sure you don't take the phone to a different carrier. If you try to leave before the contract is over, there's already high fees for breaking the contract. If you choose to not pay those fees, it would probably look bad on your credit rating. After your contract term ends, you should be free to do whatever you want with the phone. Actually, If they now have the system in place to block stolen phones, the major providers could probably place the phones from non-paid contracts on a list where they would refuse to allow the phone be used until the contract is paid in full.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Invade another country? "No problem. We'll just have to change the rules."
Make it legal ( again ) to unlock phones? "We want to do it but our hands are tied."
Of course it is bullshit!
They are not doing it because their corporate owners don't want them to. They just want to make it seem like they are on our side. If they are, then who is this mystical other side that makes this impossible. This is bullshit.
No need to be AL. The TPP is being forced down many countries throats despite many anti-democratic problems by, you guessed it, US special interest groups, their lobby mouthpieces and owned politicians. The US elite feigned "positive response" to our concern over cell phone unlocking only due to the enormous amount of people who cried out - to many to just ignore this time round. Now they are using the TPP stick that they crafted to beat our demand for democratic review of the law down, and put the masses back in our place. Oh, but sure they had no choice... yeah, right.
Carrier lock is simply a way for them to try to abduct more customers. I use abduct very purposefully here.
abduct [ab-duhkt] verb (used with object) 1. to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, especially to kidnap.
There is no technical or contractual reason to keep you locked. The OP is correct in that you sign a binding legal contract when entering a contract with a mobile carrier, but when that contract is up, they want you to stay, not run off to some n-contract or other carrier with the phone you purchased (albiet at a subsidy) from them. If their contract did not cover the subsidy discount on the phone, then they need to redo their math and stop devices that are now legally owned by others hostage.
In addition to this however, there is no incentive for handset makers to push to change it. If you cannot continue to use your phone on a carrier you like, what do you do? You purchase a new phone and the handset maker profits as well.
None of this fosters competition or aids the consumer. It is solely a self serving policy by those in (capitalistic) power.
Silence is a state of mime.
I like this idea. You can't make it legal to unlock phones, but you can probably make it illegal to sell locked phones in the first place. I already stated elsewhere in these comments that it's unnecessary to lock phones in the first place since there's already a contract with fees for breaking it, and the have the technological capability to blacklist phones that are still under a contract.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
What happened is the US government found a good excuse for saying one thing and doing another to make it appear like it was on your side without that actually being so.
Welcome to politics.