Reps Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Legalize Mobile Device Unlocking

New submitter tomservo84 writes "It seems some people in the House of Reps have their heads screwed on straight. A bill would 'make it permanently legal for consumers to unlock their mobile devices, and consumers would not be required to obtain permission from their carrier before switching to a new carrier.' 'This bill reflects the way we use this technology in our everyday lives,' Rep. Lofgren said. 'Americans should not be subject to fines and criminal liability for merely unlocking devices and media they legally purchased. If consumers are not violating copyright or some other law, there's little reason to hold back the benefits of unlocking so people can continue using their devices.' Now, what chance does this have of actually passing?"

Comments

No chance of passing

[EmagGeek]

This administration is owned by enormous corporations - and Obama just nominated a Telecom lobbyist to head the FCC (after promising during his campaign that there would be no lobbyists in his administration). Seriously. There is zero chance he would sign this bill were it to find its way to his desk.

Re:No chance of passing

[bruce_the_loon]

This administration did criticize the Librarian of Congress for the unlocking rules change though.

Re:No chance of passing

[SJHillman]

How many things have they criticized about the Bush administration, and then copied?

Criticism means nothing without actions to back it up.

Re:No chance of passing

[EmagGeek]

Agreed. I think "nominating Telecom lobbyist to head FCC" is an action that soundly trumps "feigned criticism of the LoC."

Re:No chance of passing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the librarian saw that this needed to be codified into law. He/She set the example and authorized it then stopped basically telling Congress to do its job.

Re:No chance of passing

[Atzanteol]

Looking for the +6 mod. WHY IS THERE NO +6 MOD?

Re:No chance of passing

[oodaloop]

"Covenants without swords are but words." - Hobbes.

Not the stuffed tiger, the other one.

Re:No chance of passing

[kelemvor4]

"Covenants without swords are but words." - Hobbes. Not the stuffed tiger, the other one.

There's another one? Pssh. Who knew?

Re:No chance of passing

[GLMDesigns]

Re Health Care: There were numerous proposals - ALL were rejected out of hand. There were proposals such as increasing Medical Savings Accounts and many more. All rejected.

Re GITMO: Obama had control of the Senate and House for 2 years, plus he can submit an Executive Order. Don't blame anybody but Obama and the Dems if you think GITMO should be closed. In addition to those 2 years of unchecked ability to make a change Obama and his advisors had 5+ years to come up with policies to replace GITMO before Obama was inaugurated. All they came up with was try them in Civil Courts. Guess what. NY is a deep-blue state and there isn't consensus here about that. Add to the fact that most those in GITMO are prisoners of war captured in battle and it becomes even more difficult.

Should there be trials? Yes. Should these people be kept indefinitely without trial? No. But don't blame Republican intransigence. Have the courage to put the blame on Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the political leaders of the party in power for two years.

Re:No chance of passing

[Paul Slocum]

The White House's official position is that they support legalization of phone unlocking.

Re:No chance of passing

[Onos]

"Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Jared Polis (D-CO)" But don't let the facts interrupt your blind support.

Re:No chance of passing

[Anonymous Coward]

Re GITMO: Obama had control of the Senate and House for 2 years, plus he can submit an Executive Order. Don't blame anybody but Obama and the Dems if you think GITMO should be closed.

Only partially correct. The opposition to moving GITMO detainees to the United States for trial was widespread and came from both parties. The Senate voted 90-6 to block all funding associated with moving any GITMO prisoners to the US. Blame the Democrats, sure, but also blame the Republicans. Almost nobody in the Senate was willing to see GITMO closed. (See the Associated Press story.)

And please, let's put that canard about "control of the Senate and House" to bed. Remember that it takes 60 votes to do anything in the Senate, not 50, if there is even one member of the opposition willing at assert a fillibuster. And Republicans used the filibuster a record number of times in 2009 and 2010. According to the American Enterprise Institute:

"Republicans have ratcheted use of the filibuster up to completely unheard of levels. Look at the things that the House (of Representatives) has passed that can't make it through the Senate. The list just keeps growing," said Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right policy organization.
(source)

The chart accompanying that article shows 112 cloture votes (used to try to end a filibuster) in 2009. The previous record was 61. Blaming Obama and the Democrats for anything on the excuse that they could have passed Program X when they controlled the House and Senate is flatly untrue. At no time during the Obama administration did the Democrats ever have functional control of the House and Senate.

Re:No chance of passing

[the eric conspiracy]

While Obama had majorities in the House and Senate for two years, saying he had control is overstating the situation considerably because his majority in the Senate was not enough to force cloture.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-16/news/ct-oped-0617-zorn-md-20120616_1_minnesota-democrat-al-franken-filibuster-proof-majority-barack-obama

Re:No chance of passing

[dgatwood]

Only partially correct. The opposition to moving GITMO detainees to the United States for trial was widespread and came from both parties. The Senate voted 90-6 to block all funding associated with moving any GITMO prisoners to the US. Blame the Democrats, sure, but also blame the Republicans. Almost nobody in the Senate was willing to see GITMO closed.

No. In this case, the GP was 100% correct. The soldiers holding the prisoners in GITMO are entirely under Obama's command. They can block funding for the move all they want to, but short of terminating military funding, they can't prevent the normal operations of the military under the commander in chief.

So, had the sitting President been willing to stand behind his convictions, he would have told Congress, "Look, we're closing GITMO, period. In 180 days, we're bringing our troops home and abandoning our base in Cuba. The last team will have orders to unlock all the cell block doors, so any prisoners remaining in GITMO at that time will be free to leave. Now you have a choice. Either we begin moving them into proper U.S. holding facilities and give them a trial, or they'll be on boats headed for the U.S. by the following week and suicide bombing your houses in D.C. the week after. Your call."

And then he would immediately begin the troop wind-down so that they would know he wasn't bluffing. It really is that simple.

WTF did he just say?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Americans should not be subject to fines and criminal liability for merely unlocking devices and media they legally purchased"

MEDIA???? No way the media cartels will give up all the monstrous legislation around copyright circumvention.

Certainly the good Congressman misspoke.

A bit late

[diakka]

This bill would have never passed when it actually meant something to consumers. With the plethora of unlocked devices available on the market, T-Mobile has already begun offering favorable deals on no-contract plans where you pay for your own device, so it's only a matter of time before the rest follow suit. If this actually does pass, it just means that the financial incentive to the phone companies was simply too small to justify the cost of supporting a lobby against it.

Re:A bit late

[dkleinsc]

I never understood why they bother to lock the phones in the first place.

Oh, I can think of some reasons:
1. So they can sell the right to install an app on a phone that a consumer can't get rid of.
2. So they can set up "app stores" that collect a significant cut of whatever the user wants to buy.
3. So they can prevent third parties from creating and selling alternative services to their own products that are cheaper and/or better.
4. To reduce the number of ways a user can mess it up.

Re:A bit late

[Farmer Pete]

No offense to T-Mobile users, but T-Mobile and Sprint really aren't playing the same game as ATT and Verizon. I doubt ATT and Verizon will make any changes until either they start loosing market share to T-Mobile or the other of the two makes the change first. Verizon isn't going to change their business model if it's not in their best interest as a company. In this case, their best interests may not be their customers best interests.

CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS

[tepples]

There already is a loophole. Devices made for CDMA2000 typically can't do GSM/UMTS, nor vice versa. Even within a particular mobile system, carrier-branded devices tend to have the competing carrier's frequency bands blocked off.

Re:CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is a loophole. Devices made for CDMA2000 typically can't do GSM/UMTS, nor vice versa. Even within a particular mobile system, carrier-branded devices tend to have the competing carrier's frequency bands blocked off.

Good point. This is alot like that loophole in the food heating industry. I can't believe you can't turn a toaster into a microwave. I mean they both heat food right.

Re:CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS

[JCHerbsleb]

True, but I'd rather have unlocking be a technical barrier and not a legal one.

Game consoles, for example

[tepples]

With the plethora of unlocked devices available on the market, T-Mobile has already begun offering favorable deals on no-contract plans

Phones aren't the only locked-down devices. Several devices are locked down in a sense even when used on Wi-Fi. These include at least game consoles (PlayStation Vita, Nintendo 3DS) and Apple tablets (iPod touch, iPad mini, iPad), all of which enforce developer qualifications and application restrictions through code signing. I haven't read the bill yet, only the section-by-section summary. But if it does limit the access control provision to facilitating infringement as the summary claims, that would make it easier to convert a locked-down device into a device that respects users' freedom.

Re:Game consoles, for example

[gnasher719]

Phones aren't the only locked-down devices. Several devices are locked down in a sense even when used on Wi-Fi.

You are confusing "locked down" and "locked to a carrier". If you are not interested at all in a phone but you want an iPod, you could look on eBay for a cheap used iPhone. But because it is locked to the carrier it won't work without the right SIM card. Obviously you can't make phone calls without a SIM, but because of the carrier lock, you can't use it at all. You have to find out the carrier, and get a SIM card, in order for the phone to be used just as an iPod. (No big problem in the UK because most carriers will give you a free SIM card, but if you bought one from a foreign country, it won't work).

way beyond cellphones

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill goes way beyond cellphones. According to the summary posted on the linked article, the bill's text "makes clear that it is not a violation to circumvent a technological measure if the purpose of the circumvention is to use a work in a manner that is not an infringement of copyright." In other words, it neuters the infamous anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA!

Paying off a subsidy that's already paid off

[tepples]

I've always heard it explained that U.S. carriers lock the phones so that they can continue to charge still-paying-off-the-subsidy rates even after the 2-year contract has ended.

Re:Paying off a subsidy that's already paid off

[diakka]

That is just the tip of the iceberg. The real benefit to the companies is not just the money they make from one individual customer, but by making contracts standard behavior, it makes the market less fluid and competitive. Customers can't easily switch to a slightly cheaper carrier before the contract is up, and so the carriers can continue to gouge the customers and keep profit margins from thinning out over time.

Re:Paying off a subsidy that's already paid off

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I've always heard it explained that U.S. carriers lock the phones so that they can continue to charge still-paying-off-the-subsidy rates even after the 2-year contract has ended.

As an American, I can say the following. Those of you who don't live in the USA need to understand that everything is different here. Sometimes in good ways, but maybe most of the time in bad ways. Few Americans travel internationally so the demand for unlocked phones specifically to use them in other countries is quite low. For years, even after you finished a contract AT&T and other providers were rather infamous for refusing to unlock your phones. T-Mobile was an exception to this at the time as they had a policy to unlock your phone if you asked them to do so after your contract ended. Maybe it is different now and everybody unlocks when your contract is up. But perhaps 7-8 years ago, AT&T would tell you to suck it if you asked them unlock a phone after your contract ended with them. By keeping the phones locked, they were able to prevent people from moving to other carriers. Many people keep their phones for years after the original contract is done just to save money and by refusing to unlock them, those people found it cheaper to just stay with the carrier that locked them in than to get a new phone and possibly a new carrier. Also, those of you who don't live in the USA would not believe how much all the phone carriers bitched about being required by law to allow customers to move phone numbers to other carriers when their contracts ended. For years this was not possible, so some people also didn't ever change carriers just so they could keep the same phone number. So all this led to a situation where there was little demand for unlocking.

Re:Paying off a subsidy that's already paid off

[MrNJ]

As an American I needed to unlock one of my phone about 2 weeks ago and my ATT contract was not up yet. I called ATT, gave them IMEI and within a minute they gave me an unlock code. I had the same experience previously. Not once was I denied an unlock request. Perhaps if you have the phone by a specific manufacturer, they don't allow unlocking. But it's not ATT's fault.

Re:Paying off a subsidy that's already paid off

[SuperAlgae]

I got a fully paid phone (won as a door prize) unlocked by AT&T back around 2005, but I had to go through multiple levels of customer support to do it-- took a lot longer than a minute. It is somewhat surprising that they unlocked a phone for you while still under contract, but technically they don't need the phone to be locked if the contract's early termination fee covers the phone subsidy.

Manufacturers generally have no interest in locking the phone (definitely not to a carrier and often not even the bootloader). It does not benefit them. It's the carriers that want locking and will usually make that a requirement before subsidizing or promoting the phone.

Dear Congress....

[Lumpy]

Simply Repeal the DMCA. Making NEW laws to fix broken ones is not the answer. Start repealing laws that have no use except to force an iron fist around consumers.

Repeal OCILLA and Viacom can sue YouTube again

[tepples]

Simply Repeal the DMCA.

Please be careful in how you phrase that. The DMCA is a bundle of several independent pieces of copyright-related legislation. Repealing the DMCA as a whole would repeal not only the anticircumvention provisions (17 USC 1201) but also the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (17 USC 512), which protects YouTube and other service providers from liability for its users' infringement. Viacom would have cause to sue YouTube.

Re:Only distribution.

[tepples]

Only distribution is covered by copyright.

In which country? In the United States, 17 USC 106(1) brings reproduction itself under the scope of copyright.

This bill is an *excellent* bugfix

[Sloppy]

Seriously, read it. It starts out by truly fixing some of the most egregious brain damage and expansiveness of DMCA, making it into a legitimate copyright law. The cellphone unlocking technicality is just one a thousand bugs this fixes; the bill would also legalize making/selling/using ink cartridges, legalize the playing the DVDs that you have bought, etc. If DMCA had passed originally in this form, it would be much less destructive and hated.

After the first part, then it looks like it does something benevolent related to phones specifically, but to some code I'm unfamiliar with. Then it takes a shot at WIPO.

Overall, this is a no-brainer, and anyone who opposes it, will be outed. That means they'll kill it in some committee, but just in case they don't, remember names and who votes for/against. Reward and punish, based on this one, right here.