Cell Phone Unlocking Is Legal -- For Now

On Friday President Obama signed into a law a bill allowing mobile devices to be legally unlocked, so that consumers can switch between carriers. The legislation was kicked off by a successful petition on Whitehouse.gov after the Librarian of Congress decided that cell phones no longer needed an exemption from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-hacking provision. The legislation (PDF) passed both houses of Congress and is now law. Unfortunately, the new bill doesn't guarantee permanent legality. It simply reinstates the exemption, and leaves the DMCA alone. For the next year, cell phone unlocking will certainly be legal, but after that, the Librarian of Congress once again has the ability to void the exemption once every three years.

Comments

LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, "American Freedom"!

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[PNutts]

This isn't about freedom, it's an example of "For the People".

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[ArcadeMan]

If it really were "For the People" they wouldn't need a law to be able to switch carrier in the first place.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Thantik]

That's because in America, corporations are people too!

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[ArcadeMan]

And that's the biggest fucking mistake any democratic government ever made.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't like certain people now?

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Captain Splendid]

The "Corporations iz peeple" conflict has lasted far longer than any of those wars you mentioned.

And I'd happily plunk down a slashdot sub on a bet saying it's cost more as well.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[sillybilly]

One interesting issue with "corporations iz people" is that it's impossible to sell life insurance to a corporation, because it can die freely, unlike with people, who are reluctant to die, so life insurance costs can be estimated very predictably, and sold at a good profit, to anyone who's interested. Corporations are not reluctant to die at all, and if there is money to be made off of one dying, the incentive to die and spawn a new replacement corporation that takes over the remnants instead is very great. In this sense no corporation is responsible, because bad decisions don't follow them around, if they are willing to die and start over. Like, only corporations who maintained existence for decades have been responsible for EPA and asbestos claims, when it fact back then using asbestos was status quo, everyone did it, and a whole lot of businesses that have went bankrupt and the title cleared that way, and the buildings, employees and chattel picked up by a replacement corporation at auction, did not have to pay for it. Such EPA and OSHA asbestos litigations might have been that spurred this great variety of I can't keep track of great company names anymore, like HP instruments for 70 years had the highest reputation, and now they are called Agilent, and so goes for a bunch of other things, spin offs, bankruptcies, mergers, to evade responsibility that, they feel, shouldn't be responsibility in the first place. Suing a corporation for installing asbestos tile in the 60's? Everyone did it. You can sue them for hiding information they knew about, such as lung cancer, that could be a criminal case, against the actual employees, not the deep pocket of the corporations. But even that is dubious, as even today, I can work with silica dust, and carbon black, and welding smoke, and cigarette smoke, or even just simple atmospheric dust, that pollutes the lungs. That's why the nasal cavity first goes up, then down, to create a mini-cyclone, to filter the dust into snot, then most really tiny ones that do end up in the lungs are small enough for phagocytes to carry them away. And there is this intermediate fraction, that's impossible to deal with and deposits continuously, around 0.2-1.5 micron, and life's answer to that is to just fuck it, make a brand new lung, called a child. So you have to watch the total amount of time you spend in a lifetime working with asbestos, dry airborne toothpaste silica, carbon black, dusty jackhammers at an asphalt road repair that kick the dust up all over the place, welding smoke, etc., but cigarette smoke is downright doing it to yourself, so how can people pick on asbestos when they don't pick on cigarette smoke? It's insane. Asbestos has these mini fibers that fly in the air and deposit crap in your lungs. So does cigarette smoke, and road repair jackhammers, and spray painters, anything that kicks up dust, such as a soccer game in a drought ridden or arid area, etc.

PS. When are they gonna start enforcing the DMCA on cars? Someone claiming intellectual property on it, hacking, such as reverse engineering to figure out what makes it tick, and repairing the problems or creating derivatives with addons, is a violation of intellectual property. Fuck intellectual property. When you spend 20 grand on a car, they can't tell you you have no right to repair it. It's up in the air with cell phones. If you spend only 2 cents on it, they could say buy a new one, and you cannot violate the DMCA. If you spend over 2 dollars on a set, unit, then it's a different story. Watch for free cellphones that cost less that 2 cents, and only come with a service with free cellphone replacement, even if you need 1000 of them per month replaced only costing 20 bucks, and a DMCA sustaining intellectual property agreement. The powers that be are working on it.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Anonymous Coward]

> One interesting issue with "corporations iz people" is that it's impossible to sell life insurance to a corporation, because it can die freely,

Credit default swaps are effectively "life insurance for corporations" - they insure against a corporation defaulting on a loan obligation. Technically a corporation does not have to "die" to go into default, but corporate dissolution and/or bankruptcy are very strong linked with defaulting.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[DexterIsADog]

You entangled the meaningless comparison of the gp post of life insurance for corporations vs. people with an even more meaningless comparison of life insurance to default credit swaps. You're so far off the reservation that your post is literally a waste of space.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, if he wanted to improve our freedom, he'd give real trials with due process to the people in Gitmo, get rid of the "no fly list," have real oversight for all this spying, and end a lot of the other BS end-runs of our justice system, like the old Obama I regret voting for once promised to.

Re: LOL, "American Freedom"!

[Anonymous Coward]

Democratic government didn't make itâ¦

1) Roman practice inspired it and it was carried over into British and American custom and

2) it was "written into" American law by a SCOTUS clerk in a tax case

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[sillybilly]

The title of the main topic is free cell phone unlocking, as opposed to not being so before, due to power mongering corporations. Issues such as the whole purpose of the corporation, the sole reason for its existence, is the allowing for lack of responsibility, so entrepreneurs can freely take on risk, and everyone has to be aware that they are dealing with a not so responsible corporation, vs. a sole proprietorship or partnership where the owners can lose their underwear too, or an LLC which is a blend, there is at least one guy who can lose his underwear and is responsible, but most of the other actors in it denounce any responsibility, just like in a corporation. So a credit default swap goes directly on this topic of corporate responsibility, which is like an oxymoron. If a corporation wanted to be responsible, saying the buck stops here, it would be a partnership, or at least an LLC. Being a corporation says I'm not responsible, but also, I'm willing to start a business and give people an opportunity to have a job, because they let me, personally, evade the responsibility of what risks my business can bring unto me. Allowing lack of responsibility spurs the economy, increases business startups, and creates jobs. It's like this guy I was told about, living on the East Coast, who was engaged to his fiancee, the wedding date was set, but then he found out she was pregnant and he ran all the way to the West coast, he got so scared of the responsibility. When it comes to starting a business, allowing for corporate irresponsibility - the nouns corporation and irresponsibility being synonyms - keeps people from running to the West Coast. And creates jobs. There are at least two sides to every story, yin yang.

On a similar topic, these days we have a corporate-like irresponsible proliferation of premarital sex, children born out of wedlock, in a baby daddy baby momma fashion, and society accepts over 50% divorce rate as a norm, and people whose parents are not divorced hang out of the crowd to the point where they develop an inferiority complex of being too different from the norm. Also the welfare system has to foot a lot of these baby momma bills, and payroll taxes are increasing to help with the burden, taking away from those who would responsibly reproduce and sustain their families themselves and giving it to those who breed out of control and are irresponsible financially.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[idontgno]

Yeah, it's racism. GPP hates corporate people. (I guess that's politically incorrect; I should have said "Corporate-American people".)

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[fuzzy2k]

That's because in America, corporations are much more important people than you.

FTFY.

Re:LOL, "American Freedom"!

[DexterIsADog]

"these days we have a corporate-like irresponsible proliferation of premarital sex"

Do you ever read what you write? Maybe you have a neighbor who can come over, preview your posts, and tell you when you should turn off the computer, lie down in a dark room for a while, and try again later.

You are mixing together so many unrelated ideas to make points that are either wrong or incomprehensible, that I honestly am concerned about your sanity.

Funny

[Torp]

Because where I live carriers are obligated by law to unlock any phone not tied to a contract for free, and one tied to a contract for a minimal fee as soon as the contract is up.
The legality of firmware modifications isn't even talked about, this is a consumer protection requirement.

Re:Funny

[jeffb (2.718)]

Yep, it must be terrible to live in a land where Big Government can high-handedly and arbitrarily restrict the Freedoms of large corporations. It's a shame that the serfs living under such repressive regimes don't have skilled and benevolent lobbyists to help them rise up and throw off their shackles.

At least, that's what the corporate news outlets here in the US are leading us to believe.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably live in the free world.

Re: Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully Obama passed this, because our congress is do nothing. Now, off to get my Verizon phone unlocked so I can switch to AT&T!

Re:Funny

[kamapuaa]

It's de facto been the same in the US...you just ask your company for a code and they give it to you for free (even if the phone has previously been under contract). Additionally, you've always been able to buy unlocked phones.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but it strikes me as unfair that some nations legally restrict phones subsidized from a long-term contract. Even though I don't have such a phone, if I want to enter such a contract it's my business, the government should have nothing to do with it.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be living under the illusion that these kinds of laws bother "large corporations". Whatever costs this will create for them, they'll just pass on to their customers. Corporations like regulations that create barriers to entry, the more the better. And Obama keeps supplying them.

This is nothing but political theater by which crony capitalists like Obama appeal to fools like you, while pissing away your taxes and your retirement funds in handouts to their buddies in industry.

Re:Funny

[kthreadd]

You're always free to not buy locked phones.

Re:Funny

[Imrik]

This doesn't create a barrier, if anything it destroys one, not that it matters given how high the barrier for entry in the cell carrier business is.

Re:Funny

[gmack]

Once the contract is done with, it should be your phone and not the telco's phone and that is all these laws are demanding. I can still go to most countries in Europe and get a phone on contract, but as soon as the contract is finished they are required to unlock the phone and to me, that seems fair to both sides..

Re:Funny

[houghi]

Where I live the locking of phones is forbidden.
So wether you have a contract or not, you can swap out your phone with any other phone and use that one. As if the contract is not related to the phone itself.

Oh and we also have number transfer that actualy works. I have had the same number for (I think) 10 years and have changed providers several times. I just fill out a form, send that in (as they need a signature) and that's it.

Re: Funny

[JackieBrown]

I'm really hoping this is a joke. You realize Congress passes the laws that get to Obama's desk?

Re:Funny

[mark-t]

Because where I live carriers are obligated by law to unlock any phone not tied to a contract for free, and one tied to a contract for a minimal fee as soon as the contract is up.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Once a contract is up, the phone is no longer tied to a contract.... so why wouldn't it be free per the first provision?

Re:Funny

[Torp]

Exactly - you can, like in the US, get a free/reduced price phone with an X year contract if you want. All the carriers would be happy to sell you one.
There are two differences: one, when the X years end, they MUST unlock your formerly subsidized phone for an insignificant fee (i think i paid 10 euros last time).
Two, you don't have to get a subsidized phone. There are 5 million places that would happily sell you a new, carrier free phone to use with any GSM carrier.
The carriers are also required to unlock phones not attached to a contract for free - i.e. if you pay full price, it has to be unlocked - but no one's crazy enough to buy a full price phone from them, any other store would be cheaper :)

Re:Funny

[gnasher719]

You joke, but it strikes me as unfair that some nations legally restrict phones subsidized from a long-term contract. Even though I don't have such a phone, if I want to enter such a contract it's my business, the government should have nothing to do with it.

There is no problem with long term contracts for subsidised phones. You enter a 24 month contract, you get an expensive phone really cheap or for free, and the cost is included in the 24 month contract. Now you can unlock it. That doesn't mean you are out of the contract. You'll still pay for your 24 month contract.

Re: Funny

[Akaihiryuu]

Keep in mind, barring some models like the Galaxy S4 that support both...CDMA phones will not work on GSM networks and vice versa.

Re:Funny

[sillybilly]

It must be terrible to live in a land where Big Corporations can claim property rights one everything, including intellectual property rights on methodologies and technologies related to the sequence of steps you take to wipe your own ass, or how many clicks you do to complete an online purchase, 1-click shopping methodology being OPP, of Amazon, who's down with it, yeah you know me. I must be some fucking communist spy to be bitchin about overbearing and reaching excesses of property rights, such as intellectual, and copyright term extensions, etc, etc. Fuck Disney, and fuck Mickey Mouse, for extending copyright another 20 years, in 2000. It's 2014, and I could be reading science books from 1935 for free, but because of Disney and they gay ass Mickey mouse, I'm stuck at 1923. It's time for Mickey Mouse to enter public domain, it's a cliche way past it's cliche prime. In fact someone should make porn fucking Mickey Mouse without paying royalties to Disney over it, and get sued over it, as a form of protest. Dear Mickey Mouse, here comes a big black cock up your ass!

Re:Funny

[sillybilly]

If they want to protect Mickey Mouse, they should call it like that, by name - the Mickey Mouse intellectual property right protection exemption act, whereby all the science books from 1935 are public domain, but Mickey Mouse stays a property of Disney. And they should have a list of shame exemptions, codified into the law, renewable periodically, that did not expire in 70 years, but maintain perpetual intellectual property protection, such as Disney keeping Mickey Mouse in 2098, just like we have DMCA exemptions, with the opposite being true, not being a DMCA exemption being a shame. Call it the Mickey Mouse exemption to copyright protection lapse.

Re: Funny

[sumdumass]

I think he was being facetious.

Anyone paying attention enough to know congress is a do nothing would have had to pick up on how legislation works in order for that to mean anything to make it worth repeating.

Re:Funny

[sumdumass]

He's making the distinction between phones you can purchase which were never part of a contract compared to those that were part of a contract at one time. It's not a contradiction as it's more redundant on itself if you insist on viewing it that way.

For instance, even if you purchase your phone from the carrier, you can purchase it outright without it ever being under a contract. That would be one not tied to a contract. Of course you can also purchase it under a contract in which it is tied to a contract.

Re:Funny

[sillybilly]

The initial copyright Act of the US was for 14 years, renewable to 28. Right now patents are at 20 years from date of filing, increased from 17 from date of approval, so that delay tactics can't be used. All we need is excuses to keep increasing it. How long until patent protection lasts lifetime of inventor + 70 years? These limits are a mere choice, and there has to be a balance between the interest of the public, and interest of the public in the Adam Smith's On the Wealth Of Nations, self interest seeking behavior generating greatest public benefit. That's fucking bullshit! The self interest seeking Pharaoh's of Egypt did not create greatest public interest for the enslaved Jews. Neither did Caligula trying to introduce his own statue, to be worshipped, as a 2nd God, in the Temple of Jerusalem. He was merely seeking his own self interest, in the Adam Smith way. Property is essential to life, but there has to be a balance. What do these stock owners, and intellectual property publishers contribute to society? They contribute to the wealth by "owning" by sitting back and collecting, by blackmailing everybody else through hogging access rights. Why is a fucking scientific article $35 when the authors only get 25 cents or less? It should be 2 dollars, the authors getting $1.95, and 5 cents, the equivalent of the value these publishers contribute, by marketing, selling, and holding it in a database. Also why do college textbooks cost over $100? And why don't the authors, the creators, get $90 of $100 at least? This "tapping" of the collective "intellectual" wealth is equivalent to a predator living off of prey, but overconsuming prey. By the way all of us, you and I, are predators, parasites, on other life, until Monsanto comes up with a green, photosynthetic baby, that lives off of sunshine without having to eat other life. (But there isn't enough density of energy to get mobile from that, so one little parasyte, like a human, has to eat a lot of photosynthetic ones, with a lot of surface area, to keep alive, on the order of 7 acres for a family of 4 or 5 barely enough green area to produce food through the most efficient crop, potato. A human does not have an acre of surface area on his body, so he has to be a predator or parasite.) So there is no in and of itself, a priori, argument against being a predator, or having predators, that's life, we're all like that. But there is this issue of property rights not in balance with the maximum public good, and Adam Smith was dead wrong on maximum self interest, just like minimum self interest is wrong too. Confucius' Yin Yang is The Way of the Tao, the way Qi flows in the Universe. In a lot of things, balance brings about optimums.

Re:Funny

[sillybilly]

And those 7 acres were the Irish potato famine average per starving family, as far as I know. With today's biotech, and super efficient crops, the limit might be as low as 1 acre.

Re:Funny

[BronsCon]

Unless your bill gets smaller 24 months after you get a new phone, you should be able to get one phone (bought under contract) unlocked for every 24 months of service. That is to say, if you bring your own phone initially, then upgrade, say, 12 months later, those first 12 months in which your bill was exactly the same as it was *after* you upgraded should cover half he cost of the new phone. You were paying for it before you even got it, and they should respect that.

My provider doesn't do service contracts, though; they finance phones. I have 2 phones on my plan currently, and I pay $12.50/mo for each of them. In 9 months, they'll be paid off and my bill will drop by $25 in total, unless I decide to upgrade at that time. Of course, I could pay the $112.50 balance owed on one (or both) of those phones right now and be allowed to upgrade. Or, I could just decide to live with the phones I have, both of which are working quite well and, being the high-end models of their day, should continue to do so until their batteries give out, and enjoy the reduced bill.

Honestly, we don't need a law for this; people just need to wake up, realize what they're signing up for, and just don't sign it if they don't like the terms. Yes, competition is reduced when everyone's locked in a contract. The solution? Don't sign. When they all start hemorrhaging customers, they'll first start competing on price (wherein the remaining customers win) and, when that doesn't work, they'll start competing on terms (wherein we all win). Or, you know, switch to one of the carriers who's already started competing in that manner; maybe you have to wait out your contract, maybe you have to pay a termination fee, whatever, just do it.

Re: Funny

[niftymitch]

Thankfully Obama passed this, because our congress is do nothing. Now, off to get my Verizon phone unlocked so I can switch to AT&T!

Hmmm off to get my phone unlocked while I can....

FWIW I unlocked my previous AT&T phones (never give one up) bought some prepaid SIM cards with other carriers
and gave their networks a try. Here in the heart of Silly Valley -- we have the worlds worst cell coverage. Too many phones,
too few towers. My most reliable phone is a 15 year old unlocked Nokia flip phone. One charge lasts a full week -- a
replacement battery costs about $7. I power it down... put it in a zip lock bag in clean pair of socks while hiking...

I have been shopping for a modern dumb phone that is it's equal and am having
little luck. I would buy one... voice+text+GPS(for 911 safety) if it had a full week+ of
standby time.

The dumb thing about smart phones is the battery life.... it stinks.

Re: Funny

[niftymitch]

I'm really hoping this is a joke. You realize Congress passes the laws that get to Obama's desk?

Less of a joke than one might think.

Too many laws establish a regulatory framework that then writes regulations
with the force of law. The agency established by the law is under the direct
management control of the executive office.

This is not new with Obama but the recalcitrant congress has made this
more and more visible and "necessary". Consider how the EPA has
extended its mandate to include the CO2 that you exhale and incur simply
by eating and making a living and soon will be carbon taxing you... too.

Some of the worlds worst has been delivered by bureaucratic middle management
given a mandate to solve a problem with little oversight as to how. Some
historic "solutions" came to light January 27, 1945...

Re: Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, it's no problem to get an unlocked GSM phone and moving to an AT&T MVNO.

The problem is Verizon only allows certain phones on its network. The expensive ones are under contract and the cheap ones are subsidy locked. Meaning you can't buy a new phone and move to an MVNO easily.

Re:Funny

[mark-t]

But, as I said... once the contract is up, the phone is *NOT* under contract... is not tied to a contract, and is absolutely no different than a phone you have already purchased outright. And of course, not being under any contract, if they wanted to charge a fee simply because it *WAS* under contract previously, you could just switch providers and have the new provider unlock it for free, since it never would have been under contract with them, giving your current provider incentive to do it for free once your contract is up.

Re:Funny

[sumdumass]

He didn't say the phones off a contract was tied to a contract, he said they can be unlocked once they are off the contract.

In other words, he is suggesting that the law makes a distinction between phones never under a contract (which must be unlocked free) and phones that have been under a contract (that a small fee can apply once they are off contract). I don't know where he is from or care to look his law up. But it appears that the contract notion should read "carriers are obligated by law to unlock any phone tied to a contract for a minimal fee as soon as the contract is up". Whether other carriers can unlock the phone or not is outside the statement but it may not have the backing of the law. That was his purpose of the statement, to describe the law- not necessarily every possible way to unlock a phone. This is why it is not contradictory and maybe redundant at best.

Re:Funny

[mark-t]

My point is that there *IS* no real distinction between a phone that was purchased for use with a particular provider but was never actually under a contract, and a phone which has previously been under a contract and the contract has since expired. One could theoretically simply switch to a different provider after the contract was up, and since it was never actually under any contract with them, and electronically identical to a phone that might have been bought for use with the first provider, but was never actually subsidized by any contract, if the legal requirement for free unlocking is only on phones that were never under any kind of contract, there would be no possible way for the second provider to know that they may not necessarily be required to unlock it for free.

It would, therefore, be in a provider's best interest to *NOT* charge any kind of fee once the contract is up to simply unlock a phone, since after a contract is up, there is little to nothing preventing a customer from switching providers, while offering the service for free to customers who ask for it after their contract is up may enable them to hold onto subscribers even after they are no longer bound by any contract.

Re: Funny

[FatLittleMonkey]

Consider how the EPA has extended its mandate to include the CO2 that you exhale and incur simply by eating and making a living and soon will be carbon taxing you... too. [...] Some historic "solutions" came to light January 27, 1945...

That's cute. But parody is better when it's not so exaggerated. Even the US right wing aren't stupid enough, insane enough, to go around saying that the EPA is going to tax breathing, nor invoke Nazi death camps to condemn US environmental regulations. The premise of the joke has to at least be believable.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think providers are permitted to unlock phones that are locked to other providers, even if they are off-contract. (Simply because the second provider has no way to verify that they are off-contract with the first provider.)

I agree that there shouldn't be a fee (hell locking should be banned entirely regardless of contracts, if I lease a fridge it's not vendor locked and yet that industry somehow copes), but such regs are usually a mass of compromises. I suspect the industry screamed about "administrative costs of unlocking!" and the €10 fee was a negotiating tactic for something else.

Re:Funny

[mark-t]

Fair enough point made about switching providers (although considering the main point behind unlocking phones is *because* you want to switch providers, it strikes me as somewhat ironic), but my underlying point still remains, that there is absolutely *no* kind of electrical difference between a phone which may have previously been on contract, and a phone which was purchased for use with the same carrier, and was not under any contract. How is provider to tell the difference between a phone that they subsidized, for example, and a model-wise identical, much newer replacement phone that they may have purchased *after* the contract had expired, perhaps because the first one broke.... so you went and bought a new one, and put the old sim-card into it. The newer phone would completely assume the identity of the older one, and itwas never under any contract, so there is no reason for the company to charge to unlock it, but there is also no practical way for them to tell that it was not the phone that they subsidized.

Re: Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

This is wrong for plenty of reasons. Since everyone else seems to be pointing out your ignorance about how laws get passed, I'd like to focus on the other big issue: You're trying to unlock a CDMA phone to use on a GSM network.

Feel free to go to Sprint.

Re: Funny

[niftymitch]

Consider how the EPA has extended its mandate to include the CO2 that you exhale and incur simply by eating and making a living and soon will be carbon taxing you... too. [...] Some historic "solutions" came to light January 27, 1945...

That's cute. But parody is better when it's not so exaggerated. Even the US right wing aren't stupid enough, insane enough, to go around saying that the EPA is going to tax breathing, nor invoke Nazi death camps to condemn US environmental regulations. The premise of the joke has to at least be believable.

Yes a bit of exaggeration yet the relentless move to legislate regulatory agencies that then craft regulations with the power of law is astounding.
The terrible part is that to tear down man bad regulations the entire agency must be dismantled which
does not happen for agencies that mostly do the right things.

The EPA is easy to point fingers at yet they do constantly work to extend their charter and reach.

Of interest was a bunch of EPA mandates involving rainwater runoff in Virginia. The state of Virginia
won the first batch of litigation and the EPA was pushed back. However the fact that rain water catchment
basins do not respect state boundaries. Coal does not respect state boundaries. Fumes from coal and other
fuel fired power plants does not.... Then there was the individual in Oregon that put a rain barrel between his
roof and garden. Oregon felt his roof water run off was property of the state of Oregon.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Obama has the power to do anything? What crazy, upside-down, bizarro world do you live in?

This is why "regulations" are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ad hoc tyranny.

At least with legislative actions - LAWS - the voting population can theory hold elected government officials accountable.

But regulations that are effectively edicts from unelected bureaucrats?

Apropos, although in TFA the unelected bureaucrat is the Librarian of Congress:

Book Review: 'Is Administrative Law Unlawful?' by Philip Hamburger

The separation of powers broke down in the 20th century thanks to progressives who believed commissions could quickly improve society.

Re:This is why "regulations" are bad

[fustakrakich]

You are right, Mr. Smith. We should not permit administrative law. But, the voters do, and will most likely continue to do so indefinitely. A fatal flaw of majority rule.

Re:This is why "regulations" are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with legislative actions - LAWS - the voting population can theory hold elected government officials accountable.

DCMA is a LAW. The only power granted to the Librarian of Congress was that of exempting certain devices from that LAW. The actual ban on unlocking cellphone handsets came from the LAW itself, not from the regulator. So which elected officials were held accountable for that LAW? Especially for writing a piece of copyright legislation so badly that it somehow made phone unlocking illegal?

Re:That's it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Obama was President after 9/11, I thought he got elected in 2008 and took office in 2009? So did his administration torture anyone or was the fool who was elected by the Court?

what about the right to unlock for roaming at any

[Joe_Dragon]

what about the right to unlock for roaming at any time even when still in contract?

The real story here is that...

[Anonymous Coward]

A bill was signed into law! Lately bills either stop at the senate or things get done with executive orders.

Somebody school me ...

[CaptainDork]

... where in Sam Hill did the Librarian of Congress gain this influence?

Re:Somebody school me ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently from the DMCA, which is the real root of this issue (and a lot of others...). That is what needs radical changing, if not outright repeal.

Re:Somebody school me ...

[gnasher719]

Apparently from the DMCA, which is the real root of this issue (and a lot of others...). That is what needs radical changing, if not outright repeal.

Not really. There is nothing wrong with laws preventing people from illegally copying copyrighted works. It's just that in the case of mobile phone unlocking, I can't quite see where someone would be illegally copying some copyrighted works.

Re:what about the right to unlock for roaming at a

[Richard_at_work]

Roaming is something the carrier can allow on your current sim, what you really mean is "what about using another carriers sim at any time, ostensibly for use overseas"...

Re:what about the right to unlock for roaming at a

[Joe_Dragon]

Yes but some places like to say no as they make a lot off of that $15-$20 a meg for data roaming.

And...

[J'raxis]

...absolutely nothing has changed. People have been unlocking their phones; people will continue to unlock their phones; and if Congress re-outlaws it, people will still continue to unlock their phones.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

/Sarcasm Until the FBI raids your home for unlocking your phone! (like downloading)

Re:And...

[cob666]

Yes, people have been unlocking phones but without the carrier's consent you have to 'jailbreak' the phone. I'm going to assume that the phone either needs to be out of contract or you need to pay the balance due on the phone to get it unlocked.

If providers are going to have to unlock phones then I can see them changing things up a bit. Instead of the phone company 'subsidizing' your phone which you are allowed to keep when your contract is up, I see plans that include a lease fee for the phone with a new phone every years (or two) option if you turn in your old phone. With this model, just like car leasing if the phone is beat up or doesn't include all the accessories you'll be charged a 'lease disposition' fee. Providers will keep their user base locked in and won't have to provide unlock codes because the phone remains the property of the provider. If the user wants to unlock the phone they will need to pay the lease buyout fee and the phone will be theirs.

Re:And...

[fustakrakich]

Our elected congress never directly outlawed it. This rule, like so many others, came from an unelected bureaucrat.

Re:And...

[Antique Geekmeister]

T-Mobile has been taking full advantage of the difficulty of jailbreaking. Their monthly rates are attractively low, but they do their absolute best to _insist_ that you buy a new phone from them instead of migrating your old phone, and their sales people do their level best to discount even the _possibility_ of such an option. So they've turned around the old model of "free or cheap phones, the money comes from their monthly bills" and separating the costs. This allows them to advertise as the "cheapest", with the hidden and often hideous cost of a new phone amortized over the first few years of your plan.

The other vendors are also now doing this, as well, in their "we'll lower your monthly fee". The confusing plans and options among all the carriers are textbook cases in "bait and switch".

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm fairly sure the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision came from Congress.

Re:And...

[onproton]

It's true that not much will change in reality, but it's still a win ideologically & may change the direction of the conversation.

Re:And...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Their monthly rates are attractively low, but they do their absolute best to _insist_ that you buy a new phone from them instead of migrating your old phone, and their sales people do their level best to discount even the _possibility_ of such an option.

Not the experience I had talking to a T-Mobile guy a few months back. Showed them my old phone, they told me to get it unlocked by my old carrier, and they'd be good to go....

Re:And...

[BronsCon]

Funny, when I switched to T-Mobile, they were more than happy to get AT&T on the phone for me to get my HTC One X unlocked. Of course, AT&T refused to provide the correct unlock code (they pulled that "we'll text it to you within 24 hours" bullshit, then, when that code didn't work, insisted that they had to escalate it to "engineering", and that I'd hear back in 24 hours again, which I never did -- and I know it wasn't T-Mobile scamming, as I went into an AT&T store when the first code didn't work). In the end, I borrowed a friend's old HD2 and used that until the phone I was waiting for came out, at which point I did end up buying a phone, an HTC One (M7), from T-Mobile. Then the M8 came out and I went in to check it out, fully expecting them to pressure my into paying off my M7 and upgrading; instead, they highlighted some of the feature differences, pointed out that the two were mostly similar, then spoke of what they felt were the drawbacks (the M8 being slightly larger, the fact that I'd have to replace my desk and car docks, etc), eventually saying they'd be more than happy the help me upgrade, but advising me to hang on to the M7 for the time being.

Yes, such vicious salespeople.

It's worth mentioning that, even while paying off two phones, my T-Mobile bill, for unlimited EVERYTHING (with the upgrade to unlimited LTE data on both lines) is still $20/mo less than I was shelling out to AT&T for 2 lines sharing 700 minutes and 500 text messages, with 4GB of data each (before $10/GB overages kicked in). And, when both phones are paid for in 9 months, my bill will drop by an additional $25. Actually, it will probably drop by another $20 when I drop the insurance on both phones (what's the point, when I can just walk in to a T-Mobile store and get a brand new phone at that point?), so my bill ends up being $65 less than AT&T. Sure, that's assuming I keep the same phones for longer than two years, but where's that option with AT&T?

Re:And...

[kamapuaa]

Maybe you ran into a guy who did that, but TMobile promotes it pretty well on their stores and their web page, and before they had iphones they had radio ads encouraging people to just use an unlocked iphone.

I looked into prices for my wife and I, and even without the subsidized phone (and using expensive phones paid off per the month) TMobile was substantially cheaper than AT&T or Verizon. For a family of four, AT&T becomes cheapest, with its family plans.

You could say that all the different prices and contracts and deals makes comparison between companies more difficult than it should be, but that doesn't make TMobile more expensive.

Re:And...

[Antique Geekmeister]

How long ago did you do this? Your experience is completely opposite from mine, less than 3 months ago.

Re:And...

[BronsCon]

I made the switch about 15 months ago. However, as the M8 only came out this March, my most recent experience with them (the one where they talked me out of the upgrade) wasn't so far back; I can't pinpoint the exact date, but it was end of March, beginning of April. That is to say, roughly 4 months ago. Though, I was in store last month with a friend who needed to replace his damaged S3 and they tried to find every solution short of selling him a new phone, even in the face of him having already picked out what he wanted as a replacement and having cash in hand to pay for it.

Maybe the people at your T-Mobile store are just jerks? I've been in 4 different stores around here and they're always great.

Re:And...

[Antique Geekmeister]

I went to their page. Then I tried to actually _use_ the "switch to us and keep your old phone", which they'd advertised extensively, and I ran into a series of forms and options that did not actually allow keeping phones. I will admit that I was looking for a family plan, that made it more intriguing. (I pay for my parents' phone bills, they're retired and it's the least I can do to stay in touch.)

Re:And...

[Reziac]

Somewhat OT, why does the 2nd link (BTC) in your sig redirect to "https://coinurl.com/index.php" ??

Re:And...

[J'raxis]

Looks like something broke.

Re:And...

[Reziac]

Or maybe the FSP got hacked :(

BTW I like your home page, quite retro-tech. And why don't we see you over on SoylentNews or Pipedot? you're everywhere else. :)

ineffective political pandering

[silfen]

Your Verizon phone likely will still only work on Verizon, and this may make phones and phone service a little more expensive down the road, and it may kill some business models that could have brought phones to the poor with no monthly charges, but who cares! Well-off, politically connected geeks can now unlock their phones officially! A victory for democracy!

Re:ineffective political pandering

[QuantumLeaper]

There are a lot cheap phones out there, you just have to look. A friend paid $10 for a phone and about $10 a month, you know of anything cheaper?

Re:ineffective political pandering

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you smoking?

Re:ineffective political pandering

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Your Verizon phone likely will still only work on Verizon, and this may make phones and phone service a little more expensive down the road"

Please, prey tell, how this will make phone service more expensive. Explain to us all how enabling a free market economy makes things more expensive, while vendor lock in results in lower cost to the consumer. I can't wait to hear your explanation.

Bear in mind while explaining that this allows people to switch to a lower cost service rather than be locked into a higher cost one. Please also bear in mind that reducing the huge profit margins of corporations is far from the same as costing the consumer more, and that when consumers can switch attempting to tack a bit more on to the profit margin will result in current customer loss, but can not result in a loss of current customers when they can't switch.

Re:ineffective political pandering

[Zero__Kelvin]

So they will unlock their free phones and pay even less then? You're a friggin' genius.

"Where is -MY- free Obaaaaama phone?"

You'd see it right there on the table next to you if you took your head out of your ass.

Re:ineffective political pandering

[Kardos]

> and it may kill some business models that could have brought phones to the poor with no monthly charges

If a potential business model relies on creating a captive market via legislated freedom removal, it's a bad business model, full stop. Cell phone subsidization plans are already protected by contract law. The additional criminalization of unlocking is unnecessary.

Re:ineffective political pandering

[moosehooey]

T-mobile to go. You can get a phone and the first year of service for $120 (20 for the phone and 100 for initial Gold membership), and then you only need to put on $10 per YEAR to keep it going (as long as you don't use up too many minutes, so it makes a good emergency phone).

Re:ineffective political pandering

[silfen]

Please, prey tell, how this will make phone service more expensive.

If you switch phone carriers, that's a big loss to your phone company. Providing locked phones are one of several mechanisms by which a company can insure against that loss and they are willing to give you a discount for that. In different words, they pay you an insurance premium, same way you pay car insurance.

And by further standardizing phone service terms, it will likely also lead to a weeding out of MVNOs, which have been thriving on offering non-standard business models. Some of them offer a small number of locked phones, others specialize in supporting any unlocked phone, meeting different preferences and kinds of demand.

and that when consumers can switch attempting to tack a bit more on to the profit margin will result in current customer loss, but can not result in a loss of current customers when they can't switch

Consumers have been able to buy unlocked phones and switch at will for many years. I haven't had a locked phone or a contract for more than a decade and been with MVNOs for years. So, there is absolutely no reason to create legislation to force companies to make that business model mandatory for everybody.

And, again, when you make it easier for consumers to switch, that increases cost for the operators, and they are just going to pass those costs on to their customers. This whole regulation forces low frequency switchers to subsidize high frequency switchers. Why is that a good thing?

Explain to us all how enabling a free market economy

A free market means that buyers and sellers are free to agree to the terms under which they do business. Imposing additional restrictions on those terms, by definition, does not "enable a free market economy".

Sometimes (rarely) imposing restrictions on the market may be beneficial, but don't try to sell anti-free market policies as pro-free market policies.

Re:ineffective political pandering

[Zero__Kelvin]

"If you switch phone carriers, that's a big loss to your phone company. "

If someone switches phone carriers to my phone company, that's a big gain for my phone company!

" Providing locked phones are one of several mechanisms by which a company can insure against that loss and they are willing to give you a discount for that."

No. You are confusing discounted handsets with discounted rates (the latter of which don't exist.)

"Consumers have been able to buy unlocked phones and switch at will for many years."

So by your own admission, this cant possibly be a sudden change that will cause an increase in rates.

"Sometimes (rarely) imposing restrictions on the market may be beneficial"

Perhaps, but as you pointed out while you were trying to paint this as one of those situations (without knowing it), this is clearly not one of them. Thanks for playing though!

Re:ineffective political pandering

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooooosh!

Re:ineffective political pandering

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone switches phone carriers to my phone company, that's a big gain for my phone company!

True but irrelevant. You asked how a customer benefits from buying a locked phone, and I explained to you that it is like buying insurance. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand that argument, you really have no business trying to make economic arguments about "free markets".

So by your own admission, this cant possibly be a sudden change that will cause an increase in rates.

It probably won't cause an "increase in rates", it will just cause phones to become slightly more expensive (a few cents would be my guess), plus probably some enforcement costs for the federal government.

Perhaps, but as you pointed out while you were trying to paint this as one of those situations (without knowing it), this is clearly not one of them. Thanks for playing though!

I think you're confused. It's Obama that is imposing restrictions on the free market. And, yes, I'm saying it's political pandering with no benefit to consumers.

OMG

[Curunir_wolf]

These comments suck.

Re:OMG

[Kardos]

Thanks for your insightful contribution that doesn't suck.

Re:what about the right to unlock for roaming at a

[Lehk228]

not in the US, if you are travelling internationall y grab a cheap android burner

DMCA

[SirAudioMan]

The DMCA is one of the single-handedly most stupid laws that has ever been passed in the US! Pretty much every stupid lawsuit and dumb statute you guys have falls under the DMCA! It's clear that lobbiest really did get to the government to pass this dumb act!

They had to get the *President* in on this one?

[wonkey_monkey]

On Friday President Obama signed into a law a bill allowing mobile devices to be legally unlocked

Good news and all, but did it really have to go up to the President? No wonder he hasn't had time to get around to closing Guantanamo Bay if he has to do with (relatively) piddling crap like this!

Re:They had to get the *President* in on this one?

[DMUTPeregrine]

The president must sign every bill before it becomes law. If the president chooses not to sign a bill, it is considered a veto and the bill is returned to congress. If it gets a 2/3 majority vote, the bill becomes law anyway. This is one of the primary duties of the president.

So yes, it went to the president, just like every other bill that has gotten through congress.

Re:They had to get the *President* in on this one?

[Anonymous Coward]

You almost got the procedure. The US President has 10 days (not including Sundays) to sign or veto a bill. If the US President chooses to neither sign nor veto a bill, then it depends upon whether Congress is in session or not; if Congress is not in session then it becomes a "pocket veto", if Congress is in session at the 10 day mark then it becomes law without the President signing it (see Aticle 1, Section 7, Clause 3).

Re:They had to get the *President* in on this one?

[DMUTPeregrine]

Yes, I simplified it. I also got the first sentence wrong, and corrected that by mentioning the ability for congress to override a veto. The main point is that every bill goes before the President before it can become law.

Re:They had to get the *President* in on this one?

[hacker]

...and even if he doesn't sign it, it becomes law anyway, as long as Congress is in session.

Re:They had to get the *President* in on this one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, if the president doesn't veto after a set period of 10 days it is considered a signature.

Re:They had to get the *President* in on this one?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it gets a 2/3 majority vote, the bill becomes law anyway.

On the second vote. It doesn't matter if the first vote is unanimous, the president can still veto. It was unclear what you meant by "it" - the overide veto vote or the initial vote.

http://boards.straightdope.com...

VzW Worldphones unlocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, once I made a few tweaks to my Moto Razr HD (courtesy of instructions found on the 'Net), I could put my T-Mobile pay-go SIM in it, and get at least HSPA+ (or is that HSDPA+ ? always mixing the letters up - anyway one of several GSM-based bands that VzW "world" phones support when unlocked) on it, which in most cases is as fast as the LTE on Verizon - where I can get that T-Mo signal, which is far less common than Verizon's LTE where I go.

I have also done that with a Samsung Note 2 for VzW that I sold a while ago (too big to carry around comfortably, but loved the screen size for my eyes - tradeoffs ).

BTW, I have not been locked into a VzW contract for several years now, but not too motivated to change since the coverage is still the best where I go, and I am still on the unlimited data plan from the contract days, so eBay is my phone supplier now so as to not lose that data plan (son used 12GB one month with that feature while away at tech school no problem). I don't push it so much as to face the upcoming VzW limitation plan for excessive use for a given tower situation.

Re: VzW Worldphones unlocked

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, the Note's switch to T-Mo did not even require the unlocking effort of the Razr - just had to change the setting for Mobile Networks network mode.

will be pontless if it sticks

[nurb432]

We will just see more incompatibly between networks. A lot ilke if you have an unlocked cmda phone today.. Where you going to go other than back to verizon? Each phone will end up with custom firmware, so you are stuck with that carrier.

Re:will be pontless if it sticks

[ClickOnThis]

We will just see more incompatibly between networks. A lot ilke if you have an unlocked cmda phone today.. Where you going to go other than back to verizon? Each phone will end up with custom firmware, so you are stuck with that carrier.

First of all, Verizon is not the only CDMA carrier in the USA. (Sprint, for example, uses CDMA.) Verizon can't "break" their version of CDMA without making it impossible for non-Verizon subscribers to roam on their network.

Second, many of the phones currently available in the USA support all CDMA and GSM network protocols. Some even support them at all of the frequencies used outside North America, so you can roam in other continents.

Third, many phones from CDMA carriers now come with a removable SIM card, just like GSM phones have for years. I'm not sure, but I think switching carriers may involve modifying the apps and parts of the OS (and would that involve unlocking or even jailbreaking?) However, the most important step is to swap out the SIM card with one from the new carrier, and that has become a lot easier.

Re:will be pontless if it sticks

[wiredlogic]

If you have a Verizon worldphone with GSM support you have more options. I'm switching over to a GSM provider soon and will be curious to see what happens when a different SIM is used in the US.

Re:will be pontless if it sticks

[nurb432]

ok i should have said 'where can you realistically go'. verizon was a quick example. I do know its not 100% black and white ( i even have a phone that does both cmda and gsm with 2 sims, at the same time ) but realistically most people will be stuck with what they buy from their carrier and not have more capable phones

and yes they can all 'break' their network so you can only use their "approved" phones, if they want to. they just dont have/want to yet. if this goes further and they are forced to start giving out codes you watch how long it takes...

i doubt they are making much off the phones, but currently the lock-in factor helps keep you around, since most people dont buy phones outright like some of us do.

Can titles please be internationalized?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a European Slashdot reader I would really like it if titles like these would be changed to "Cell Phone Unlocking Is Legal In The USA -- For Now" for example. :]

As long as...

[Anonymous Coward]

You outright own your phone (EG it is not still under contract) there is no reason' you shouldn't be able to do any damn thing you please with it.

Re:As long as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Under DCMA, you own nothing.

This only addresses half of the problem

[Solandri]

The other half is that some carriers (I'm looking at you Verizon) won't activate a phone they didn't sell, even though it's capable of operating on their network. What good is an unlocked phone if no other carriers are willing to activate it? To be effective, this needs a partner law requiring carriers to activate phones which can operate on their network, regardless of where the customer bought it.

Another benefit this would have is that manufacturers would start selling phones directly instead of only through the carriers. The carriers are already busy trying thwart the unlock requirement - most of the new carrier-branded phones I'm seeing support only the frequencies that carrier uses. Even if you could unlock it, it won't work on another carrier (or will work with degraded capability). But if the manufacturers began selling phones directly, it would be in their best interests to sell a single phone model which supported all carrier frequencies in that country. With another bonus being that it'll work in most of the rest of the world as well.

SIM locks?

[dos1]

I wonder why the comments are filled with discussion about SIM locks and operators unlocking or not the devices after the end of contract. SIM-lock issue is no biggie, you can always simply buy the phone without telco as middleman.

What's more important there is that without this DMCA exception, you can't legally "jailbreak" your phone, install your own operating system or some "custom ROMs". Without this exception, jailbreaking an iPhone to install Cydia is illegal; breaking into bootloader of some non-unlockable by default Android phone is illegal as well.

Without this exception, in America you're not free to choose the software to run on your own hardware if only the producer doesn't want you to. Duh, even worse - it's actually illegal to try to. *This* is the clue of this issue, not any silly simlocks.

Re:SIM locks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without this exception, jailbreaking an iPhone ... is illegal; breaking into bootloader of some non-unlockable ... phone is illegal as well.

Are you sure ? The "no circumvention" part is to protect the underlying software from being "looked at" (decompiling and all that). I would say that there is no looking, so no faul.

Though its (as always) up to the courts (and the party with the deepest pockets) ofcourse :-\ .

Captcha: budgets - Again fitting to the above. How do they do that ...

Re:SIM locks?

[hacker]

SIM-lock issue is no biggie, you can always simply buy the phone without telco as middleman.

...except in the United States of America.

You might be outside the US, but you literally cannot purchase a phone in the US without specifying which carrier you're going to bind that phone to, contractually. Not Samsung/HTC/LG/Motorola/Google, not Microsoft, not Nokia, not iPhone and not BlackBerry.

So you're luck to be outside the US. For the rest of us, we're stuck paying full price for phones off-contract, and still being held to carrier restrictions.

Re:SIM locks?

[Anonymous Coward]

SIM-lock issue is no biggie, you can always simply buy the phone without telco as middleman.

...except in the United States of America.

You might be outside the US, but you literally cannot purchase a phone in the US without specifying which carrier you're going to bind that phone to, contractually. Not Samsung/HTC/LG/Motorola/Google, not Microsoft, not Nokia, not iPhone and not BlackBerry.

So you're luck to be outside the US. For the rest of us, we're stuck paying full price for phones off-contract, and still being held to carrier restrictions.

Actually, you do not have to specify which carrier you are going to bind the phone to ... the only 'specification' you are required to make up-front is CDMA vs. GSM ... the choice of which will, in turn, limit you to a range of carriers - eg. AT&T runs GSM, so you can't use a CDMA phone on their network.

Re:SIM locks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Motorola sells the Moto G and Moto E factory unlocked. Put any sim in and go. BLU Products sells both feature phones and smartphones that are unlocked, many with dual sim capabilities like overseas. BLU is based out of Miami, FL and phones are available at independent prepaid cellular dealers all over the USA and online from Amazon, Ebay, Newegg, and many other popular e-tailers. The Moto E can be had for $129 and comes loaded with the latest version of Android and the specs are unheard of for a phone at that price. Many BLU smartphones can be had for under $100.

Re:SIM locks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, what? Of course you can.

Re:SIM locks?

[dos1]

It's a myth and I've already seen a lot of people from US debunking it. And even if it would be somewhat true, there are people in US who use their Openmoko Neo Freerunners and Goldelico GTA04s, or who preordered their Neo900, which were never (and never will be) locked to anything other than operating frequency.

Buying a phone in the US without simlock is far from being impossible. It's just a bit harder - well, for some people the difference may be negligible, but then no regulation will help them...

Re:SIM locks?

[tlhIngan]

What's more important there is that without this DMCA exception, you can't legally "jailbreak" your phone, install your own operating system or some "custom ROMs". Without this exception, jailbreaking an iPhone to install Cydia is illegal; breaking into bootloader of some non-unlockable by default Android phone is illegal as well.

Jailbreaking an iPhone is actually legal. It was an exemption granted the last DMCA round.

Now, Apple doesn't want you to, mostly because the vast majority of jailbreakers use it to pirate, rather than any other "freedom" loving cause. I'm sure if saurik checked his logs, he can tell how many people install AppSync and the like simply by observing how many people add the "forbidden" sources (the ones that pop up a dialog telling you the repo is mostly for piracy).

You might be outside the US, but you literally cannot purchase a phone in the US without specifying which carrier you're going to bind that phone to, contractually. Not Samsung/HTC/LG/Motorola/Google, not Microsoft, not Nokia, not iPhone and not BlackBerry.

No, you can buy an iPhone from Apple and activated it on AT&T, T-Mo and a few others.

http://store.apple.com/us/ipho...

Buying a phone in the US without simlock is far from being impossible. It's just a bit harder - well, for some people the difference may be negligible, but then no regulation will help them...

It's not harder. iPhones are easy - you walk into an Apple store, and walk out with out. If you want, you can go to apple.com and buy one unlocked online. Or google.com if you want an Android phone.

Nothing hard about that - Apple makes it stupidly easy, especially if you need it RIGHT NOW since you can walk in and walk out 5 minutes later with an unlocked phone in hand.

Google, well, they can sling electrons around, but atoms is much harder (I've never had a good experience using Google Play to ship stuff).

The other unlocked phone retailers tend to generally be more expensive or more niche.

"Doesn't guarantee permanent legality", WTF

[fnj]

This should be bloody obvious to anyone with the mentality of an everage 12 year old or greater, but there is no guarantee that ANY law stay in effect permanently. You can supercede any law at any time just by passing a new law. Hell, you can even amend the Constitution. If you supersede the fiftth amendment and then pass a law enabling the cops to beat you with a rubber hose to extract a confession, you couldn't even (legally) refuse to incriminate yourself any more.

Re:"Doesn't guarantee permanent legality", WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be bloody obvious to anyone with the mentality of an everage 12 year old or greater, but there is no guarantee that ANY law stay in effect permanently.

All this is saying is that in three years when the law expires the librarian of congress can once again take a bribe from the cell industry and once again remove the exemption.

If you supersede the fiftth amendment and then pass a law enabling the cops to beat you with a rubber hose to extract a confession, you couldn't even (legally) refuse to incriminate yourself any more.

I can imagine the new Miranda "You have the right to remain silent, if you can stand the pain"

Re:"Doesn't guarantee permanent legality", WTF

[hacker]

All this is saying is that in three years when the law expires ...

Ahem. Laws don't "expire", but that's why I suppose you chose to post that comment under AC, instead of a proper username.

Re:"Doesn't guarantee permanent legality", WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem. Laws don't "expire", but that's why I suppose you chose to post that comment under AC, instead of a proper username.

If you are going to slam someone simply for posting AC, at least know what you are talking about. Laws can and do expire, it's called a sunset clause. Ever hear of the Patriot Act? It was originally set to expire in 2005 unless extended by congress, which it was (and again in 2006 and 2010). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_laws]

In public policy, a sunset provision or clause is a measure within a statute, regulation or other law that provides that the law shall cease to have effect after a specific date, unless further legislative action is taken to extend the law.

With that said, I don't think this law actually has a sunset clause it is just reinstating the exemption for cell phones, which the librarian of congress can re-assess every three years.

If they were serious about passing this...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were serious about passing this as law they should have made it permanent. It is ridiculous how this keeps bouncing back and forth between being illegal and legal.

Librarian?

[shillbot]

Why does Congress have a librarian? Congress doesn't actually do anything. And that librarian only seems to do stupid things.

1 out of 3 aint bad

[WaffleMonster]

While in another year it may well become illegal to root your phone and crack boot loaders at least you won't be breaking the law when you SIM unlock.

The only reason piecemeal temporary exemptions exist is restrictions are overwhelmingly seen as illegitimate and completely unenforceable.

Not when I switched

[Sycraft-fu]

I wanted to keep my phone and they were fine with that. They just warned me that they'd had other customers try with that phone, and it had issues with data. I already had an unlocked phone (Verizon has to unlock their phones since they use Block C airspace) and I'd rooted it and put on a stock ROM so it wouldn't whine about being on a different carrier.

The sales guy gave me his SIM and I tried it. Voice worked great, but data was flakey. Kept trying to sync up at 4G, dropping back down, etc, etc. I decided it wasn't worth the trouble and got a new phone.

They also weren't bad in terms of upsell. Guy was pointing me towards the Nexus 4 because it is one of the cheapest new generation phones (at the time). They happily sold me an expensive Note 3 when I said that was what I wanted, but they didn't try and push it (despite me having a Note 2 I was trying to bring over).

They didn't offer to jailbreak the phone for me, in part I'm sure because at the time they couldn't legally, but they certainly didn't mind if I tried, they just warned me of potential issues.

Re:Not when I switched

[BronsCon]

They didn't offer to jailbreak the phone for me, in part I'm sure because at the time they couldn't legally, but they certainly didn't mind if I tried, they just warned me of potential issues.

This is one of the things I like most about T-Mobile. They don't care WHAT you do on their network, as long as you're paying for it. I had an HTC One X on AT&T and I had to flash a different CID onto it in order to use HTC's developer tools (e.g. unlock the bootloader so I could install a custom ROM), as AT&T made them disable the feature for phones locked to their network; I then had to flash the stock CID back in order for my AT&T SIM to work. T-Mobile? When I went into the store to buy my M7, they explicitly asked me if I intended to run a custom ROM; when I told them I was considering it, they directed me to HTC's site, even told me which links to follow to get to the developer tools page. Love it.

Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Obama, you just took all the fun out of it.. :(

Get rid of the DMCA

[loufoque]

The obvious fix is to get rid of the DMCA.
I don't understand why exemptions are even allowed to be a thing.

Meanwhile, in a little third world country

[Anonymous Coward]

In Chile all prepaid phones comes unlocked. You just switch your SIM. (Did I mention that SII (Internal Revenue Service) also fills my annual tax form for my (I just click "Aceptar")? )

Wait... a law saying something *isn't* illegal?

[wad4ever]

Is it legal for me to take a shower? Quick, get the president to sign a law giving me this freedom!