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

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

[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

[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

[JackieBrown]

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

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: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: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...

[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...

[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: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

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.