House-Approved Cell Phone Unlocking Bill Doesn't Permit Bulk Unlocking


Consumers earned a small victory yesterday when the House of Representatives approved a bill that loosens restrictions on cellphone unlocking (modifying phones to work with any carrier after a contract expires). Unfortunately, the act stops short of allowing businesses to unlock phones.
The House voted 295-114 in favor of Rep. Bob Goodlatte's (R-VA) Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, which lost supporters when Goodlatte slipped in a last minute change that "does not permit the unlocking of cell phones for the purpose of bulk resale."
Derek Khanna, a longtime advocate of legalizing unlocking explains to PC World why this addition is problematic:
The new wording favors mobile carriers… Phone companies lobbied to make phone unlocking illegal, and now that the public has responded with outrage and demanded action the phone companies lobbyists have rewritten the legislation to go after their competitors… Many consumers have to rely upon others to unlock their devices for them; under this text small businesses could not provide that service.
Electronics resellers should be able to buy phones from consumers, and after ensuring they're not stolen, unlock them for resale… This is a critical part of how the wireless market functions.
Public Knowledge, an intellectual property advocacy group, retracted its endorsement, expressing a similar sentiment that the bill "pick[s] winners and losers between business models."
Mike Masnick of TechDirt says it's "massively problematic" to "suggest that the unlocker's motives in unlocking has an impact on … whether or not it's legal. And that's an entirely subjective distinction when a bill seems to assume motives."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that "unlocking allows re-use, and that means less electronic waste," and criticizes the legislation for ignoring the "collateral damage" caused by preventing the practice.
This bill "was never the first choice of unlocking advocates," according to The Verge's Adi Robertson, because "instead of permanently legalizing unlocking, it just extended the exemption, which would need to be reexamined anyways in less than two years. But it's been relatively uncontroversial, and so far, it's the only piece of legislation to have passed committee."
Although the practice has been uncontroversial elsewhere in the world, unlocking has been virtually illegal in the U.S. for years, thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
*Idly wonders about Mike Masnick's stance on FCC v. Citizens United*
http://www.techdirt.com/articl.....7997.shtml
lol, silly laws are for honest folk!
http://www.Anon-VPN.com
Remember when Google was first talking about Android and how it was going to completely separate the phone from the carrier and revolutionize mobile phones? Oops.
I do not recall such events.
When Google first released that they were going to get into the mobile OS market, their initial spin on it was that they wanted to create an OS that was carrier-independent, so that people could buy any phone they wanted and then pick a carrier, without having the two be closely intertwined like they are now (and were even more so back then). While Android is technically carrier-independent, those noises dried up fast, and the phones still get bundled with a ton of carrier stuff.
So, get an unlocked Nexus 5. 349 bucks. I'd be tempted to get one myself, if I didn't love my Nokia 920 so.
Of course you can unlock if you really want, I'm just pointing out that Google's initial grand ideas about separating the phones and carriers got ditched pretty fast.
I'm ok with my Galaxy SIII for now.
No, you don't unlock it. It's sold unlocked.
https://www.google.com/nexus/5/
It looks to work on just about every carrier, but I'm not sure about Verizon.
I picked up a Nexus 7 for work and it is blazingly fast and smooth. Google was finally able to throw enough hardware at Android to make it tolerable.
They've actually optimized the software end a lot, too.
I had my Xoom still, when they came out with Project Butter on 4.1.2. It was better, but still jittery and laggy as hell.
But, that's a Tegra chip for you. Give me a Qualcomm any day.
A Tegra 2, no less, which doesn't even have NEON, IIRC.
It does not work on Verizon, which is stricter than the other US carriers about allowing devices on its network.
(the Nexus 5)
That really doesn't have much of anything to do with carrier locking.
Just remember this isn't a weekly series on Cartoon Network, but Uncle Grandpa is.
Fortunately, this was.
Obligatory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRo3u04vY1E
1. Go online
2. Search up "unlock phone"
3. Pay 15 bucks to some Canuck site
4. Enter unlock code
5. Done
No congressional action needed.
I've unlocked a few phones for friends like that. I just don't know why anyone buys a locked phone to start with.
I've never owned a cell phone that was not unlocked. And I haven't had a cell phone contract since 2005.
I don't know why anyone wants a contract or a locked phone.
Two words: subsidized phone.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't just get a new Wal-Mart phone every week and pay cash for it.
Because their cool friends have one.