back to article Want to legally unlock your phone from its network? The US Senate says that's A-OK

In a rare display of equanimity (and common sense), the US Senate has unanimously passed a bill allowing cell phone owners to unlock their handsets, should they choose to do so. "I applaud the Senate for so quickly passing the bipartisan Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, which puts consumers first and …

  1. paleoflatus

    DrBob

    Are they also now allowed to change channels on their TVs in "The Land of the Free", or do they have to keep watching the same commercials on a designated channel?

    1. Mad Chaz

      Re: DrBob

      That one you got backward. The trick here is they sale you a box that's useless on any other service and sale you 100 channels you don't want in a bundle with the 4 you do want, but that are all mysteriously in different "packages".

      The cellphone gig is different. How they did it is they add a small lock code that allows them to claim better "security" for your calls. But due to the DMC's stupid language, that makes changing the code in that illegal. This way, it means you have to pay off your phone if you leave, but can't use it elsewhere. if nothing else, think of all the garbage bags full of fully functional phones. It's basically a way to trap you in.

      1. Bucky 2
        Trollface

        Re: DrBob

        I think "sale" is a transitive verb only in the American South.

        Otherwise, yeah, you've got it spot on.

  2. Irony Deficient

    [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

    Iain, after reading 17 USC §1201 (a) (1), I’d concur with Obama’s view on this — short of waiting until January 2017 to see if Billington (or his successor) changes his mind again, the ball is in the Congressional court.

    1. Eddy Ito

      Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

      Yes but considering Obama's predilection for executive actions in so many other instances where he probably shouldn't, passing the buck in this instance does seem a bit pusillanimous.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

        While President Obama came out in favor of unlocking, he promptly passed the buck...

        What, AGAIN???

      2. User McUser
        Holmes

        Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

        Yes but considering Obama's predilection for executive actions [...]

        Yes, he loves them so much that he's actually only 21st out of 44 for number of executive orders issued (182 as of June 20.) See also: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

        1. Justin Pasher

          Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

          "Yes, he loves them so much that he's actually only 21st out of 44 for number of executive orders issued (182 as of June 20.) See also: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php"

          Uggh... This argument again? The NUMBER of executive orders DOES NOT MATTER. It's the CONTENT of those executive orders that matters. If one president issued 500 executive orders that did small, non-law creating things, that would be so much better than a president that issued just one executive order that established a new law that made everyone take 15 minutes our of every day to personally bow down to him or risk imprisonment. He's already riding the line when it comes to what power he is actually granted by the constitution.

          Now, back on topic...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

            Every president "rides the line" of what is actually granted to him. The problem is that each president takes what the last president did as a starting point, and pushes that line a bit further. Obama is going a bit further than Bush II, who went a bit further than Clinton, and so on.

            It isn't just executive orders, but also rulemaking from the executive branch as a whole. A president could issue zero executive orders and still be pushing the line out if the agencies under him push the line - obviously with his consent as he has the power prevent it.

      3. MacGyver

        Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

        "Yes but considering Obama's predilection for executive actions in so many other instances "

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Presidential_usage

        "By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges. As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.

        .....

        Obama has issued 28 signing statements as of June 17, 2014."

        So, um, no, you're wrong, he does not do what you just said he does. Now you have no reason to say that anymore. So you and every other person like you that regurgitates FOX's "opinion shows" can put it to rest, you have the facts, so stop. Every, damn, day.

        1. Eddy Ito

          Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

          Hey Mac, in case you were wondering Georgie boy is retired so the unemployed monkey is far less dangerous at this point than the current monkey in charge. You see, I dislike both the red and blue teams but it's plainly evident that you're rabid blue and any challenge to your hero can't go undefended. You seem to think I could give a shit about which elitist corporate sock puppet was in charge, Bloomberg-Huffington-KOS news flash (not a Fox news flash because you wouldn't pay attention) - I don't.

          Nice try changing the broad term "executive action" to the more restricted "signing statement" in order to confuse the issue though. Why don't you ask your hero why he is so merciless? For the red and blue teams keeping score Obama 61, GWB 200, Clinton 459, Reagan 406. Even the CICs who didn't do a full two terms managed better GWHB 77, Carter 566, Ford 409 and Nixon 926. I guess that Dukakis commercial way back in the day really got to your boy Barack. LOL.

    2. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: [Obama] promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done.

      "While President Obama came out in favor of unlocking, he promptly passed the buck and said it was up to Congress to get it done."

      Obama didn't "pass the buck". The US president does not have any authority to pass new legislation. At most he can get his staff to draft a law, get one of his supporters in Congress to propose it, use his influence to push the law along etc, but ultimately it comes down to a vote in both houses of Congress, only they can turn proposed legislation into actual legislation.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    I need an explanation..

    "...thanks to an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act enacted by Librarian of Congress James Billington. But unlocking handsets has been illegal since last January, after the Librarian changed his mind on the topic."

    So simply put, someone can change the law on a whim / suitable bribe ?

    1. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: I need an explanation..

      A lot of legislation is written in this way, the law sets out a framework and then leaves it to external agencies to determine the details. It allows some flexibility which is good. It also in theory allows certain calls to be made by domain experts instead of know-nothing politicians, but in practise the appointed officials are just puppets to the know-nothing politicos who appointed them.

      eg drug law mentions class A, B, C drugs but leaves it to an external agency as to what drug is in what class. This determination is more political than scientific, for example alcohol and tobacco are equivalent to many class A drugs in terms of harm/addiction, but are not classified at all. Weed is as close to harmless as a substance can get, but many countries classify it as class A (same as heroin), just because politically the decision-makers want to be seen as 'tough on drugs'.

      Planning/zoning laws are another good example

    2. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: I need an explanation..

      Yes... obviously someone gave the Librarian lots of bananas.

      1. DuncanL

        Don't call him a monke....

        Did anyone get the number of that donkey cart?

        1. MrT

          OOOK!!!

          Ooook...

  4. The First Dave

    Sorry, but what is the connection between "Senator Patrick Leahy" and Deep-Vein Thrombosis ?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Speaking as a Brit I can't help but wonder at how crap the phone contract system is in the US. You guys should try some good old fashioned European style 'socialism' (or Effective Competition Where The Consumer Can Actually Choose as it's otherwise known). Still, the US system is not as bad as the Japanese one which has even crazier contractual tie-ins.

    1. Gannettt

      My first exposure to how backward the US mobile phone market was soon after I moved here in 2008. I signed up and, armed with my shiny new phone, tried to send a text to my wife. Nothing happened. Turned out you had (and still have) to pay extra for text messages on top of your monthly bill...and you have to pay when somene sends you a text.

      It just galls me whenever i visit family in the old country and see some of the ridiculously small amounts, compared to here, that they pay, and what they get for it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "You guys should try some good old fashioned European style 'socialism' (or Effective Competition Where The Consumer Can Actually Choose as it's otherwise known)"

      Don't be so hasty. On typical UK contracts there's a two year tie in that you'd have to buy your way out of if you exit early (which entirely covers the cost of the phone to the operator) and with some providers (notably the verminous EE, coincidentally joint owned by EU incumbents Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom) they charge for unlocking at the end of the contract.

      So the claimed freedom of choice is not quite what it seems, because the deals wrap up the hire purchase of a handset with airtime. Legally I'm free to swap from O2 now, and take my number and use "my" handset, but that legal freedom is of modest value because I'd have to buy out the 18 month contract.

      In all markets, it seems to me the best option is to buy your own handset SIM free, and then just buy airtime separately, trouble is that few of us want to pony up £400 in one go.

    3. MacGyver

      Now hold on.

      I'm not saying the U.S. is the greatest with phone contracts, but at least once our "Contract Period" is up, (which by the way is only so someone can get a $800 phone for $1), we are free. In Germany you have to sign a contract for 2 years whether you get a $800 phone or not. If you bring your own you're still locked into a 2 year contract (of which you are on the hook to them for the whole total of 24 months worth of bills). If you want to cancel your "contract" you owe them money for services you haven't used yet. Add crazy sauce to that, and you get the fact that unless you send "in writing" a request to cancel it 90 days prior to its end, you will get auto-renewed for 12 more months. If you try to cancel that auto-renewed contract a month in, you will have to pay for 11 months of future monthly payments.

      I've never understood why anyone would agree to a multi-year auto-renewing contract with no monetary benefits, but the Germans do it all the time. So, at least the U.S. is better then someone.

  6. hayzoos

    DMCA covering mobile carrier lock is a stretch

    What copyright does the mobile carrier device to network lock protect? As far as I am concerned this agency rule is outside it's jurisdiction. If my phone were unlocked, there is no copyrighted intellectual property at risk due to the unlocking. The carriers will provide you an unlock code if you have essentially paid your dues for the device financed in the contract. You can also buy devices which have never been locked, legally. The only thing these locks protect is the carrier from customer turnover.

    The president does not have the authority to order the change. The rulemaking is within the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

    The recent bills are a waste. By the time the become law, if they do, new rules will be issued by the Librarian of Congress. The Librarian should do some research and consult with the copyright office on what copyrighted intellectual properties are being protected by these locks.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like