15 replies to this topic

[aktrazer]

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

 

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

  58.83KB   92 downloads

We all remember January 26th, 2012, when unlocking cell phones from being carrier specific became illegal. Well, it seems the White House has responded to the petition (currently signed by over 114,000 people).

Here are a few snippets from the response issued by David Edelman, Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy:

"The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs."

"The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."

So it seems the White House supports the fact that devices should be able to be unlocked after the contractual agreement with the service provider has been fulfilled and is a matter of "common sense, [and] crucial for protecting customer choice..."

Now, this in no way means that it will happen anytime soon but it's a reasonable assumption that the administration will be addressing this issue in the near future. It's important to remember that the Library of Congress (who dealth with this issue in January) is a legislative branch and there is probably more red tape than any of us have ever seen, but this seems to be a very good start and the administration seems to understand the benefits of keeping unlocked phones in play.

What do you think? Are you glad that the administration is siding with the people on this? Let us know!

Source:

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

[LDubs]

Well this is good news indeed. Glad they want to extend this to tablets too.

[hecksagon]

....or other obligation.

Extremely vague wording there.

[robocuff]

I don't really see it as anything more than lip service to a particular group of people. When I see them get on TV and start pushing for the law to change, then I might say thank you Mr. President.

Let's face it. A lot of people had to have had their palms buttered for this law to pass in the first place. Perhaps I'm just short sighted but I can't see any real legitimate reason for congress to pass such a law. What possible harm can come to any one of us because somebody unlocks their sim and uses their phone on another carrier's system? If somebody can tell me I'm open to hear it but in the absence any harm to the general public there's really no reason to pass any law. That's why laws are made (supposedly).

Only reason I can see for this one being passed is because the phone companies want to sell phones and, well, more than likely they pushed for it (aka buttered.......... ). If people who voted for the law also received campaign donations from the cell companies, well, I wouldn't hold my breath on it being repealed in the near future. Also, remember this too. The president had to sign the bill to make it law. So.................

Call me a cynic if you want. I could be wrong about this but, that's the way it looks to me right now.

[johnlgalt]

You might choose to see lip service, but without this first step we'd have to wait until a congressional delegate offered this up for some sort of review in some congressional panel or another - and that would never happen simply b/c of the long arm of the lobby.

The reason is simple - the companies have clout, and it's not just buttered palms - it's the real threat of taking business overseas and dropping markets in the US that make such laws get enacted.

As for DMCA itself, it's not just the cell phone companies that passed the law - we've had to deal with the **AAs for a long time and we've allowed them to become almost omnipotent. By **AAs I'm referring to RIAA and MPAA specifically, although there are certainly other organizations that can be branded under the same umbrella b/c of their active stance against free and open internet, file sharing and the like. And these 'foundations' or whatever you want to call them have been pushing for this for very long time - ever since they got scared by Napster.

The DMCA is not new and was not signed into law by Obama. Not even Bush. The original DMCA dates back to the Clinton administration. See

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

- lots of info there. For a more simple POV (from that ofa University) you can read

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

. And, finally, there is the Wikipedia page as well -

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

.

If you read the wording, and in particular the part at Wikipedia where it states

It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

, then you see where the Cell Service providers jumped on it to make their own case regarding cell phones.

Furthermore, there is this little tidbit:

...the DMCA amended

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

of the

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

for

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

by their users.

This would have ANY service provider that is in the business of providing access to the Internet in any form - NNTP, FTP, HTTP, etc. - sitting free and clear, above the law, so to speak, in the case of a violation. Needless to say, this provision probably had lotsof backers - from VZW and AT&T to Cox Communications to Dish Network and DirecTV to NetZero to AOL - in fact, just about anyone who offered services to someone else in the form of access.

Thus, to hold only the cell Service providers at fault here is very incorrect.

[nakedtime]

Call me a libertarian, but it seems pretty simple to me... If you actually care, then why did you "buy" a subsidized phone in the first place?

[nakedtime]

***edit
Not knowing how to delete posts. Fail

[nailbomb3]

Keep in mind that Verizon does millions of dollars in national security business. No surprise that they get what they want.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[johnlgalt]

Call me a libertarian, but it seems pretty simple to me... If you actually care, then why did you "buy" a subsidized phone in the first place?

Because the average cost of a 'bleeding-edge' phone unsubsidized is well over $500.

Keep in mind that Verizon does millions of dollars in national security business. No surprise that they get what they want.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Good point.

[hecksagon]

This really isn't about keeping service providers from going overseas. They are a service based company. They have billions of dollars invested in their network infrastructure. Their retail stores have to be where their service is provided. They can't just leave their massive infrastructure and every customer they have behind and even be a business anymore. This has more to do with the capital these companies have "invested" in the capitol. If lawmakers want to continue to see cash flowing into their campaigns and their wallets, they do as the company asks. The White house staff on the other hand is scrutinized much more closely than congress. They don't get nearly as much payoff because its too easy for the public to see. That's why they can say something like this and perhaps even push for it. Presidents don't get rich, senators do.

[nakedtime]

Because the average cost of a 'bleeding-edge' phone unsubsidized is well over $500.

My brother has t mobile and gets faster and stronger internet connection than my Verizon lte. Hey pays 30$ a month and has unlimited data. My Verizon lte costs me 200$/mo for 3 phones. That's a 35$ difference per phone per month... I would much rather his bleeding edge 350$ nexus 4 than my contractually obligatory 2 years on a phone thats only on the bleeding edge for a month or 2.

[robocuff]

Well, sign up with Tmobile then. And, before you say you are stuck with Verizon for two years, you weren't before you signed on that dotted line.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Pyrotech72]

I can see where this could make carriers more competitive (instead of Verizon losing customers to Straight Talk, for instance.)

 

I think the line that sums the response up is "neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation."  I agree completely with this, depending on what the "other obligation" is.  I'm probably repeating someone else, but if I can terminate my phone service and keep the phone without having to pay anything else, it's my phone and I should be able to switch to another provider that the phone will work with.

[Hero_Indeed]

Yeah, I agree, it is all so vaguely worded.  Regardless of the number of signers on the petition, I would speculate that the response from the White House is meant more to quell the uprising than for any action to take place anytime soon.  It is in the Government's best interest to keep the wheels turning, not take on cell phone carriers. That isn't to say I don't want what everyone else does, I'm just a bit skeptical is all.

[jimgfitzgerald]

Congress would have to make this change and the Republican Party is blocking everything.

[nakedtime]

Well, sign up with Tmobile then. And, before you say you are stuck with Verizon for two years, you weren't before you signed on that dotted line.

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Sorry for the late reply. I've done the calculations and such. My contract is over in September. With 350$ for phone and 185$ etf, I come out pretty far in the red only saving 35$/mo. Even without factoring the cost of the phone in, I'm barely in the black. I'll be fine waiting until sept and who knows, there could be a fifth gen nexus out and about by then