FCC Might Investigate Whether Or Not Ban On Cell Phone Unlocking Should Have Been Allowed
from the obama-administration-vs.-obama-administration dept
This one is so odd I almost wonder if there were some key points lost in translation (not in language, but from "policy wonk speak" to "journalist speak"). We've talked plenty about the recent move by the Librarian of Congress not to renew the DMCA exemption for unlocking your mobile phone. That story kicked up a lot of anger and protests from people. And while there has been some talk of trying to convince the administration to change the ruling, the general sense seemed to be that the issue would just wait for the review period, which happens ever three years.However, Greg Ferenstein at TechCrunch is reporting that FCC boss Julius Genachowski claimed that not only were there "concerns" about the ruling, but also that the FCC was going to investigate the matter:
The "ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns."Of course, he also admitted that he might not have any actual authority over this particular issue (he doesn't). As great as it would be for some other agency within the same administration to come out and counter another agency concerning this issue, that still seems unlikely. The FCC's mandate almost certainly doesn't stretch so far as to permit unlocked phones, but it sounds like Genachowski is interested in seeing if he can find some way to find that authority somewhere, somehow.
Genachowski isn't sure what authority he has, but if he finds any, given the tone of the conversation, it's likely he will exert his influence to reverse the decision. "It's something that we will look at at the FCC to see if we can and should enable consumers to use unlocked phones."In the end, I can't see how the FCC has a legitimate say in the matter, even if I agree with their stance that consumers should be able to unlock their phones.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, dmca, exemptions, fcc, julius genachowski, mobile phone unlocking, unlocking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I mean really if you're paying 200, 300, or even 400 dollars for a phone what right do they have to tell you what you can and can't do with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
Paying $700 for an unlocked phone is also "craven obedience to corporate tyranny".
The real issue here is that subsidy locking has nothing to do with Copyright protection. Copyright was intended to prevent copying of covered material. Nobody is copying the ROM's of these locked phones so that they can use them on unlicensed devices. In fact, the opposite is true: users are unlocking phones so that they can use open-source code on their purchased hardware.
And this doesn't even start to cover the practice of locking the bootloader on tablets and PC's. There is absolutely NO logical reason to prevent a user from installing a third party OS on a tablet or PC. When I walk out of the store with a computer, my transaction with the manufacturer is DONE. I don't pay maintenance or service fees, so what purpose is served under Copyright by locking these devices?
I think Congress needs to take a look at this practice in general. If I had my way, ALL computing devices would have a simple software switch that allows the user to load any firmware or OS he desires. Loading my OS of choice on a tablet should be no different than loading a new OS on my 5 year old desktop PC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
The problem is that it's hard to think up a more blatant and obvious abuse of copyright law than this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
Those are not toys anymore they are actually full blown computing platforms full of sensors.
Having a cellphone today means the difference between having a market to sell produce or not in Africa, it means the difference between having a job interview/client or not.
We could possibly start building our own, but then we get shutdown by 50 K patents that in a de facto manner locked up the entire sector.
This is exactly why granting monopolies should abhour everyone, it makes life difficult to everybody.
Seriously though I am not surprised with your statements since I know you are a fool, you preach against the rich which I couldn't care less about it but for some reason ignores how they become rich in the first place, most of them use exclusive tools to do it and you are in favor of that crap, how idiotic is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
Where I really have a problem with this law is the fact that it is really unnecessary. They say that locking the phone is is important so that you stay with them long enough to earn back the money they use to subsidize the phone, but that's silly because before they will subsidize the phone I have to sign a contract saying that I will stay with them for 2 years, with heavy penalties if I jump carriers early. After the contract is up I can request that the phone be unlocked, and most of the time they will unlock it.
Also, there is more than 1 type of lock.
I got a Droid DNA, which has a locked boot loader, but is carrier unlocked out of the box. Meaning, if I want to travel internationally or put another carriers sim in I can no problem, but if I want to mod it I have to unlock it. And to be honest, I don't know if this law covers locked boot loaders or just locked carriers.
Thankfully, I got it and unlocked the boot loader just before the deadline, so either way I'm legal, but it's still kind of confusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
Both locks are a form of protection and may be covered by the DMCA. (I'm actually not sure if the DMCA actually prohibits this, since subsidy and bootloader locks are not for the purposes of copy protection. Copyright has no interest in enforcing contracts or preserving subscription fees.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 1st, 2013 @ 1:35pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one is forcing me to buy a hammer, but i would be quite upset if after i bought the hammer i could only use brand X nails even though it would just as well with brand Y nails. Its not any business of the hardware stores what brand nails I buy, and before you say but your phone is subsidized!!! That why I have to sign a multiyear contact with early termination fees, if anything I’m doing them a favor by paying them yet not using up there service. If they change to little in termination fees to re-coup there cost if I choose to leave that’s their problem. No one is forcing them to sell me a phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its an issue when they press criminal changes against 1,000 out of those million people and one of those 1,000 happens to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kog999
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Authority
FCC can't stop devices being locked - but they could create an excuse to ban them from the airwaves. Arguably all s/w on a device capable of transmitting should be open source and verifiable on every device for health/safety/interference suppression reasons - seems to fall under the FCC mandate to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pull the Pin, FCC!
Just reclassify broadband/ISPs as common carriers under Title II. Certainly there's a lot of work to go with that to make it happen, but it's certainly within their domain. No congressional action needed.
Put on your Big Boy Pants, Genachowski!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pull the Pin, FCC!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something's not right
But the idea of the FCC intervening in the name of competition and innovation? Are we talking about the same ol' FCC we know and love? Acts of largesse aren't exactly commonplace around that joint... wonder what the angle is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something's not right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wall of separation
Most of the problems in the "smartphone" market are due to it being run by data suppliers who use teaser prices to tempt you to buy hardware, then try to make for it on the back end. This leads to all sorts of craziness in the data market. And I define "crazy" as "some types of bits cost 1000 times more than other types of bits." If the bandwidth suppliers are solely in the business of supplying bandwith they would have to knock that crap off.
Maybe it's time we started calling them "pocket computers (with voice telecom functionality)" instead of "phones" so we can start thinking of the hardware purchase as one transaction and purchasing bandwidth as another. I'm not forced into a long term contract with an ISP when I buy a desktop computer, why do I get one with a pocket computer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not understand why it needs to be renewed.
Similarly, I do not understand why the violence against women act needs to be renewed.
It is quite plain and simple, what could possibly change and thus make the concept untenable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kog999
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kog999
The same thing will happen here. The people creating the unlocks will either get jailed or sued Jammie Thomas style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contracts already protect carriers without unlocking
If I buy it subsidized I have to sign a contract saying that I'll stick with them for a couple years, with penalties if I jump carriers early.
Locking the phones is a waste of resources at best and anti competitive at worst.
The only good thing I can say about it is that if I go through the hassle of getting it unlocked after the contract is up, I can resell it for more than the guy that didn't get it unlocked, and probably sell it faster too due to more demand for phones that let you do what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]