Senate passes phone unlocking bill

[Dietrichw]

Source

 

 

The Senate has passed a bill legalizing phone unlocking, following a favorable House vote on a companion bill this spring. The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, brought by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), reinstates a rule allowing consumers to "unlock" their cellphones for use on a different network, whether on their own or using a professional unlocking service. The passage comes over a year after President Barack Obama came out in support of the policy, and about six months after phone companies agreed to adopt clear unlocking practices in the absence of a law

 

Anti-DRM-cracking sections in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act make it potentially illegal to modify a phone's firmware to work on another network. The Library of Congress codifies exceptions to these rules every three years, and it decided to remove the phone unlocking exemption in late 2012. After Obama's statement, a number of bills were introduced to address the issue.

 

The phone companies' agreement in late 2013, brokered by the FCC, made it easier for customers to get a phone unlocked. But supporters of the unlocking bill have said that consumers shouldn't need carrier approval to modify a phone that they own, and that people who receive phones secondhand or otherwise operate outside the normal two-year contract process could fall through the cracks. Leahy's bill doesn't permanently legalize phone unlocking, but it requires the Library of Congress to put an exemption back in place and consider whether to extend it when it comes up for renewal again. It also modifies the rule slightly: in addition to letting consumers unlock a phone themselves, they can direct a third party (like a company or technician) to do it

 

This bill is very similar to the House version passed in February, but one provision has been removed: a ban on unlocking phones "for the purpose of bulk resale." The rule is meant to protect companies like Tracfone, which sell heavily subsidized prepaid phones. But it was decried by groups that believe the DMCA shouldn't govern phone unlocking at all 

 

 

so there are some people in the US Government that don't have their heads completely up their asses

[Bluejay0]

LADIES. GENTLEMEN. TO THE EBAYS

[dlf]

The bills that one (or both) houses pass at random times is so odd. I'd of thought Sprint, T-Mobile, etc would lobby against it.

[ericlee30]

Finally, took long enough damn.

[Chosenminecraft]

The bills that one (or both) houses pass at random times is so odd. I'd of thought Sprint, T-Mobile, etc would lobby against it.

Why would they lobby against it? I am pretty sure as long as a phone supports SIM its already unlocked. Since the account is tied to the SIM and not the phone. I am pretty sure that only Verizon and AT&T use locked and phones that dont support SIM. I think they would be in support of it because this allows for more of the exclusive phones for the other brands to come to Sprint and T-Mobile at a MUCH cheaper cost to the consumer.

[TopWargamer]

Yay, my phone is now legal.

[emachado99]

Meanwhile in Canada... Phone unlocking has always been legal

[ZombieMan762]

Locking should be illegal in the first place. It's akin to buying a car and only being able to buy gas from the dealership you bought the car at. You either own the phone or you don't. If we own the phone we should be able to use it as we wish. The contract for service should have nothing to do with the device. AT&T won't even unlock phones you buy outright at full price.

[Peacefulwarrior]

Why would they lobby against it? I am pretty sure as long as a phone supports SIM its already unlocked. Since the account is tied to the SIM and not the phone. I am pretty sure that only Verizon and AT&T use locked and phones that dont support SIM. I think they would be in support of it because this allows for more of the exclusive phones for the other brands to come to Sprint and T-Mobile at a MUCH cheaper cost to the consumer.

Through Verizon, your phone is tied to your account along with the SIM and they do support SIMs.

[Derangel]

Why would they lobby against it? I am pretty sure as long as a phone supports SIM its already unlocked. Since the account is tied to the SIM and not the phone. I am pretty sure that only Verizon and AT&T use locked and phones that dont support SIM. I think they would be in support of it because this allows for more of the exclusive phones for the other brands to come to Sprint and T-Mobile at a MUCH cheaper cost to the consumer.

 

No, just because your phone has a sim slot does not mean it is unlocked. I'm not sure about T-Mobile but Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T all sell locked phones. The phones and their respective sim cards are tied to your account. Pretty sure this also applies if you're paying full price for a device. However all three of those carriers support sim cards.

[Chosenminecraft]

No, just because your phone has a sim slot does not mean it is unlocked. I'm not sure about T-Mobile but Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T all sell locked phones. The phones and their respective sim cards are tied to your account. Pretty sure this also applies if you're paying full price for a device. However all three of those carriers support sim cards.

 

I knew Sprint and T-Mobile did but I didnt know that the others did as well. I have never really looked into AT&T and Verizon much since they are too expensive for me and that T-mobile has the Twin Cities (Minnesotan) as their 2nd strongest coverage area I believe, not positive though on how accurate that is.

 

Through Verizon, your phone is tied to your account along with the SIM and they do support SIMs.

 

As far as im aware I think after T-Mobile made all the changes last year your account is only tied to your SIM and has no more ties to your phone at all