So, just a quick bit of context here. While the NTIA ask for a rulemaking from the FCC is awesome, we'll see whether the FCC actually act upon it. Based on the most recent statement from the FCC, they're still trying to get carriers to come to a voluntary agreement (i.e. regulate themselves) which would mean less work for the FCC.<p>Either way, the real issue at the heart of unlocking is fixing the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, which would open up the market so that private parties can freely develop and distribute unlocking software. We've been lobbying for this in DC making some degree of progress, but even the best legislation out there right now is quite far from perfect.
For what it's worth, as someone who does not unlock, I see this as potentially negative. Why? Because the so-called "Unlocking Technology Act", among other initiatives, has been using the clout of the unlocking issue to promote essentially a wholesale repeal of the DMCA anticircumvention, citing its interference with exploit-based software unlocks as a core justification. This recommendation would require carriers to provide unlocks themselves rather than making hackers do it, which would be much better for unlockers, but obviate the need for circumvention. Yet all the other other use cases harmed by anticircumvention would remain, many of which affect me personally (and probably many HN users), but which might not gather as broad public understanding and support as unlocking currently does.
I no longer think "hey! awesome the government is trying to help us out" anymore when I read articles like this. I only think "I wonder what sort of benefits the government and associated business get because of this."
>Some argue that making it legal to unlock cellphones could make it too easy for consumers to take copyrighted software between carriers<p>Eh, like what exactly? AT&T's crappy map software?
The consumer side of me likes this...the libertarian side of me laments it. Why not just go ahead and force Gilette to make their razor's handles fit Schick blades, or have Macs come pre-installed with Windows too, etc? Maybe not 100% perfect analogies, but you get the drift. It's hard to root for the carriers but I dont see how phone locking is entirely unreasonable, and I struggle to see how it's worthy of legislation that outright bans it.
Personally, a bigger deal for me would be if they required the carriers to go to move to a "pay to send" for text messages. I hate it that someone else can force me to incur a charge for unwanted text messages.
I was completely unaware of the legal issues surrounding cell phone network unlocking. I remember that, in the past, all you had to do was ask your cell carrier to unlock your device and they would comply.<p>That the present legislation has been enacted shows how some of the people involved in enacting this travesty are as clueless as I am.<p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/mobile/fcc-suggests-congress-create-a-bill-to-make-cell-phone-unlocking-legal/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/mobile/fcc-suggests-congress-create-a-b...</a><p><a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/phone-unlocking-more-popular-ever-becoming-illegal-january-1383147" rel="nofollow">http://www.ibtimes.com/phone-unlocking-more-popular-ever-bec...</a>
Instead of requiring carriers to unlock devices, he could just announce that the DOJ would fail to prosecute anyone who does choose to do it. It's possible to right a wrong <i>without</i> asserting additional executive powers.
>Some argue that making it legal to unlock cellphones could make it too easy for consumers to take copyrighted software between carriers.<p>My carrier does not have code on my phone, and my carrier does not need code on my phone.
You can already buy unlocked cell phones on Amazon and elsewhere, if you pay the full price of the phone. For example, Amazon sells an unlocked iPhone 5 (16GB) for $665.55. If a carrier gives you hundreds of dollars of subsidies for a phone, they should only be required to unlock it after your contract has terminated.
I think they'll need to work on their definition and enforcement actions if this is to become a reality.<p>Verizon are already supposed to unlock their LTE devices in exchange for the use of their LTE bands, but many Verizon LTE devices are crippled in software when unlocked (with the notable exception of iPhones where Apple control the software).<p>As an example, the Verizon HTC 8X does not allow the user to alter the MMS gateway or roaming options and Verizon Samsung Galaxy phones used to need to be rooted to change the APN for data.<p>Sadly the mobile phone market is enough of a cabal at this point that more and more specific regulation might be the only way to make competitive consumer-friendly measures like this work.
How does this make it easier for the NSA to track US Citizens down? I mean would meta-data or meta-data collection be any different if the phones were locked?