Cellular device unlocking bill passed by US House, President Obama says will sign into law
After passing through U.S. Senate last week, the House of Representatives on Friday cleared a bill regarding cellphone and tablet owners' rights to unlock their hardware for use on a different carrier's network.
The U.S. House signed off on Senate Bill 517, a proposed law that would enable cellular device users to unlock their hardware and switch to a competing carrier without penalty, something that is currently illegal. The Senate pushed the bill through last week.
Following successfully passage through Congress, President Barack Obama needs to sign the piece of legislation into law, which he will do shortly, according to a White House release.
From President Obama:
The contents of S.517 effectively overturns a prior decision from the Librarian of Congress, who in 2012 dissolved an exemption in the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA) that allowed cellphones to be unlocked. After a 90-day buffer period, the DMCA stipulation went into effect in January 2013.
Interestingly, S.517 fails to limit so-called "bulk unlocking," or the practice of unlocking multiple phones, tablets and other devices for resale purposes. An earlier version saw the House tac on a clause that prohibited bulk unlocking, though the final draft being sent to the White House contains no mention of the stipulation.
Cellular service providers "lock" phones and other devices they sell to their proprietary network in an effort to thwart customer flight to a competing carrier's service. Providers used the method to ensure continuing subscription revenue from customers who purchased subsidized hardware.
The U.S. House signed off on Senate Bill 517, a proposed law that would enable cellular device users to unlock their hardware and switch to a competing carrier without penalty, something that is currently illegal. The Senate pushed the bill through last week.
Following successfully passage through Congress, President Barack Obama needs to sign the piece of legislation into law, which he will do shortly, according to a White House release.
From President Obama:
President Obama's comments came in an emailed update on a "We the People" petition signed by more than 114,000 people, who asked the administration to "restore a basic consumer freedom: to take your mobile service -- and a phone or tablet you already own -- to the carrier that best suits your needs."I applaud Members of Congress for passing the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. Last year, in response to a "We the People" petition from consumers across our country, my Administration called for allowing Americans to use their phones or mobile devices on any network they choose. We laid out steps the FCC, industry, and Congress should take to ensure copyright law does not undermine wireless competition, and worked with wireless carriers to reach a voluntary agreement that helps restore this basic consumer freedom. The bill Congress passed today is another step toward giving ordinary Americans more flexibility and choice, so that they can find a cell phone carrier that meets their needs and their budget. I commend Chairmen Leahy and Goodlatte, and Ranking Members Grassley and Conyers for their leadership on this important consumer issue and look forward to signing this bill into law.
The contents of S.517 effectively overturns a prior decision from the Librarian of Congress, who in 2012 dissolved an exemption in the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA) that allowed cellphones to be unlocked. After a 90-day buffer period, the DMCA stipulation went into effect in January 2013.
Interestingly, S.517 fails to limit so-called "bulk unlocking," or the practice of unlocking multiple phones, tablets and other devices for resale purposes. An earlier version saw the House tac on a clause that prohibited bulk unlocking, though the final draft being sent to the White House contains no mention of the stipulation.
Cellular service providers "lock" phones and other devices they sell to their proprietary network in an effort to thwart customer flight to a competing carrier's service. Providers used the method to ensure continuing subscription revenue from customers who purchased subsidized hardware.
Comments
Best news I've heard all week.
Now to hope that the FCC doesn't screw anything relating to net neutrality(miracle).
Could you not buy an unlocked phone before? And any locked phone was one purchased via a 2-year contract which reduced the up front cost of the phone. Now, if anyone can unlock their phone at any time, what incentive does the carrier have to subsidize the phone?
The situation was already much better than it has been but this will allow a lot of orphan devices to be brought back into prepaid service etc.
They still get you locked into a 2 year contract.
I'm just surprised that a piece of legislation came out of the House.
Both the House and Senate send each other bills all the time. They promptly set the bills from the other house on fire.
But that's normal and proper, I like slow government. Fast government gives us bad stuff.
All I would have wanted is that you be allowed to unlock the device after the contract is up, seeing as you've paid for it...
Harry Reid has over 200 bills from the House waiting for him to take to the floor.
Know what you're talking about before spitting it.
So... Theoretically, Apple could stop with all the SKU's they have of different carrier phones... and essentially provide completely unlocked phones across the board? I mean... Even though you're buying an unlocked phone from AT&T, Verizon, Etc.. You're still locked into a contract... So the carriers have nothing to lose.
Makes Apples inventory much cleaner. Or am I wrong?
What a maroon....
Harry Reid has over 200 bills from the House waiting for him to take to the floor.
Know what you're talking about before spitting it.
mhm.... let's not ignore the wisdom of "quality over quantity"...
I'm guessing roughly 50 of those 200 are related to repealing the ACA.
Another 50 hastily cobbled together and forced through with a slim margin related to undermining specific sections (aka line-item disruption) of the ACA and...
Another 50 "sense of Congress" bills pushed through hastily to protest the very existence of the ACA...
Another 40 bills related to lowering taxes on the rich while cutting critical programs from all levels of government and a faux "jobs bill" here and there.... one or two related to questioning Obama's citizenship and.... one bill enabling a memorial statue of a civil war hero to be erected in a park in Ohio.
And Reid? He certainly has better things to do with the time spent waiting for a "do nothing Congress" to get off their collective asses and start legislating to the ACTUAL benefit of all of us...
We have some interminable problems that are getting ZERO congressional action or focus. But they've got time to sue the President using taxpayer's dollars!!!
Anything else?
PS: note, I am indeed making up pretty much the entire "list" of House bills pending before the Senate. However, a closer look will illustrate that there isn't much worthy of the Senate's time being sent to the Senate. And so my satirical approach has valid context.
So do those bills include the one that wants to impeach Obama for being President while black?
What a maroon....
no that's spelled "moran".... as in, "get it right, moran!"
So do those bills include the one that wants to impeach Obama for being President while black?
What a maroon....
Do you want to see a moron (notice the spelling)? Go look in the mirror.
There is no bill to impeach Obama that has passed and is sitting in the Senate (which is not how impeachment works). And certainly no bill to impeach Obama because of his race. In fact, no bill at all is used in impeachment. That Republicans want to impeach Obama, or oppose him at all, due to his race is the straw man that the media and liberals put up (aka "race card") to deflect away from the amateur in the White House who screws up everything he touches. Opposition to Obama has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his policies, ideology, and abilities (or lack there of).
mhm.... let's not ignore the wisdom of "quality over quantity"...
I'm guessing roughly 50 of those 200 are related to repealing the ACA.
Another 50 hastily cobbled together and forced through with a slim margin related to undermining specific sections (aka line-item disruption) of the ACA and...
Another 50 "sense of Congress" bills pushed through hastily to protest the very existence of the ACA...
Another 40 bills related to lowering taxes on the rich while cutting critical programs from all levels of government and a faux "jobs bill" here and there.... one or two related to questioning Obama's citizenship and.... one bill enabling a memorial statue of a civil war hero to be erected in a park in Ohio.
And Reid? He certainly has better things to do with the time spent waiting for a "do nothing Congress" to get off their collective asses and start legislating to the ACTUAL benefit of all of us...
We have some interminable problems that are getting ZERO congressional action or focus. But they've got time to sue the President using taxpayer's dollars!!!
Anything else?
PS: note, I am indeed making up pretty much the entire "list" of House bills pending before the Senate. However, a closer look will illustrate that there isn't much worthy of the Senate's time being sent to the Senate. And so my satirical approach has valid context.
Reid has blocked all substantial bills that have come out of the House. The "Do Nothing" Congress is in the Senate, not the House.
Are you serious?
Well there is this... Which is what I immediately thought of.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=maroon
I guess it's who's ox is being gored...just one quick example-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-legislation-obama-dccc-event-106481.htm
Do you want to see a moron (notice the spelling)? Go look in the mirror.
There is no bill to impeach Obama that has passed and is sitting in the Senate (which is not how impeachment works). And certainly no bill to impeach Obama because of his race. In fact, no bill at all is used in impeachment. That Republicans want to impeach Obama, or oppose him at all, due to his race is the straw man that the media and liberals put up (aka "race card") to deflect away from the amateur in the White House who screws up everything he touches. Opposition to Obama has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his policies, ideology, and abilities (or lack there of).
It is spelled correctly. Ever watch Looney Tunes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
It's not really more up front cost; it's more transparency. I expect the other carriers to follow what T-Mobile is doing (and most European carriers, too): give a low interest loan so that you pay for the phone with your monthly bill over two years. Anything that hurts AT&T and Verizon is good for the consumer.