FCC To Investigate Cell Phone Unlocking Ban 65
Edgewood_Dirk writes "In response to the recent White House petition, the FCC will be investigating the viability and possible harm of the ban on cell-phone unlocking. Gregory Ferenstein met with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at a TechCrunch CrunchGov event Wednesday, where the Chairman said the 'ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns.'"
This line from the end of the article fails to inspire confidence: "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."
maybe check out FCC.gov (Score:5, Insightful)
""Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do [fcc.gov] and specifically to
" Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities;
Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution;
Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally;
Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism;
Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure."
Re:maybe check out FCC.gov (Score:5, Insightful)
also if they have no authority and can't get anything done, get lost and give me my tax dollars back.
Re: (Score:1)
also if they have no authority and can't get anything done, get lost and give me my tax dollars back.
Ah no, sorry. That is the one authority they do seem to have...taking your tax dollars while granting you to do...well, nothing about it.
Re: (Score:3)
>> "Why aren't you demanding the useless fucks in congress give you your tax money back"?
The only problem with that is it would require those self-same useless fucks to get up off their larded arses and DO something.
Question: How do you starve a member of Congress?
Answer: Hide their paycheck under their WORK boots.
Re:maybe check out FCC.gov (Score:5, Insightful)
None of which indicates what legal recourse he can take in the instance.
That's what he is talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
you are completely correct. however,
like AC already wrote, if they can't do shit, they can gtfo
and give taxpayers the $350million dollars back.
Re: (Score:1)
No, actually, while it may not be clear whether or not the FCC has the authority to regulate cell phone locking/unlocking, its pretty clear that the FCC doesn't have the authority to decide to disband or to redistribute appropriate funds to individual taxpayers.
For either changing the jurisdiction of the FCC, or abolishing it and doing something else with the funds, you need action by either a majority
Re:maybe check out FCC.gov (Score:5, Insightful)
None of which indicates what legal recourse he can take in the instance.
That's what he is talking about.
Well they seem to rewrite FCC regulations at will when they want to swap frequencies or ban certain devices. Usually with no change in the law.
Why are they investigating the effects of "ban on cell-phone unlocking." Why aren't they investigating a BAN on Celphone Locking? Several other countries have such a ban. Why do we allow such locking anyway? The carriers have your credit card, they have a contract, why do they need a lock on on your phone?
Re: (Score:3)
Because a customer with mandatory adware and spyware on their phone is more valuable than one without.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a customer with mandatory adware and spyware on their phone is more valuable than one without.
You're confusing locking with rooting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because a "ban on cellphone locking" is what we have, so its what it is necessary to examine the effects of.
A ban on cellphone locking would be a potential remedy, if the results of the investigation were that cellphone locking had effects so bad that it needed to be prohibited as a practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a "ban on cellphone locking" is what we have, so its what it is necessary to examine the effects of.
Ok, I took a different english course than you.
We have a ban on cellphone unlocking since the librarian of congress terminated the exception to the DMCA. It is now illegal to unlock your phone. Unlocking your phone is banned.
There is no ban on locking your phone. Almost every carrier does it.
Re: (Score:3)
The scope of legal authority of a regulatory agency is not, surprising as it might seen, "everything that might plausibly fit within the description the agency provides of its general function on its website."
Whether or not an agency has the legal authority to take action on a specific question which it has not previously addressed is something that the head of the agency might want
Re: (Score:1)
Re:maybe check out FCC.gov (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it would be pretty dumb to ask the President and/or Congress to change the FCC's existing authority with regard to this issue that they have not previously concerned themselves with without first ascertaining what their existing authority is and whether or not it is sufficient for any action they feel it is necessary to take.
The head of the FCC stating at the beginning of getting an ass
Re: (Score:3)
""Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do [fcc.gov] and specifically to
" Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities; Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution; Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally; Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism; Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure."
Let me highlight that for you.
the FCC has all the authority it wants (Score:2)
the way you gain authority, remember, it to use it. a court or a mob may signal if you overreach. but since all radio wave communications is regulated by the FCC, as well as commercial broadcast, and considering that the operation of cell phone systems is licensed in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, ol' Frank Charlie Charlie can do whatever they want, up to and including seizing equipment, levelling a fine every time carrier comes on, and jailing people found in violation of regulations.
The FCC has done similar before. (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC has done a lot of similar things, say for example mandating that cable companies can't sell boxes that don't include a cablecard, or requiring all cable companies to permit self install of cablecards.
What would stop them from outright forbidding cell phone locking?
Re:The FCC has done similar before. (Score:5, Informative)
Regulatory agencies are empowered by specific positive grants of power. The appropriate question is "what would allow them to...", not "what would stop them from..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would stop them from outright forbidding cell phone locking?
Money
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... the cause of and answer to all of life's and the government's problems...
They already likely took money from these carriers and the lobbying groups to fuck up the legal state of phone unlocking... what's a bit more gonna hurt?
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's a lot of money in cableco only leased cable boxes. Seriously, those damn things are expensive to lease, and the cable lobby is pretty strong too.
Who's harm? (Score:2)
FCC will be investigating the viability and possible harm of the ban on cell-phone unlocking.
Possible harm to customers or to the mobile providers?
There is very little to investigate -- if I don't explicitly seek out an "unlocked" phone, even the phone that isn't subsidized may be locked by the providers. Why isn't that strictly illegal already?
Re: (Score:1)
Why isn't that strictly illegal already?
I agree the law prohibiting it should not exist, but it is not the disaster many make it sound like. Both are available. If you don't want a locked phone, buy an unlocked one! I have no intention of ever buying a locked phone, but thankfully almost every model I've looked at including the latest, most modern phones, are available unlocked. Unless that situation changes, and I really doubt it will, this doesn't seem like a huge problem.
If people buy locked down shit, and you get what they deserve.
Re: (Score:3)
You are, like the people who figured that it was acceptable to lift the dmca exception that permitted cell phone unlocking until a couple of weeks ago, on the grounds that there is currently a respectable availability of unlocked phones for consumers to utilize anyways, failing to realize the perhaps less than immediately obvious unintended consequences of outlawing the unlocking of new cell phones.
In creating laws which protect locked cell pho
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, unless the box explicity says the phone is not locked, then it is. Being simlocked to a specific carrier is "the default" condition in the US, regardless of if you elect to pay full price up front or not.
Ergo, if you waltz into the ATT store, and see that sexy samsung galaxy smartphone, and whip out the 600 to 1000$ to pay for it, the clerk will reach behind the counter, pull out the box, and hand it to you. The box says nothing about it being carrier locked. But it is. Take it to a T-mobile sto
Publicity stunt (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You people are idiots.
The Whitehouse create a way to get more public input, and the acts on it, but no, no one is ever happy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Publicity stunt (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Supposedly the House of Representatives is responsible for spending bills so why should petitioning the President mess that up?
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as I see one of those "public input" things being seriously discussed (and I don't mean a publicity "see, we are talking about it" stunt on C-SPAN) and not just laughed off in the cafeteria, we can start talking.
Re: (Score:3)
How about, actual policy directives in response to one [whitehouse.gov], which goes beyond even "being seriously discussed".
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only they could do something similar with something more serious (such as the TSA). The way they handled the TSA petition was simply comical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A substantial share of government-backed research is done by the agency which already had the mandate that the petition sought to extend to other agencies.
So what?
Its a perfect example of the response to a petition exceeding what GGP asked for with regard to seeing of the petitions being at least "seriously discussed". You should probably not post bas
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, "Take 'Yes' for an answer guys." This is one of the more positive results from a WH petition.
Even if the FCC doesn't act on cellphone unlocking, when the FCC Chairman is on record saying the "ban [on unlocking] raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns," that's got to be worth some points at next year's LoC DCMA-exemption hearings.
Re: (Score:2)
The Whitehouse create a way to get more public input, and the acts on it, but no, no one is ever happy.
We will see, of course, but the response record is pretty spotty so far. And the reviewing authority stating that "he is not sure what authority he has" does not inspire much confidence.
Not many petitions get as much as a thoughtful response ("Build a Deathstar" was one of the best written, that says something). I believe the "acted on" petitions are in single digits - and not any of the controversial ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Spotty? I think the word you were looking for is shitty. I have yet to see a response that was actually worth a shit. I have signed several petitions too, including this one. Every single one of them had to have been a god damn joke. The many petitions from the time the site went up calling for an end to the drug war and the legalization of marijuana and hemp all get pretty much the same government anti-drug propaganda bullshit that they've been spewing for decades while claiming to be based on "scient
Re: (Score:1)
Because they think that because 100k people out of 300million are unhappy with this ban Obama should immediately order a drone attack on the guy who did the banning and then send CIA kill teams in to wipe out the leadership of every wireless carrier in the country. Anything less than that and they will be unhappy with his response to this. Of course had he done that they would then complain about how he is ignoring the constitution.
The reason we have such crappy lying politicians is because the USA is fil
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong branch (Score:2)
Not much use petitioning the Executive Branch anyway. The directive (not actually a law, but authorized by a law, and so has the force of law) came from the Librarian of Congress. I'm going to guess he's Legislative Branch. After all, his title even has "Congress" in the name. In other words, the Office of the President has no authority over him.
Which goes a long way towards explaining the wrongheadedness of the decision, and should give a fine hint as to exactly what the FCC Chairman can expect to do a
Re:Wrong branch (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that the Librarian of Congress can issue a directive making it illegal under the DMCA for consumers to unlock phones that have been locked by providers does not mean that the FCC can't issue an order under its authority with regard to telecommunications prohibiting wireless vendors from locking phones in the first place, which would render the issue of a DMCA exemption allowing unlocking locked phones moot.
Asking the FCC to investigate and explore possible action is, in a sense, more than the petition called for (as it called on the President to ask the Librarian of Congress to reverse the decision and, failing that, lobby Congress to take legislative action to reverse the LoC action.)
Re: (Score:2)
The Librarian of Congress issued an EXEMPTION under the DMCA essentially spelling out "you cannot make a DMCA claim against people and other entities with regards to phones." That exemption expired.
Now in addition to the big carriers benefiting from this expired exemption, who would be the pedestrian violators of this under the DMCA? Well, the geek crowd to be sure, but more importantly, it would be the smaller operators who resell mobile services to people at bargain prices. This has reduced the efficie
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that the Librarian of Congress can issue a directive making it illegal under the DMCA for consumers to unlock phones that have been locked by providers
The LoC did not make unlocking illegal.
The default status of cell phone unlocking is 'not legal'
The LoC allowed for an exemption to the law and then decided not to renew that exemption.
Because an Unlocked phone is not a copyright issue (Score:3)
Perhaps I simply lack the imagination. Perhaps someone here could offer up a reasonable rationale as to how a carrier locked phone is protecting ANYONE's copyright? You understand this is being done, apparently, under the DMCA.
The carriers have no copyright over which carrier I use.
Now if they are talking about rooting a phone and loading custom firmware? That's a different matter. Because as we know, "media" such as flash drives, recordable CD/DVDs and such have been the target of pre-emtive fines/taxes which presume people will use them for violating someone's copyright and these measures are meant to compensate the largest of the copyright NPEs. (I love that -- NPEs: Non-Practicing Entities. They don't create music or art... they just buy it, limit it it and control it. We should all start calling the copyright houses copyright NPEs to better identify how they contribute to the arts.)
But that's the thing about phones. The software/firmware is a part of the functional device. The software/firmware is copyrightable... but also patentable... it is erasable... replaceable. The software which carriers peddle contains things which the consumer has no interest to say the least and often arguably serves to harm the consumer. It is not about copyright as much as it is controlling the device and the consumer by extension. This exceeds the intent and purpose of copyright AND the DMCA.
Re: (Score:3)
The DMCA prohibits bypassing "access control measures", in this case, carrier locks that control access to cell networks. There is no requirement that they be controlling access to copyrighted material.
Reason $BIGNUM why the DMCA is a horrible law that should have been strangled in the crib.