Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Cellphone unlocking law expected to be signed

Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:46 pm
Posted by bamarep
Member since Nov 2013
51803 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:46 pm
damnguysgimmeabreak

For it, against it, or meh.....
This post was edited on 7/29/14 at 12:50 pm
Posted by Displaced
Member since Dec 2011
32711 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:47 pm to
fix link
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
124115 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:47 pm to
I'm pro-links that work
This post was edited on 7/29/14 at 12:48 pm
Posted by LSUSUPERSTAR
TX
Member since Jan 2005
16307 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:47 pm to
Tech board and fail
Posted by lsuwontonwrap
Member since Aug 2012
34147 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:48 pm to
Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
62938 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:48 pm to
I was asked if I wanted to translate you page from Russian to English. You a commie, gump?
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67077 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:48 pm to
against it. No one will follow it anyways

EDIT: I thought the bill was designed to make unlocking phones illegal, not legal. I'm absolutely for phones being legal to "unlock"
This post was edited on 7/29/14 at 1:01 pm
Posted by Pelican fan99
Lafayette, Louisiana
Member since Jun 2013
34711 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:48 pm to
You should be banned for this
Hit the damn preview button.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134860 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:49 pm to
Preview, man. Preview!
Posted by brass2mouth
NOLA
Member since Jul 2007
19686 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:50 pm to
Goddamn you, you no linking sonuvabitch
Posted by whit
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
10998 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:50 pm to
quote:

The US House of Representatives unanimously passed legislation on Friday that would allow consumers to “unlock” their cell phones in order to switch wireless networks. It now heads to President Obama for his signature.

Following Congress’ approval of the bill, President Obama said he is looking forward to signing it into law.

"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," he added in a statement.

Titled the 'Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act,' the bill orders the Library of Congress to permit mobile phone owners to legally unlock their phones from a specific wireless carrier. Typically, a service provider such as Verizon or AT&T ties its smartphones to its own network in the hopes that customers will remain with the company when their initial contracts expire. Unlocking a phone allows an individual to switch service providers regardless.

In 2012, however, the Library of Congress made performing this activity without a service provider’s permission illegal – even in cases where contracts had expired. Those who did so were left vulnerable to legal action and, potentially, time in prison. Congress’ action on Friday reverses that ruling.

"The cell phone unlocking bill has a direct impact on Americans as we become more reliant on our wireless devices," Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. "This bipartisan bill is pro-consumer and pro-competition and allows for greater ease in the portability of devices. It will provide greater competition and more consumer choice."

Lawmakers were spurred into action shortly after the Library of Congress made its original decision and opponents were galvanized by a Whitehouse.gov petition that quickly earned more than 114,000 signatures. The petition's rapid success prompted a response by President Obama, who said he supported congressional action to make phone unlocking legal again.

Sina Khanifar, one of the cause’s advocates and the petition’s author, welcomed the bill’s passage, which he said occurred after 19 months of activism and lobbying “against powerful, entrenched interests.”

While Congress has voted to permit unlocking phones, it did not do so permanently. The Library of Congress will have to reconsider the rule in 2015 and again every three years unless further action is taken by lawmakers. Khanifar told RT that the underlying problem is with the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act – which bans the “circumvention of technological measures” – and that further changes to copyright law are needed.

“People are asking, ‘if it’s illegal for me to unlock my phone, what else can't I do?’” he said. “Increasingly, things like repairing, jailbreaking or modifying software on devices is being viewed as illegal because of antiquated and over-broad copyright laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).”

“Today we won a battle in that larger war: you're now free to unlock your cell phone no matter what your carrier or the phone's manufacturer might want. Hopefully in the near future we'll see Congress reaffirm that consumers have the right to unlock, repair and modify the electronics they buy.”

Despite the bill’s slow authorization, Khanifar said the process has shown that persistent engagement with the issues can push lawmakers to take action. He added that he would continue to push for changes to the DMCA.

“Many people are disillusioned with Congress and think that our political system is broken,” he said. “And it can definitely be a really, really slow and frustrating process. But advocating for this law has shown me that the process can, in fact, work. It may have taken 19 months, but we finally have a new law in place that fixes the problem I originally got wound up about.”
Posted by Displaced
Member since Dec 2011
32711 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:52 pm to
i am 100% for this.

you paid for the phone, you should be able to use it on whatever carrier you desire.

you will still be responsible for termination fees if you are under contract and decide to switch, but at least you wont have to buy a new phone if you want to go from sprint to verizon.
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
51383 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:57 pm to
but if you have a sim card and the carrier is a different technology, it won't help much, will it?
Posted by bamarep
Member since Nov 2013
51803 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 1:12 pm to
most phones now are both gsm and cdma capable. I'm not sure how it will affect that though.
Posted by cdaniel76
Covington, LA
Member since Feb 2008
19699 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 1:19 pm to
quote:

you paid for the phone


First, I am completely for this resolution to be passed... BUT

Second, you didn't technically (fully) pay for your phone. Unless you're on T-mobile (which takes 2 years to pay off the phone if you choose to make payments) or buy a phone off contract, the majority of the cost of a phone is subsidized by the carrier in return for you entering into a binding contract with said carrier.

So, I can see why the carriers are fighting this...
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422404 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 1:29 pm to
quote:

the majority of the cost of a phone is subsidized by the carrier in return for you entering into a binding contract with said carrier.

So, I can see why the carriers are fighting this...

they're going to make us pay for our phones in full, and poor people will freak out
Posted by junkfunky
Member since Jan 2011
33890 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 1:31 pm to
quote:

Second, you didn't technically (fully) pay for your phone. Unless you're on T-mobile (which takes 2 years to pay off the phone if you choose to make payments) or buy a phone off contract, the majority of the cost of a phone is subsidized by the carrier in return for you entering into a binding contract with said carrier.


Wat?

You end up paying the full price of a phone and then some depending on the model. You most definitely pay for it under the contract model.
Posted by CAD703X
Liberty Island
Member since Jul 2008
78039 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

the majority of the cost of a phone is subsidized by the carrier in return for you entering into a binding contract with said carrier. So, I can see why the carriers are fighting this...


i thought that's what the ETF fees were designed to cover?

i still dont see the point of forcing carrier locked devices unless you have att or verizen or someone not protecting themselves with an ETF clause.

so i don't see a problem with unlocking other than carriers gonna carrier.
This post was edited on 7/29/14 at 1:39 pm
Posted by BuckeyeFan87
Columbus
Member since Dec 2007
25239 posts
Posted on 7/29/14 at 2:53 pm to
While I like the idea, this seems like the government is overstepping their bounds here.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram