Unlocking Technology Becomes Legal Again; Thanks To “Unlocking Technology Act Of 201

[Maestro]

Unlocking Technology Becomes Legal Again; Thanks to “Unlocking Technology Act of 2013

You may remember back earlier this year there was a huge story, well group of stories that we and many other sites covered regarding unlocking your phone. Now this is regarding SIM-unlocking not unlocking the bootloader. In layman’s terms, unlocking your device to put it onto another carrier. It became illegal as part of the DCMA act, and well we’ll let you read up on the whole story here instead of rehashing it all.

Today, smartphone unlocking activist Sina Khanifar is feeling really good about himself, I’m sure. Even though he only had two hours of sleep. Why? Well Congress members introduced the “Unlocking Technology Act of 2013″ which is a new bill that would make it permanently legal for you to not only unlock your phone but it will also circumvent the digital rights management on any device (as long as you’re not infringing on a copyright).

This comes after over 114,000 people and the White House decried that the Librarian of Congress decision to outlaw smartphone unlocking last October. Khanifar told Venture Beat “this new bill checks all the boxes” which is a great thing for all of us. Sina told us that unlike previous bills that were basically band-aids, this bill tackles all of the largest issues activists have identified in the current laws. It also legalizes unlocking tool in addition to smartphone unlocking. Khanifar said that this is a pretty big deal. “Every bill we’ve had so far has only tackled one piece of the issue. This one gets all of them” he stated.

Read more: http://androidheadlines.com/2013/05/unlocking-technology-becomes-legal-again-thanks-to-unlocking-technology-act-of-2013-bill.html

[Maestro]

Unlocking a phone has never been a legal issue in Thailand, I believe, and it is interesting to see that in the USA a separate law was needed to make it legal.

[sustento]

That's because the USA is in thrall to its 'free market' corporations. Don't forget - "The business of America is business"

How anyone can sell you a phone and then try and claim that you can't do what you want with it is bizarre...

[NeverSure]

That's because the USA is in thrall to its 'free market' corporations. Don't forget - "The business of America is business"

How anyone can sell you a phone and then try and claim that you can't do what you want with it is bizarre...

The carriers sell the phones at big discounts to anyone who agrees to use their service. My Motorola smart phone cost me only US$190 on such an agreement, when without the agreement it would have been closer to $600. My service is with US Cellular who sold me the phone and the service.

Now US Cellular isn't going to be happy because they took a loss on the phone in consideration of the agreement.

I will keep the agreement because I was raised to believe that a deal is a deal. My word is good.

Now, you can buy the phone (or whatever the current model you want is) outright for $600 (or whatever current prices are) and do what you wish with it. That's always been the case.

Edited May 10, 2013 by NeverSure

[sumrit]

That's because the USA is in thrall to its 'free market' corporations. Don't forget - "The business of America is business"

How anyone can sell you a phone and then try and claim that you can't do what you want with it is bizarre...

The carriers sell the phones at big discounts to anyone who agrees to use their service. My Motorola smart phone cost me only US$190 on such an agreement, when without the agreement it would have been closer to $600. My service is with US Cellular who sold me the phone and the service.

Now US Cellular isn't going to be happy because they took a loss on the phone in consideration of the agreement.

I will keep the agreement because I was raised to believe that a deal is a deal. My word is good.

Now, you can buy the phone (or whatever the current model you want is) outright for $600 (or whatever current prices are) and do what you wish with it. That's always been the case.

Breaking an agreement isn't the issue.

If you come to Thailand on holiday for example and want to use a local sim you're not breaking the original agreement, you're still paying the bill for their service as per the agreement aren't you.

[lomatopo]

Most service providers in the U.S. will unlock a locked, subsidized phone for a customer under contract, or one who has completed the contract, in order to facilitate international travel and use of another SIM

One needs to review the contract to determine what is possible once the contract is finished. In some cases the consumer may own the phone, at which time the service provider may be obligated to unlock it for use with any SIM, any network.

The original "locking" act, and subsequent "unlocking" act - which has not yet become law - are generally of no concern to most here, and really just covered some unique and arcane issues surrounding subsidized phones.

Next up, internet sales tax.

[sustento]

That's because the USA is in thrall to its 'free market' corporations. Don't forget - "The business of America is business"

How anyone can sell you a phone and then try and claim that you can't do what you want with it is bizarre...

The carriers sell the phones at big discounts to anyone who agrees to use their service. My Motorola smart phone cost me only US$190 on such an agreement, when without the agreement it would have been closer to $600. My service is with US Cellular who sold me the phone and the service.

And you will continue to pay for that service until your contract ends whether you unlock the phone or not. US Cellular won't lose out - you will because you're paying for a service you're no longer using if you fit an alternative SIM card.

[Pib]

Like the full news article said it's only a "bill" that "if" passed into "law" would unlocking technology become legal. Thousands of bills introduced in Congress each year; but most never get out of/die in committee. But maybe this one will go all the way into becoming a law....or not.