TribLIVE

| Business

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Decision to unlock cellphone should be yours

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

On the Grid

From the shale fields to the cooling towers, Trib Total Media covers the energy industry in Western Pennsylvania and beyond. For the latest news and views on gas, coal, electricity and more, check out On the Grid today.

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

By Troy Wolverton
Saturday, March 9, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
 

Imagine you had to buy new phones when you switched your landline telephone service provider. Or suppose you took your laptop overseas but could go online only by connecting with your home broadband service company — at exorbitant international rates.

Cellphone owners face a similar situation as a result of a new and misguided federal policy that effectively makes all cellphones second-class devices. The rule risks further reducing competition in the cellphone industry, which is already basically a duopoly. And it puts consumers who want to “unlock” their cellphones from a particular service provider at risk of outrageous civil and criminal penalties.

The change, put in place by the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress, went into effect on Jan. 26 and is drawing fire from high places — and rightly so. The Obama administration last week said consumers ought to be able to legally unlock their phones, at least when they have completed their wireless contracts. And Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry, said the rule “doesn't pass the common sense test.”

Genachowski and the White House were responding to a petition seeking to overturn the rule that drew more than 114,000 signatures. Most cellphones sold today are “locked” to a particular wireless carrier through software inside the phones that prevents them from being used on another carrier's network.

The locks are unfair and anticompetitive, but until recently, consumers didn't have to put up with them. Federal rules allowed consumers to break the software locks using a variety of legally available software.

Once phones were unlocked, consumers could use them with any carrier whose technology was compatible.

But under the new federal policy, consumers can no longer “unlock” their cell phones without risking civil and criminal penalties, including a prison term of up to five years and a fine of up to $500,000.

The policy stems from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law passed in 1998 to update copyright law to protect intellectual property in the digital age.

The law sought to protect copyright owners who use technology to prevent the copying of their works. If a movie studio uses encryption to prevent a DVD from being duplicated, or if a software company uses digital rights management software to prevent a program being copied, the law makes it illegal to break those “locks.”

The law was never meant to bar consumers from switching their carriers. Unlocking cellphones has nothing to do with illicit copying, a fact the Copyright Office recognized in 2006 when it granted an exception to the law for that purpose.

But the Copyright Office has rescinded that exception in the new rule, arguing consumers can now find numerous brand-new unlocked phones for sale, and that carriers such as AT&T have policies in place under which they promise to unlock consumers' phones once they have completed their contracts. .

But carriers will unlock phones only if consumers meet certain requirements, such as showing their original proof of purchase. And consumers are still legally required to keep paying monthly subscription fees on existing contracts — or pay a pricey termination fee instead.

The new policy is not only unfair — it's just plain unnecessary.

Troy Wolverton is a technology columnist for the San Jose Mercury News.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Business Headlines

  1. Kennametal expects to consolidate plants as it shrinks manufacturing
  2. GNC to convert more stores to franchises as sales, profits slip
  3. Range Resources cuts workforce 11%
  4. Post-Gazette offers voluntary buyouts in bid to avoid layoffs
  5. Muni bond funds stressed
  6. U.S. Steel CEO expects rebound
  7. PPG puts brand 1st in strategy to reach commercial paint market
  8. United Airlines hack coincided with incursion into government employee data
  9. Travelers find direct Web route to Priory’s spirited past in North Side
  10. Gold continues to fall further out of favor with investors
  11. Voice-assisted technology raises privacy concerns