[Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones

[tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)]

Rich Braun wrote:
> I saw the Obama administration weighed in on one aspect of affordability this
> week:  after another government agency declared that lawsuits by carriers
> against consumers who unlock their under-contract phones can go forward...

See:

White House: It's Time to Legalize Cellphone Unlocking
http://allthingsd.com/20130304/white-house-its-time-to-legalize-cell-phone-unlocking/

and:

Public Knowledge Applauds White House for Making the Right Call on
Cellphone Unlocking
http://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-applauds-white-house-making-right

I was not aware of their being any actual lawsuits. Having civil
lawsuits over this would actually be an improvement.

The actual more troubling aspect was that carriers were leveraging the
(horrid) DMCA "anticircumvention" provision to make it a criminal
offense to take the steps necessary to unlock your phone without carrier
permission.

See:

How "Anticircumvention" Works Right Now
http://internetblueprint.org/issues/permit-lawful-uses-of-content/

Still, I'm not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for unlocking a
cell phone (though people have been jailed for violating DMCA for other
things). But that's beside the point. The DMCA needs to go.


> ...the Administration accepted an online petition protesting such
> policy and declared that such lawsuits are lunacy.  Net effect:
> zero.

Actually what the White House said was:

  "The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that
  consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking
  criminal or other penalties."

which they intend to accomplish with "a range of approaches...including
narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it
clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent
consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a
service agreement or other obligation." Plus having the FCC to pressure
carriers not to use the DMCA in this fashion.

(Still troubling that the "no longer bound by a service agreement or
other obligation." qualifier is added. The criminal law aspect should be
eliminated unconditionally, which may or may not be their intent. Could
just be sloppy wording.)

It's a step in the right direction...if something materializes, but the
fundamental problem is that the DMCA needs to be decriminalized.
Copyright holders have no business wielding criminal charges to protect
their profits.

Cell carriers already have adequate recourse if you unlock your phone
without their consent and switch carriers. They charge you an early
termination fee.

(Practically speaking, for now, this is in fact a no-op, like Rich said.
 Supposedly carriers are fairly willing to unlock phones when asked. Of
course with 3 out of 4 US carriers using incompatible bands, switching
carriers is impossible domestically for most.)


> ...ensuring that consumers pay for things indirectly, blunting the
> effects of comparison-shopping.

One thing the tech community could do to help this situation is every
time you see a review for a cell phone that lists a subsidized price,
write to the author or publisher requesting that they either list only
the unsubsidized price, or the subsidized price along with the
cumulative portion of the 2-year contract attributable to the hardware
cost, showing the total cost of ownership.

This is something that could actually be accomplished, doesn't depend on
politicians (and thus can't be sidetracked by lobbyists), and would
bring to light the real costs of smart phones.

A $300 unlocked Nexus 4 will look pretty good compared to most alternatives.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/