Skip to main content

Cell phone unlocking bill passes through U.S. House, but advocates are not happy with it

finally legal unlock smartphone cell phone unlocking
Image used with permission by copyright holder

Cell phone unlocking, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), is currently not allowed. It is illegal to go around the digital locks that mobile carriers such as AT&T and Sprint implement on the cell phones they sell. A recent bill aims to make that practive legal, but it has advocates upset over one small, but very important, detail.

The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 295-114. According to the bill, users can unlock cell phones, so long as it is “initiated by the owner … by another person at the direction of the owner, or by a provider of a commercial mobile radio service or a commercial mobile data service.”

While that sounds exactly what consumer choice advocates strived for with legalizing cell phone unlocking, the bill disallows cell phone unlocking in order to conduct “bulk unlocking.” In other words, businesses can’t buy phones, unlock them, and sell them to interested consumers. Thus, enter the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The EFF believes that, by excluding business that purchase, unlock, and sell unlocked cell phones, Congress can use copyright law to dish out punishment to bulk resellers, even though these businesses do not infringe on any copyright. According to the EFF, bulk unlocking not only benefits customers in that they have more freedom to take their device where they want to, but also benefits the environment in that it allows for less electronic waste.

As an alternative, the EFF pushes for the Unlocking Technology Act. Introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren and others, the bill aims to not only legalize cell phone unlocking, but also change the DMCA so any violation of copyright protection would be restricted to copyright infringement cases.

Since the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act have passed through the House, its next destination is the Senate.

Editors' Recommendations

Williams Pelegrin
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Williams is an avid New York Yankees fan, speaks Spanish, resides in Colorado, and has an affinity for Frosted Flakes. Send…
Samsung’s foldable phone, the Galaxy Fold, lands in the U.S. on September 27
Samsung Galaxy Fold

Samsung's Galaxy Fold finally has a U.S. launch date. The company's first foldable phone was supposed to launch on April 25 but it went through a recall and delays after tech journalists reviewing it ran into hardware issues. Five months later, it's now set to launch on September 27.

The foldable phone, which costs $1,980, will be available unlocked through Samsung and Best Buy, and a separate model will also be sold through AT&T as well. T-Mobile was a part of the initial group of carriers and retailers carrying the phone, but it backed out after the launch delay and has said it isn't going to be a part of the Fold's official September launch. People that pre-ordered the phone from AT&T and Samsung had their orders canceled, and Samsung offered up a $250 Samsung store gift card as a recompense.

Read more
Sprint and OnePlus are bringing a 5G phone to the U.S. soon
OnePlus 7 Pro 5G

Sprint's fourth 5G device will be a smartphone from OnePlus, the carrier announced today, but it has been quiet on the product's name, price, and release date. It will follow the Galaxy S10 5G, the HTC 5G Hub, and the LG V50 ThinQ.

OnePlus, known for its powerful, flagship phones sold at upper midrange prices, already has a 5G smartphone in select countries such as the U.K. -- the OnePlus 7 Pro 5G.

Read more
Biometric phone unlocks can’t be forced by feds, says U.S. judge
vivo nex s review fingerprint sensor

The advance of technology outpacing the law is a commonly held belief, but it seems the law is starting to catch up. A Californian judge has ruled that U.S. law enforcement agencies cannot force suspects to open their smartphones with fingerprint sensors or face unlock.

It was previously the case that such biometric unlocking processes were not protected by the Fifth Amendment in the same way phone passcodes were. In essence, passcodes were viewed as "something you knew," while biometric logins were viewed as "something you are," and were thus exempt. However, according to an order uncovered by Forbes, Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has denied a request for police to be able to use biometric unlocking methods to open devices seized in a raid.

Read more