Wireless Consumers Can Now Unlock Their Phones Posted by Bob at 11/29/06 12:31 PM

Wireless phone users have received an unexpected gift from the U.S. Copyright Office.

A new ruling by the Copyright Office allows wireless phone users to break software locks inserted into their handsets by carriers such as Verizon and Cingular.

Carriers typically use the software locks to keep consumers from using their handsets on competing wireless networks. Although it is unclear how the ruling will ultimately play out for consumers, it is potentially a very big deal. As long as they own their phones, consumers now appear to have the clear right to break the software locks and use that equipment on any wireless network they choose.

In essence, the Copyright Office decided consumers aren't able to enjoy full legal use of their wireless phones due to the software locks, which typically block access to the handsets’ operating programs.

The new rules go into effect on December 1 and are to stay in place for three years, according to the Copyright Office, which is a branch of the Library of Congress.

In explaining the ruling, the Copyright Office said the “underlying activity sought to be performed by the owner of the handset is to allow the handset to do what it was manufactured to do—lawfully connect to any carrier. The purpose of the software lock appears to be limited to restricting the owner's use of the mobile handset to support a business model, rather than to protect access to a copyrighted work itself.”

PC Magazine has a nice explanation of the new rules and their potential impact on consumers, which you can read by clicking here.

You can read the whole ruling at the Copyright Office web site by clicking here.

comments (2)

1 Posted by Gerard Robinson at 11/30/06 08:35 PM

Maybe next, someone will consider requiring the unbundling of phone and service, so that we can get to the real price of both. What's the real price of a smartphone that one carrier sells for $199 with two year contract and $369 without a contract, but which was on sale for $99 with a two year contract for service at or above $59/month? Why doesn't my monthly rate go down when I bring my own phone?

The "excuse" for bundling that the carriers give is that "we must certify the equipment for our network", which holds as much water as it did when the Bell System tried to tell us that only Western Electric built phones qualified. Can't the ruling against Western Electric be applied to today's carriers? Independent testing facilities can easily verify that phones meet a set of requirements for a carrier's network. Hopefully, too, this copyright "opening" will keep the carriers from stripping functionality from a phone, causing consumer frustration (enough frustration to result in class action lawsuits to have functionality restored).

It is time to take the handsets out of the carriers hands and put them back into ours!

2 Posted by Felicia G. at 12/04/06 01:13 PM

I like the new copyright law. I don't know a whole lot about cell phones and how they are made, but I think that if I own my phone because I paid money for it, then the wireless company doesn't have the right to keep a software lock in the phone for their company use alone. I feel that businesses are being allowed to take advantage of the little guy who innocently goes into a two year contract with a wireless company who doesn't hold up its end of the contract. I am in a standoff with my cellular carrier right now because I rolled over one of my family's numbers on the date THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. told me was the end of contract date. I moved the number to another carrier on the date I was told and my carrier is charging me $150. It doesn't matter that my billings come in once a month with changes in them that I never authorized and I have to pay the texting overages. It doesn't matter that the equipment (their phones) can't last the term of the contract without breaking down and then I have to sign up for another two years of frustration and lousy service. I feel that all wireless contracts should include a performance clause that protects us (the little guys) from having to stay with the company if the company can't hold up its end of the bargain. I sure get penalized if I don't pay my bill or if I don't keep track of my phone or calls. The wireless company should be penalized if its service is less than adequate and if they can't keep their customer's accounts straight. The customer should be protected by a contractual performance clause because two years is a long time to wait to move on if a cell phone company isn't doing an adequate job for the individual needs of that customer. I'm sure that some people might try to take advantage of that, but personally I find that my stay with my carrier is one-sided and I have rights that should be addressed. I can do without a cellphone, but I use it for emergency purposes so my children can get in touch with me if they have to. My husband lost so many calls with this carrier that he changed over to another carrier. It is called business!