backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Mar 4 at 9:40 AM

Genachowski to investigate smartphone unlock ban

Smartphone fans around the country have been in an uproar ever since a ban was placed on a user's ability to unlock their own mobile phone on January 26. Apparently, the ban didn't put limits on carriers being able to unlock their devices, but individuals cracking their phone to operate on other networks was forbidden.

The FCC has now promised to investigate whether the ban is harmful to market competitiveness. The FCC also plans to see if the executive branch has the authority to change the law.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told TechCrunch, "[The] ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns."

Prior to the ban going into effect, customers were allowed to unlock their smartphones, allowing users to switch carriers and keep the device they had already purchased. Smartphones were exempted from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has a provision placing a ban on the circumvention of copy protection schemes.
 
Now, smartphone owners who use unauthorized methods to unlock their devices open themselves up to potential legal penalty.

Genachowski said, "It’s something that we will look at at the FCC to see if we can and should enable consumers to use unlocked phones."

Source: TechCrunch



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Duh.
By TheEinstein on 3/1/2013 10:17:16 AM , Rating: -1
Lobbying is not at fault, a big bloated Federal Government is at fault. Cut it down to 1/4 the size and 90% of this crap stuff would never happen.


RE: Duh.
By Motoman on 3/1/2013 10:28:59 AM , Rating: 5
The government is ridiculously larger than any logic would have it be. However, lobbying most certainly is at fault - without lobbying, the industry's money wouldn't have a way to funnel into legislature and purchase such laws.


RE: Duh.
By integr8d on 3/1/2013 11:13:07 AM , Rating: 4
"The FCC also plans to see if the executive branch has the authority to change the law."

No surprise there.


RE: Duh.
By Einy0 on 3/1/2013 11:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly...


RE: Duh.
By Amedean on 3/1/2013 6:09:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The government is ridiculously larger than any logic would have it be.


Not agreeing or disagreeing but how big is it? What is the ideal ratio of government employees to population?

The reason I asked is because if you do not know what that ideal level is......well you wont know when to stop complaining and nothing will be good enough.


RE: Duh.
By JediJeb on 3/1/2013 9:54:47 PM , Rating: 3
566 government employees total should be enough.


RE: Duh.
By idiot77 on 3/4/2013 5:42:15 AM , Rating: 2
Dumbest thing I've heard. "End fascism" but then make a comment that says turn over every non-elected position to them.

Then again, poverty of thought when it comes to government is pretty common here on DT since the moron Libertarians took over the site shortly after launch, with regard to comments.... and most of the bloggers.


RE: Duh.
By tng on 3/4/2013 9:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
While lobbying is a issue, I would say that the real problem is quoted in the story...

quote:
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told TechCrunch, "[The] ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns."
Do any of these people get it? It is not about competition or innovation, it is about the freedom of the individual to do what they want with their personal property!


RE: Duh.
By MadMan007 on 3/1/13, Rating: 0
RE: Duh.
By nolisi on 3/1/13, Rating: 0
RE: Duh.
By RufusM on 3/1/2013 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 5
The thing is, the number of Federal Government employees per-capita has gone down: from ~13% in 1963 to ~8.4% in 2010.

Having said that the amount of Federal Government spending as a percentage of GDP has steadily increased, with the exception of a huge spike during WW2 and very slight decrease in the recent recession.

So, the Federal Government is actually hiring less people (in real dollars) but is spending much more money. This is a result of mainly increased spending on: military spending, subsidies and entitlement programs.

So basically, the Federal Government keeps taking more and more of the pie per working adult, spending it on:

1. Killing people and occupying other countries...I mean making us more safe (wink, wink, nudge nudge)
2. Giving it to people who haven't earned it.
3. Giving it to people who haven't earned it.

Thanks feds!

Oh yeah, I didn't mention State Government, who by far the largest employer in each of their respective states with few exceptions. Yay...moar gub'ment please!!


RE: Duh.
By Solandri on 3/1/2013 6:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thing is, the number of Federal Government employees per-capita has gone down: from ~13% in 1963 to ~8.4% in 2010.

So, the Federal Government is actually hiring less people (in real dollars) but is spending much more money. This is a result of mainly increased spending on: military spending, subsidies and entitlement programs.

Military spending in 1963 was about 9% of GDP. It's currently about 4.5% of GDP. So military spending is actually the biggest source of decreased government spending in the time period you specify.
http://www.americanthinker.com/Defense%20Spending....

Nate Silver, who was widely championed by the left and lauded for his accurate predictions of the last election, wrote on the topic recently. He's a numbers guy so calls it as the numbers say, regardless of politics.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/1...

Basically entitlements and Customs/law enforcement are up. Everything else (including military spending) is down.


RE: Duh.
By EricMartello on 3/1/2013 5:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love this senseless "cut the government's size" theory. Cutting the government's size only allows groups with immense amounts of money to spend their money controlling society in other ways.


You say that but you don't seem to understand what people mean when they say they want to move away from big government. It's not about the physical size of the government, i.e. how many employees it has. Reducing the size of government is about limiting the SCOPE of the government and its authority.

Lobbying is a detriment to everyone except the small clique in DC who benefit from the legislation, favors and exemptions they gain by contributing large amounts of money to politicians' campaigns or associated PACs.

We really do need to dial down the size of the federal government and as part of that process, limit their ability to pass "special interest" legislature by allowing the public to "veto" bullsh1t laws by referendum like the DMCA, ACTA, CISPA or whatever other garbage these scumbags are pushing.


RE: Duh.
By Wolfpup on 3/1/2013 9:01:31 PM , Rating: 1
Oh man, fundamentalist wacky "libertarian"-ism. Yes, somehow making the government (i.e., us) less powerful will make corporations umm...wait, how's that work? LOL If we just weaken our power, then somehow magically...uh...corporations will just start being nicer and allow you to change carriers easier?

I love the phrasing about whether locking affects competition. Could not being able to change carriers as easily affect competition? Nah ;)


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki