The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously Thursday to advance legislation that would legalize cell-phone unlocking, which would make it easier for consumers to switch providers without buying a new phone.
The House passed similar legislation earlier this year.
“Consumers should be able to use their existing cell phones when they move their service to a new wireless provider,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee chairman and sponsor of the legislation.
“With today’s strong bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee, I hope the full Senate can soon take up this important legislation that supports consumer rights.”
Most contract cell phones come “locked” to one carrier. Because of a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office in 2012, customers must obtain their carrier’s permission to legally unlock their phones to switch to a competitor — even after they have completed their contract.
The decision prompted an immediate public backlash, and more than 114,000 people signed a White House petition in protest.
The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, which is cosponsored by the committee’s top Republican, Chuck Grassley, would overturn the office’s decision. The bill would also direct the office to consider whether to allow unlocking of other devices, such as tablets.
Consumer groups such as Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation support the bill, although they have also pushed for broader legislation that would amend the underlying copyright law.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate legislation leaves out controversial language to prohibit people from unlocking phones in large batches. The cellular carriers had lobbied for the House language, arguing it was important to thwart “large-scale” theft operations. But the language caused many lawmakers and advocacy groups to pull their support, saying it would create unnecessary barriers to switching carriers.
CTIA, the lobbying group for cell-phone carriers such as Verizon and AT&T, supports the legislation in both chambers.
Under pressure from the Federal Communications Commission, all the major carriers already signed on to a commitment last year to allow their customers to unlock their phones.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."