Goodlatte in bipartisan effort to unlock mobile phones
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County, is sponsoring a bill that would let mobile phone users unlock their devices in order to switch from one wireless carrier to another.
Goodlatte, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is joining with senior Democrats on the committee to sponsor the bill.
The legislation also asks the Copyright Office to report on whether similar treatment should be given to other wireless devices.
“This bipartisan legislation is focused on protecting consumer choice,” Goodlatte said. “By restoring the cell phone exemption, the power is put back in the hands of the consumer.”
The bill, H.R. 1123, restores an exemption in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that allowed people to freely unlock their phones once they had fulfilled their contracts. The exemption was allowed to expire for phones purchased after Jan. 26, 2013.



I applaud the effort, but after having had cell phones since around 2000 when I bought my first one, the technological advances over a 2-year contract period are so fast that unless a person simply only used their phone for calls and text messaging, they almost need to upgrade on a regular basis just to keep using the features they prefer. I had a Blackberry for 2 years, and before my contract even finished, several apps I used regularly got upgraded and no longer worked on my phone. In some ways, I suspect a great deal of that is by design to encourage consumers to upgrade…sometimes to pay the hefty contract fees to upgrade early, or buy the phones at full retail price. Honestly, the gimmicks are verging on turning me away from having a phone except for the minimal basics of making and recieving calls and text messages…and going with a bottom-dollar cost service to provide it. I love the versatility of the Android phone I’ve had for almost a year now, but I’ve already had to replace it once…and now the replacement is in for a warranty repair. What I’d love to see is a cheaper way to upgrade to a new phone that didn’t require shelling out a $350 contract fee.