> It fails to address the DMCA at all...

So, I will again state[1] that this was the expected outcome of a bunch of press surrounding a petition that narrowly focusses on a problem with a specific use case (unlocking cell phones) that didn't have much to do with the DMCA in the first place.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5202461

In this case, my prediction that we would see legislation similar to Canada's Cell Phone Freedom Act is seeming like it is going to happen. That act says nothing about consumers being able to bypass protections and themselves unlock their phone: it simply adds regulation around the business model of locking, both requiring that consumers be strongly informed that locks exist and insisting that phone companies unlock devices when the contract expires.

That said, I was surprised that the Wireless Device Independence Act[2] put together a few days ago actually does "address the DMCA": it is a modification to the anti-tampering clause in the DMCA that directly states that it does not apply to this specific situation. That act was drafted by Wyden, whom is generally really good about this kind of thing (so while I was surprised it happened at all, there was no surprise when I saw who did it).

[2]: http://1.usa.gov/XUJv4C

What I don't quite understand yet, however, is whether this Wireless Consumer Choice Act is now "the chosen front-runner", or whether the Wireless Device Independence Act has any chance of still happening (maybe in later discussion). That said, I can't imagine the latter actually winning after an argument: the former, in fact, actually better solves the specific demands of consumers, as it guarantees their older devices will actually be unlocked.

To be clear about that, no one has been making the public argument "even devices under contract should be unlocked", as far as I've seen, even if that's what they want. The discussion is just that unlocking itself should be legal, and the brunt of the argument made in defense of doing that to groups like the Library of Congress has always been that devices outlive the usefulness of their contracts, and then get forgotten, requiring the need for third-party unlocks.

For older devices, you then have the choice between 1) the Wireless Consumer Choice Act, which states that these devices must be unlocked by the person with the key, or 2) the Wireless Device Independence Act, which adds a probably-unnecessary exception to the DMCA to allow people to unlock the devices if they can figure out a way to bypass the key, which is never guaranteed and for many devices (such as all iPhones currently on sale) still hasn't happened after years of effort.

> but if the primary way of doing that is illegal as per the DMCA, it's not clear at all what it would actually achieve

You really need to demonstrate this, as I maintain that the DMCA doesn't apply to unlocking devices ;P (the more complete argument having been made by me on reddit[3] in addition to the previous HN post[1], which was less complete). However, even if the DMCA were to apply to unlocking cell phones, it certainly doesn't keep the people selling the locked phones from doing it, which is what this act would require: if you have the keys you don't need to tamper with the lock.

[3]: http://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/19niw6/white_hous...