For what it's worth, as someone who does not unlock, I see this as potentially negative. Why? Because the so-called "Unlocking Technology Act", among other initiatives, has been using the clout of the unlocking issue to promote essentially a wholesale repeal of the DMCA anticircumvention, citing its interference with exploit-based software unlocks as a core justification. This recommendation would require carriers to provide unlocks themselves rather than making hackers do it, which would be much better for unlockers, but obviate the need for circumvention. Yet all the other other use cases harmed by anticircumvention would remain, many of which affect me personally (and probably many HN users), but which might not gather as broad public understanding and support as unlocking currently does.
What my comment says is that this (the NTIA recommendation that is the subject of the article) might obviate part of the impetus for a pre-existing initiative (http://fixthedmca.org/unlocking-technology-act.html) that would essentially repeal anticircumvention, and thus could be a bad thing.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was the Unlocking Technology Act. All clear now, and agreed, it would make more sense to let that go than merely the proposed unlocking exception.
If the DMCA can be construed as preventing unlocking, then you can build a political coalition to repeal that part of the DMCA.
If cell phones are not locked then there is no political motive and when you go on TV as someone who is against that portion of the DMCA you're framed as a Blu-ray thief. If you can reframe it around cellphone unlocking then you're a hero.
Cellphones are viewed as a very personal device and long term contracts / locked phones are viewed as a restriction on freedom. If you can make it about freedom then you can get Americans on board.
FWIW, I had been trying to get the FixTheDMCA people in the backend (my name is on their site) to realize this would happen since before they even started (as you maybe also know, but you might not have seen my numerous rants on IRC as maybe you weren't online at the time or were on other channels).
I argue that the issue is that now the "anti-DMCA" crowd and issue that had been built up looks "satisfied" when Congress comes to look at that issue, as there is a more effective solution at hand to what had been placed at the core of their debate. It isn't that comex is saying "damn, rather wouldn't have this FCC rule, as the rule itself might be negative" but more "damn, the end result of this entire fiasco might be negative".
Obama's consistent meta-policy has been: push the smallest change that will pass. If he figures he can get unlocking without having to fight Disney, he'll do it.
