Yes, the law did allow the FCC to mandate unlocking. They were given the ability to write regulations - which are a form of law - on behalf of Congress within their stated mission.
Just as, to use your food analogy, the FDA wrote regulations that make it illegal for companies from selling you rotten meat.
Here is part of the Act that gives the FDA power to mandate food safety:
>IV. Food
There is a distinction in food adulteration between those that are added and those that are naturally present. Substances that are added are held to a stricter "may render (it) injurious to health" standard, whereas substances that are naturally present need only be at a level that "does not ordinarily render it injurious to health
Broadly, the FCC is mandated to:
>make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.
But I don't see anything in there that say they have the ability to mandate unlocking. You can argue that it falls under the "adequate facilities at reasonable charges" portion.
I certainly want the ability to unlock my device but is the FCC mandate legal or not?
IANASC but IMHO “efficient” grants power, in addition to the “adequate facilities at reasonable charges” you mentioned.
Remember, Congress can ban you from growing weed in your own garden and for your own consumption, on the basis that indirectly affects the interstate price. I think that the FCC regulating cellular modems is way less of a reach.
I think that is a reasonable argument, I had a similar thought when I copied the text out.
>Remember, Congress can ban you from growing weed in your own garden and for your own consumption, on the basis that indirectly affects the interstate price.
It was feed corn during the Great Depression, I have always thought that ruling was bullshit(I understand the end goal) but anyone is welcome to try and change my mind :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It basically opened the door for the Federal government to try and stick their hands in everything, for good and bad.
> But I don't see anything in there that say they have the ability to mandate unlocking.
That's because cell phones didn't exist when the FCC mandate was created. So no, you won't see cell phones (or attributes of cell phones) explicitly mentioned.
That said, cell phones are radio communication devices, which is something the FCC does indeed regulate. They have long history of regulating the manufacture and operation of such devices. Vendor lockin included (something that ATT tried and was swatted down for with landline phones).
And let's be honest, Congress has had decades to narrow the mandate of the FCC if they believed they were misbehaving when it comes to cell phone regulation. The FCC operates on behalf of congress, after all.
I would not expect to see anything that says cellphones or the like, I would expect to see something that allows them to mandate the kind of communication equipment or characteristics of the communication equipment.
We had landlines for a long time before cell phones and the phone company was AT&T. They didn't allow a customer to buy another phone and hook it up to their network, you rented it from AT&T.
At some point that changed, I don't think AT&T gave that up out of the goodness of their heart. It was probably from a FCC mandate or law, which would in turn give the FCC ground here. If not, then it is and oversight that should be corrected.
Just as, to use your food analogy, the FDA wrote regulations that make it illegal for companies from selling you rotten meat.