Cell phone companies get a government granted monopoly on a public resource (spectrum). The cell phone industry wouldn't exist as it is without government interference.

But there is nothing inherent in offering cell phone service as far as locking phones. That's a totally separate issue. I assure you that you could buy an unlocked phone (at full retail) and use it on a network of your choice with an appropriate SIM card.

You just don't get the telco to pay for 2/3rds of your phone when you do that.

They pay 2/3 of the phone for your contract, which has nothing to do with locking or you using someone else's sim card.

This isn't really about cell phones, it's about copyright and how copyright laws apply to physical devices that you own. The fact that the devices in question happen to use public airwaves is incidental. IMHO, I should be able to hack my WiFi-only iPad and my XBox without risking criminal prosecution.

Cell phone locking has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. It is absurd that copyright law applies to unlocking/locking a cell phone.

It doesn't have anything to do with copyright, nor is it illegal. Someone started a rumour and people keep repeating it ad nauseam.

Are you saying that there is usually no government interference in private contracts? Or that there should be no government interference just when the consumers rights are being violated?

Largely, yes, and that is as it should be. It's an agreement between two willing parties with benefit received by both sides. A simple, legal, contract.

We're not talking about a legislated monopoly here, like your local power company. No one is FORCING you to go down to your local Verizon reseller and buy a contract phone. You're free to either buy an unlocked smartphone (at full un-subsidized price), or a prepaid phone, or any other of a multitude of options.

I'm with you that you could by a non-subsidized phone. However, one of the points of the petition is that unlocking is currently illegal _even after the original contract has expired_. Why should that be allowed? The original contract is over, after all. No party should have any rights beyond the contract they've agree upon.

Although this is true (and silly), AT&T (at least) will unlock the phone for you after contract expiration. If this is true of other carriers, then the issue is largely irrelevant.

I agree that after the contract expires it should be fare game.

Is it illegal as in criminal? Or civil, and you could be sued?

It's a felony, with a fine of up to $500,000 and up to five years in prison. For unlocking one (1) cell phone.

OK, looks like we need to look at it from another level.

Once upon a time there was a group of people. They had common interests, but it was hard and inefficient to make decisions as a large group. So a government was formed to represent the individuals in the group and to tend to their common needs.

Let's go back to the present.

So one side is a big corporation that has one voice, the other side are consumers, i.e. people that have many voices. Government (at least a properly working one) is there to represent the will of the people and to give them a single voice. I don't see anything wrong with that.

That is a gross misinterpretation of the role of government. The government exists for the common welfare, but that doesn't mean it's a consumer advocate.

P.S: I think it fair to suggest that what the majority of consumers want is the cheapest possible phone. That means locked phones on subsidies.

It's the original role and the most important one. However it has evolved into more roles, obviously.

Regarding your second point, the assumption is that the government is rational. Adult-like and not child-like.

Of course we do, especially when there is a huge imbalance of power between the parties.

> We really, really, really don't want government interference in voluntary private contracts.

I'd advise you don't click this link: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-100.html, it might be pretty upsetting....