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.