Of course it is unpopular. You're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity. If I cared and spent enough money, could I also restrict other people's freedom or privacy? Neither should be a function of ability to pay. That being said, that is more or less how it is now -- you pay in cash/time/effort.

I think he was saying precisely that: when you take a locked-in phone with a fixed deal, you're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity.

Nope. They are lending you money (normaly with a huge interest), and taking your privacy and freedom away for free.

I think it is unpopular because people want the latest gadget but don't want to pay for it.

> You're treating freedom and privacy as a commodity

To the same extent that when I rent a car I accept the restriction on it. The difference is that I am more concerned about these restrictions than most people, and most of the time I will buy a smaller car or a used one rather than live by rental companies rules.

To me the current situation in the phone market is like people leasing cars and crying to the government that the leasing companies' rules are unfair.

I bought a used one, but I think it's still locked, and I'm not using a major carrier, so they're not going to 'unlock' me now (was an AT&T iPhone 5s, now using net10). Maybe it's 'unlocked' enough to use net10, but I think it's not truly 'unlocked', and may never be.

Well, of course you need to verify that it is unlocked when buying used, this is as important as verifying that it is functioning.