"You know perfectly well that you retain liability for the ETF, which is a proxy for the phone, and reflective of the impracticality of repossessing it."
No, I know no such thing; all I see is a cell phone company using a loss leader strategy, and the US government affording them special protections for that strategy. On paper and elsewhere, you own your phone -- end of story. There is no issue of repossession because there is no line of credit involved. Furthermore, even if there were a line of credit here, credit card companies are able to go after delinquent accounts even in cases where repossession is infeasible, and often with amounts of money that are much larger than the price of a typical phone.
It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments. The service is still at a massive premium even with the contract, and the early termination fee is only tangentially related to the price of the phone. The sole purpose of selling the phones at a discount is to entice consumers into paying for contracts; it is a classic loss leader strategy.
"While it's in contract, and non-unlocking is a contractual provision"
Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so.
It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments.
Who ever said it was? Arguing with you is turning out to be a colossal waste of time; every time you run into problems you gin up a straw man and attack that. This is my last contribution to this thread.
Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so.
I've already addressed that points. The administration has expressed its support for people being able to unlock their phone when its out of contract. So if the administration gets what it wants and Congress updates the law, your complaints will be moot. If you don't like the terms of offer in a discount cellphone contract, then don't enter into such a contract.
"It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments.
Who ever said it was? Arguing with you is turning out to be a colossal waste of time; every time you run into problems you gin up a straw man and attack that. This is my last contribution to this thread."
You are the one who claimed the people do not own their phones while under contract. If the contract is not an installment plan or a line of credit, then what property ownership do you think the companies have on the phone? Well, I guess since it was your last contribution to the thread, you will not answer.
"The administration has expressed its support for people being able to unlock their phone when its out of contract"
That is not in any way related to what I said. I said that the problem is that the DMCA forbids unlocking regardless of the contract. You can enter into a contract that says nothing about unlocking, and guess what? Unlocking will still be illegal.
Stop pretending that this is not a special protection for the cell carriers' business.
No, I know no such thing; all I see is a cell phone company using a loss leader strategy, and the US government affording them special protections for that strategy. On paper and elsewhere, you own your phone -- end of story. There is no issue of repossession because there is no line of credit involved. Furthermore, even if there were a line of credit here, credit card companies are able to go after delinquent accounts even in cases where repossession is infeasible, and often with amounts of money that are much larger than the price of a typical phone.
It is not as though the contract is for free service plus payment for the phone in installments. The service is still at a massive premium even with the contract, and the early termination fee is only tangentially related to the price of the phone. The sole purpose of selling the phones at a discount is to entice consumers into paying for contracts; it is a classic loss leader strategy.
"While it's in contract, and non-unlocking is a contractual provision"
Contract law is a separate issue from the DMCA. The problem here is not the enforcement of a contract, it is the fact that even without a contractual prohibition on unlocking the phone you would still be forbidden from doing so.