Did we miss something?
I agree with the article. However, did it miss the potential downside of an unlocked phone for the traditionally post paid carriers (Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, ATT)? Yes, they are not necessary for them to enforce the agreement but a locked phone is useless after the contract is complete unless you stay with the carrier or get them to unlock it so you can go somewhere else. If they don't have to unlock the phone, why wouldn't they want to make it more painful to leave by locking it to their network and refusing to unlock it? Sure it's not fair and it's totally anti-consumer but if it's legal, shareholder interests are not being served if they don't exploit it.