In most of the developed world, it's either illegal to sell a network-locked phone, or there's a legal requirement for networks to provide an unlock code at the end of your contract. Locking is generally seen as fundamentally anti-competitive and permissible only under strict restrictions, in order to maintain the economic viability of handset subsidies.
It's entirely reasonable that if your phone is discounted as part of a contract, you should be obliged to complete the contracted term or pay an early termination fee in order to keep the handset. What's not reasonable is the idea that the subsidy arrangement gives a network complete control over your device in perpetuity. Either the device is rented to you by the network, in which case they are responsible for it, or it's sold to you at a discounted price and is yours so long as you finish paying for it.
I'm always amazed at what Americans let slide of governmental abuse as long as big private companies profit. I find it difficult to comprehend that even hard core libertarians will defend laws like these.
Just an observation on my part. Americans who call themselves libertarian often seem to be reflexively pro-corporate, even when it flies right in the face of their professed ideals.
Americans who call themselves libertarian often seem to be reflexively pro-corporate
That's not been my experience. Organizations like reason.com and the Cato Institute regularly criticize businesses that use government regulations to stifle competition and restrict the rights of customers. A solid majority of libertarians support either eliminating or substantially weakening IP laws. (There is a minority that believes that IP be treated the same as physical property, with infinite copyright terms and other silliness).
My primitive reading of libertarian philosophy in this case would go something along the lines of:
Companies should lobby for whatever regulation/deregulation benefits them because they are rational actors in a free market.
However the government should not have the power to actually grant this.
I suppose a hardcore libertarian might allow a contract clause which allows the phone network to hire someone to shoot you in the face if you unlock your phone.
my general observation is that libertarians don't object to "i'm bigger than you, and therefore i get my way", just to "i'm the government and therefore i get my way". nowhere is this thrown into sharper relief than when discussing "i'm the government and therefore i say you cannot use the fact that you're bigger to get your way".
It's entirely reasonable that if your phone is discounted as part of a contract, you should be obliged to complete the contracted term or pay an early termination fee in order to keep the handset. What's not reasonable is the idea that the subsidy arrangement gives a network complete control over your device in perpetuity. Either the device is rented to you by the network, in which case they are responsible for it, or it's sold to you at a discounted price and is yours so long as you finish paying for it.