CTIA, VZW, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile are protectionist piggots and should be ashamed of their fat #$%$
The monolithic industry is trying to bend against the winds of change in a way that will paint themselves into a corner. Taking a defensive, anti-evolutionary and anti-competitive bent, the industry has come out on the wrong side of history and the direction they must head in order to lead the world forward in communications:
They have pushed for the Library of Congress rule making to outlaw unlocking of phones. Not content with monopoly franchise on spectrum, the arrogant sons of beaches are pushing in a counter-revolutionary fashion to control what they fail to master through innovation and hard work... control on markets by willing user participation. Steve Largent et al.. you should be drinking yourself into oblivion.. to hide your mutual shame.
Come on guys, stop being detestably deatbeat lardarxses.
The root of this problem is the heavily overreaching Digital Millenium Copyright Act written by the film & recording industry and jammed through Congress to make it illegal for consumers to access content the individual has purchased the copyright. It just happens in this case the content is an OS instead of a film or song. Any vendor can now violate the openness and terms of free open-source software by merely encapsulating it with an encrypted envelope then using DMCA to prosecute anyone that breaks the encrypted envelope. DMCA is overreaching, uncompetitive, anti-consumer and arguably a violation of Fair Use. Now the carriers have adopted it for their own anti-competitive purposes.
And there is overreaching/stretching of copyright issue to the rights of device owners to take their stuff and use it where they wish. Copyright protection can be handled at various levels starting with how its protected by encryption and coding to prevent copying, time viewing periods etc. That part of it I don't have an issue with because the market will be left to decide. CTIA is folding device ownership rights into the copyright issues which is not where the majority of emphasis should be placed. One of the arguments is that the operators subsidize devices so their control should extend past the contract period.. that is hogwash. The operators make decisions about how much to subsidize devices. If they then want to control how users can use them beyond the contract period, it amounts to 'bait and switch' form of deceptive advertising. Devices should all be unlocked imo.. however, the fair position is to have no law requiring devices be locked and leave the issue up to thee market. Control over copyright works should be handled through protection schemes. This issue goes back to the early days of creation of the Internet. After all, who funded the basic research and development? It was developed by and for military and research institutions. Afterwards, there were committee groups within InterNIC who presented proposals for workable methods and several Internet security organizations who presented from sensible to un-workable, complex schemes. Efforts to develop 'single sign on' have floundered around for many years. Google and Apple have among the more workable solutions but neither is universally adopted.
It is difficult to protect digital content. However, fairly seamless methods have developed to protect from all but digital screen re-capture. Even that can be stymied to some degree, although nothing is able to prevent it altogether.
The best time to have nailed down digital rights management, DRM, was 10-15 years ago