From the Catalyst Code blog:

If you buy a mobile phone in Europe, you are not tied to any particular carrier. Yet in the US, all major carriers only sell phones that can only work on their networks. They sell them at a discount and then get back that discount through long-term usage contracts that are tied to the phones. Suppose all phones had to be sold unlocked, perhaps because these ties were declared illegal. Phones would be more expensive, but calling and data services would almost certainly be cheaper. You might see Nokia and Samsung operating retail outlets instead of Verizon and T-Mobile, with the Nokia person giving you a choice of carriers and handling the hook-up process for you. With the power of the carriers reduced, phone makers might be able to solve the hard chicken-and-egg problem that prevents us from using our mobile phones as payment devices, something Japanese consumers have been able to do for some time now.

Link: http://www.thecatalystcode.com/theconversation/blog/2007/08/27/its-usually-nice-to-be-noticed/

Well I think that phones in the US shouldn’t be tied to a carrier in the first place. But since they are, well yeah the guy that hacks a phone to use with a different carrier should be punished in some way.

Aren’t we are supposed to be

Submitted by Brent (not verified) on Sat, 09/29/2007 – 01:51.
Aren’t we are supposed to be living in a free society? Free
societies use “laissez faire economics” to do business. In other
words, free enterprise. Corporate Apple sells a product, consumer
buys product and decides how they want to use it. They may choose to
use it as a doorstop or a phone. It is ridiculous to think I am
barred from using my phone however I want, as long as it does not
encroach on another.
If it happens to not fit in the “box” that Apple
thinks it should, but the consumer does, shouldn’t they change their attitude (agreements)? What ever happened to the philosophy the customer is always right?
The consumer will decide the best course of
action for the product, but the company better listen to the consumer
or there will be a huge backlash. It happens with every business. ATT
is an outstanding example of a company that tries to do the opposite
of the free enterprise market philosophy. They simply don’t care
about the consumer, but do care about total control over the consumer
the way “they think is best.” ATT would like to change the name to
iControl, not iphone. If you have any doubt, read their agreement and
see how much in control they are. How much information they want from
you, including your SS# (talk about invasion of privacy! Aren’t
these some of the reasons why they were busted up years ago? Most saw
them as a threat to free enterprise.
Cannot believe Apple teamed up
with such a rough company. You can bet your last dollar they are
screaming at Apple to do something about the obvious popularity of
the unlock program. It is very legal to do and they know it. If ATTs
service were good and fair, they would not need to say a word. We
would all use it. That is the genius of free enterprise, the consumer
decides which carrier to use, not the other way around. You can bet
all carriers would compete in a most fair manner to win your
patronage. You are king and decide the future of Apple and ATT not
them deciding our future.
If only Nokia, Samsung, Sony and others
would give them a run for their money. Apple and ATT would not behave
this way. Competition is always best for us the consumer. Without the
consumer Apple & ATT would not exist. There are many examples of
trying to lock the consumer out. Which history proves, only results
in bad PR for everyone involved. It takes years to get rid of a bad
taste in everyone’s mouth. That is precisely the reason the ATT name
was retired for such a long while, before they started the “New ATT”
with Apple. Those who fail to recognize history are destined to
repeat the same mistakes. Will they never learn?