So the iPhone workarounds and hacks, whether developed by Americans or others, will end up being hosted abroad, and credited to anonymous hackers. Then they'll be legally applied by Americans.

Stupid, yes, and a tiny bit inconvenient, but I don't see what the real problem is.

Verizon is not completely honest when they say they prorate their early termination fee. I was forced to sign up for a 2 year contract about 16 months ago in order to get the totally-useless, biggest-mistake-of-my-life Razr V3. I loathe this phone and have been wanting to get rid of it forever, but I loathe Verizon equally as much and I did not want to give them $175 for nothing. About 2 weeks ago, I read about the prorating situation, and my eyes lit up. The catch is that the prorate does not apply to anyone who signed their contract before the rule went into effect, which was the fall of 2006. So although it was advertised as a kindhearted thing to do for their customers, the people who already had agreements with Verizon, i.e., the people who might actually take advantage of the prorate, are locked out of the deal, even though I have been paying those bastards for the last year and a half.

It will be a happy day when I can finally ditch this phone for good and move to another provider who is just as awful yet in exciting and new ways.

I ran into a fun problem with Verizon this year when my phone stopped working while under warranty. Verizon gave me a new phone but told me that they could not transfer the ringtones that I had purchased through their service to my new phone. I could redownload any ringtones that I had bought in the last three months and they would credit my account...but any others would be lost. I have been with Verizon for nine years now. Over time, I have downloaded a lot of ringtones at $1.99 or more a pop. I don't understand how they can transfer my address book but not the music files I have downloaded from their own server. Seems like just another way to rip people off to me.

Did Apple need to partner with AT&T when releasing the iphone ?

If you're paying full price for the phone, why wasn't the phone sold by Apple as a stand along product ?

There are very serious, and obvious questions it appears no one in this discussion is willing to ask.

Who is holding a gun to anyone's head in the choice to a) purchase an iPhone, or b) enter into a contract for cellular service?

Why do the principles of Free Market economics go out the window when people talk about this issue?

My guess is that features like visual voicemail required lots of work from AT&T. If Apple just wanted to make unlocked phones that would just work on a network, they would not have been able to innovate as they did.

You asked, Who is holding a gun to anyone's head in the choice to a) purchase an iPhone, or b) enter into a contract for cellular service?

First, Fashion, Hipness and Prestige are each holding guns to people's heads. Do you remember when people first started getting cellular phones, the size of bricks, and were proudly showing them off? They weren't surgeons or secret agents or anyone who absolutely needed to be in constant phone contact. They were people showing how important they were.

It's an old American tradition that you must buy something for people to love or appreciate you. Those of us who don't get used to being unloved and unappreciated, but get through the day somehow. That's too much agony for the average person, so they rushed out and bought those expensive, annoying cell phones.

Now having a cell phone no longer makes you hip. (I recall a brief cartoon, a pilot for a series that wasn't made, with a dorky character holding his new cell phone aloft and referring to it in about every sentence he said.) So to be hip, to be loved, to get the women to notice you and your boss to agree to a raise, you MUST have an iPhone.

Second, the contract. You don't need one; my little pay-as-you-go phone suffices to my needs. But people who are going to use, and use, and use a phone must have a contract. The megacorporations that run this stuff insist on it. It is extremely profitable for them, and profit is the only thing important in America any more; not freedom, not our lives, only monthly P&L statements.

You also asked, Why do the principles of Free Market economics go out the window when people talk about this issue?

Free Market doesn't apply because not everyone can put up their own nationwide phone system. For decades Ma Bell ran all the phones in this country, or tolerated local phone systems that hooked into their network. We're seeing the Baby Bells beginning to merge again into one monolithic Bell-asaurus again, ending that fiction of Free Market. Maintaining that network (as well as they do) means big expense. The only way it can be paid for is through hefty fees from you and me.

The trick is, in the past, government was intent on keeping monopolies such as telephone service under control. I remember a time when putting a "non-standard" phone on your line was tantamount to growing pot in your back yard. Now, government supports monopolies and the rich over individual rights. Pretty soon they'll take away the phone you bought at Walgreen's and force you to install Genuine Bell again, just watch.

Legally, by the carrier.

Twice by Cingular. Just called them up, said I had owned my phone for 90 days and I wanted it unlocked, and they unlocked it. No questions asked, no hard time given.

Once by T-Mobile, after 3 weeks. Told them I was traveling to Europe on business, my employer had a SIM for me to use while there, and I needed my phone unlocked to do so. Again, no problem.

Also had one unlocked by a cell phone wholesaler, who had the software because its the same software they use to lock the phones. $20.

Getting your phone unlocked isn't a problem. But there isn't a lot of point to it anymore, since the FCC has lost control of the industry. Do you really like T-Mobile that much better than AT&T?