> The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. Thank you

> The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. Thank you for your comment and info. But be careful, this is the wrong argument here. They are still letting you use the software you choose. We can look at this move conceptually, keeping in mind the future. Here's one possible outcome. You need to phone in first. Imagine the phone is just an IMEI number or a serial number, or one part of a key pair. In a future regime, phoning in marks that phone as no longer "trustworthy". It's now in the digital quarantine or isolation pile. And future network services will isolate the device appropriately. Phoning in doesn't change what software you can install. It possibly changes who you can interact with. I don't know if the argument can be won. We could come up with examples where people were isolated wrongly with other technologies. But there's a subtle psychological trick there about solitary confinement and forcing a family of networks and social interactions. Using that argument reinforces the network that limited us. I don't want to hurt that network. But it also limits us. And the alternative, hidden network lockouts, is also troubling. So, lose lose I guess? I don't think I have the power to change the story.