Why 60 days? Why not zero days? If you're going to take away their extrajudicial means of contract enforcement, what's the point of this residue? The only purpo

Why 60 days? Why not zero days? If you're going to take away their extrajudicial means of contract enforcement, what's the point of this residue? The only purpose for leaving it would be to confuse the customer about whether they can unlock, and to allow companies to make the process burdensome and confusing. The reason carriers fight to preserve this isn't for enforcement of the contract at all, it's because of the other revenue streams from unwanted intrusion by the carrier into the use of your phone. Carriers can sue for the cost of the phone. And the FCC, by allowing this 60 day provision, would be making a conscious attempt to protect carrier data harvesting and customer capture. I get allowing carriers to lock for the length of a contract; I get not allowing carriers to lock at all. This, however, is an attempt to pander to people who think locking is wrong while still preserving the benefits that carriers get from locking. These benefits will now be delivered by jerking customers through a Kafkaesque dance of intentionally confusing bureaucracy. Unlocking becomes cancelling your gym membership or your subscription to the Economist.