I know what you're getting at, but the DMCA and carrier subsidies don't really have much to do with each other. My contract with my carrier has early termination fees and other rules that prevent the carrier from getting screwed. This is true regardless of whether or not its legal to unlock my phone.

You can already buy an iPhone unlocked from Apple, can't you?

If that's what you want, why wouldn't you just do that?

Maybe it makes more economic sense in some cases to purchase the subsidized phone. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable use cases that do no affect the carrier's ability to recoup the subsidy and or have no other practical effect on the contract.

Why are you limiting this to iPhones?

I'm not, at least not intentionally; I'm familiar with iPhones and not with the market for Android phones.

Are there phones you are unable to buy unlocked? I guess Android phones with carrier OS enhancements, but I didn't think those were widely desirable.

No, but let telcos compete without the lock in. What they are doing with subsidized phones is obfuscating prices.

And nothing prevents them from imposing early termination fees.

The lock-in is something the telco is selling you. If you don't want it, don't buy it. You can get an unlocked iPhone direct from Apple.

I understand that, but by bundling the phone with the plan and making impossible to distinguish what you are paying for the phone and what you are paying to make calls, to effectively compare two offers, or even to purchase the service without the device, they limit competition.

This is bad for consumers.