Uhm, okay, yeah. As long as it's a GSM device, it needs a valid SIM card inside it to function. The same would go if it had 3G/HSDPA and were used only as an HSDPA modem. And why are they locked in the first place? Especially if it is as easy to unlock them, as we've found out.<br><br>"They do have exclusivity if one intends to activate the phone for telephony but it's my understanding that if you chose not activate it, you could still use it just like an internet appliance, much like the Touch."<br><br>This, while maybe correct, is splitting hairs. Why would anyone pay the extra for the iPhone, if they were going to use it only as an internet appliance. It is a phone after all. Besides, they'd still need that valid SIM card inside it.<br><br>Personally, I think the less Apple enforces the exclusivity, the better, but why market and sell the thing first with the exclusive bundle, is beyond me. Basically I find it the same as saying the 'obedient' customers: "Sucker...you keep paying the premium in your coverage plan, while the bold ones just paid for the phone." <br><br>There might be a winky after that last line, but that's kind of how I'd feel, if I had gotten an iPhone with AT&T and paid the monthly premiums to use it and then found I could've bought the phone rather cheap and gone with another carrier instead.<br><br>
_________________________
Yes. I can haz a biz and site, no?