So we have a measure that is, at best, “marginally effective” as a theft deterrent by your phrasing and actively harms consumers while actively benefitting the entities that artificially impose it.
The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.
You seem to think that I have said there is a marginal reduction in theft due to carrier locks. I do not think that is the case at all, and I have said so.
I am arguing that the reduction in theft due to carrier locks is 0. You are arguing that it is small (marginal).
I am saying that no matter what, the actual cost of the carrier lock to the consumer (as demonstrated by used phone values on eBay), is far higher than whatever marginal benefit you are arguing for.
It is a massive net loss to the consumer, and the only guaranteed beneficiary is the wireless carrier.
The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.