it should make a good excuse for another Slashdot submission, "FSF criticised for promoting user restrictions".
I wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote :-) The problem is in FSF's definition of own "territory". In my book it's not their call to judge about peripherals, no matter how closely integrated or remotely attached those peripherals are mechanically.
We believe that it's better for user freedom to give him/her the ability to upgrade the firmware. We're convinced that any effort to make sure that "nothing can alter the radio modem's own software" is futile, because it would need us to trust the manufacturer anyway - and if we would trust the manufacturer, we wouldn't have to block it at all. We're proposing tight monitoring of what modem does instead. More about that in the article