The cell phone manufactures get a kickback from the cellular service companies. Ok, yes, got that. In exchange for the consumer paying a subsidized amount for the phone hardware, yes, yes, makes perfect sense. I pay $99 for an iPhone, and over the next 2 years, AT&T kicks back money to Apple. Got it. This same deal exists with other manufactures too, like Google, RIM, and the like. All makes sense financially and I see how the money exchanges hands.
What about service? The above concept can co-exist with a system based on consumer choice. Let me have the option to pay a subsidized price for a device, such as the iPhone with AT&T, or not. Say I want the iPhone with T-Mobile, let me pay a non-subsidized price and get the phone there. Want the Droid on Sprint? No problem there either. Pay the subsidized price and get it with Verizon, or the non-subsidized price and get it with Sprint.
As paying consumers, the clients of both the wireless companies and the phone manufactures, we need to stand up and say, give us options, let us decide. We�re big boys and girls. We know what a contract is and the ups and downs of it. We know which company has better 3G service, or voice service in our neck of the woods, let us choose how we pay to get it. We can decide if it is worth it to have the iPhone on Sprint, or T-mobile and pay for it. If we don�t want to lay out the cash, we can opt for the hardware with the carrier that pays the subsidy for it.
Why is this so complicated? How have we fallen into a system now where we have only a take it or leave it option when purchasing a cellular phone? Who would this hurt? Who would this help? Pass this on and let your voice be heard.
