
At the same time, they agreed to help customers wishing to bring an unlocked phone onto their network. This settlement is limited to the state of California and to Sprint only, but it begs the question: Is the tying of a phone to one network anti-competitive and should companies be required to unlock phones for customers or to sell unlocked phones, should they request one?
This could have huge implications for the industry if this type of settlement and sentiment spread. Currently, it is not exactly easy or obvious on how to bring a compatible, unlocked phone to the network of your choice. Equally difficult is to take your phone to another carrier after you’ve satisfied your contract, or paid an early exit penalty. To spur innovation in the industry (and competition), people should be able to buy a phone with no contract, and they should be able to easily move their phones between compatible networks once they have satisfied any existing contract.

If Apple and AT&T were suddenly required to sell unlocked iPhones next to phones with contracts, there would be a natural expansion in the demand for iPhones and an increase in the competition for subscribers. The same would be true for all other new phones and mobile service in general. This effect would be amplified if making switching easier was required as the legions of people with phones no longer under contract finally felt like they had a choice other than giving up the phone that they’re comfortable with.
Will consumers rise up to demand easier switching and the sale of unlocked phones? Will state attorney generals or legislatures support them?
What do you think?

Don’t miss an article (3,950+) – Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Innovation Excellence group!
