That brings me to the bigger problem that would still remain – contracts – and that’s one that exists entirely by the collective consumer’s choosing. People (generally) refuse to put up much money up front for a phone, and insist that the carriers subsidize the phones by, typically, around $200. As such, the carriers need a contract to ensure they get their money back.

Overall I would think both the carriers & consumers would benefit from eliminating phone subsidies, but carriers won’t do it and consumers don’t want it. The market is stuck in a bad model.

However, the *rest* of the his suggestions seem like very bad ideas. They are undefended and would lead to all sorts of unnecessary consequences. And the whole double-speed-every-two-years thing is completely out of left field. I’m not sure if it’s a massive misrepresentation of Moore’s law or what, but it’s really weird.

The phone locking this is fine, minus one detail, but the rest of it seems like it shouldn’t have gotten by a reasonable editorial board.

I am perfectly capable of criticizing the author without criticizing the poster.

And you’re right – I think he missed a major point… not all phones would work on all carriers because some use different technologies.

I feel like I’m either horribly uneducated (and I think I understand technology pretty well) or he is… or, skeptically, maybe he’s proposing things for shock value and not actual value.

Let me hit some of them.
- End phone exclusivity – I would fully support a requirement for all phone to be unlocked, but saying that ‘every phone should work on every network’ is either sloppy wording or shows a lack of understanding. There are different protocols and technologies used by different companies. Even unlocking phone wouldn’t prevent that. However, if I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows that and just poorly worded it, then he’s mostly on the mark here.

- Not owning airwaves – Here he uses WiFi to say that unlicensed frequencies work. It may work when you’re trying to send a signal a hundred feet or so for personal use. But when you’re trying to cover a city with towers and need to invest millions to do it, no one is going to do it if someone else can come along and interfere with their signal, and have nothing to do about it. This seems totally off the wall.

- Faster and faster data connection – In this final bit, he claims that data connection should double more than every two years? Why? Says who? Why exactly do people need anything more than ~10 mpbs anyway? I love progress, but who exactly do you state this as some kind of a rule of nature without any explanation, defense, or apparent logic behind it.

Sorry, I guess it’s a bit off topic, but that article really got me bugged. The WSJ can be very good, but they can be incredibly off the mark sometimes too.