When consumers walk into a store to buy a flat-screen television, they aren’t locked into a specific cable or satellite provider. So why, when they get an Apple iPhone or a BlackBerry Storm, are they signed up with a specific carrier?

That’s a question a lot of Americans ask when they travel overseas and find that the hottest devices can be used with any service. Their handsets are not only wireless, they plus come without strings attached.

The reply dates to the mid-1990s, when Congress and the Federal Communications Commission began siding with telecom companies, which wanted to build proprietary networks, unlike much of the rest of the world, which opted for open platforms.

These days, the U.S. policy does not look like such a wise one. Wired broadband and wireless services in that country lag those in much of Europe and East Asia in speed, ease of use and price.

Of specific concern is wireless,

where two providers, AT&T and Verizon, have come to dominate and to use their positions to lock in exclusive deals with makers of popular devices. The Justice agency has opened an inquiry into these deals. While it’s not entirely clear what antitrust investigators mean, the system needs to be revisited.

Allowing dominant service providers to cut exclusive deals with handset makers forces consumers to manufacture an unnecessary compromise amidst the device they prefer and the service that is strongest in their area. And smaller competitors are hurt whether they can’t get access to the devices consumers crave.

Beyond that, exclusive deals allow giant telecoms to expand their dominance into high tech, one of the U.S. economy’s biggest growth engines. Providers have repeatedly slowed applications, such as cell phone GPS systems, until they could figure out a way to get a piece of the revenue.

that isn’t to say companies should be…

Original post by dhiram