I'm not so sure about that. At the other end of the spectrum you would have a business model where consumer entry/exit costs nothing -- which means you end up with cheap, sh!tty service all around. Sort of like driving on public roads these days.
I disagree. Anticompetitive conditions in contracts that add additional costs above and beyond the cost of the equipment to utilize a service are not good. A person would still have to pay for the phone but I don’t think purposely limiting an individuals ability to use the equipment with any service is reasonable. Just because you sell me a TV should never mean I have to buy your cable service and only your cable service. If your service is worth having I will buy it.
Public roads are not a good example though in many areas they are very good. It is not as if the road system in a community is bid on wholesale by a road construction firm and then whether or not the road construction firm keeps the roads in good condition determines whether they get renewed.
What happens instead the road construction is managed project by project through an expensive slow bureaucracy.
If the bureaucrats jobs were tied to the publics opinion of the roads then the roads would improve.
I think all consumers benefit from having the freedom to use their electronic devices and media the way they see fit and to reject services and media they are unsatisfied with without losing out financially. The person providing the unsatisfactory service should be the one paying when the lack of service causes people to leave not the customers.
Most companies don’t need to develop what can only be termed parasitic contracts requiring individuals trade a their individual freedom for access.