They do it to segment their customers. A lot of us startups do it too when we offer one plan for $9 per month, another for $19 per month. The delta isn't necessarily because our costs are different, but rather because the value to the consumer is different.
You could argue that cellular networks should only be allowed to be dumb pipes because they are a government-granted monopoly (of spectrum). That would put them in a similar place as a utility like your electric company, sort of quasi-private but heavily regulated.
That makes sense, but OTOH utilities are notorious for stupid bureaucracy and being slow to evolve... So would they still deploy new stuff like LTE quickly? Would they still subsidize phones?
I'm not sure of the answer, but I think that's what the real debate should be if you don't want them creating "artificial fees", ie segmenting customers by value.
To me, it is one features of the US mobile phone market that looks particularly unhealthy. For instance, the subsidy is biggest reason cellular networks can start messing around with what you can and can't run on your phone in the first place. Otherwise, if you didn't like how your carrier crippled your phone, you'd wouldn't buy your phone from them (at least for AT&T and T-Mobile, though I suspect competitive pressure would drag Verizon, Sprint and the rest along, for the most part).
Look at how Chile privatized most of their infrastructure. Basically, the government grants a private company portions of the infrastructure, and they are given specific goals and timelines to upgrade the structures. If they stay on track and meet their goals, they are allowed to keep the profits. If they fail, other companies can bid on the infrastructure, finish the improvements, and capture the profits.
On the other hand high bandwidth prices slow down adoption, usage and evolution for all other industries which uses these telecom services. The rest of the economy is held back by these prices.
I would argue that the benefits of low bandwidth prices for the rest of the economy outweighs the benefits from the current telecom profits.
You could argue that cellular networks should only be allowed to be dumb pipes because they are a government-granted monopoly (of spectrum). That would put them in a similar place as a utility like your electric company, sort of quasi-private but heavily regulated.
That makes sense, but OTOH utilities are notorious for stupid bureaucracy and being slow to evolve... So would they still deploy new stuff like LTE quickly? Would they still subsidize phones?
I'm not sure of the answer, but I think that's what the real debate should be if you don't want them creating "artificial fees", ie segmenting customers by value.