It's tempting to envision a world where phones are like PCs, that you'd just pick one out from Fry's and then install any apps you want (after choosing an app store that you liked) and then hooking up to some voice/text/data plan that you liked, and competition makes all the players work hard for your business...
But I think the paradox of choice kicks in, somewhat, in that users really like the iPhone world's somewhat-curated experience, and that you get a base set of well-built apps that are provided by Apple for the basics (phone, texting, web, email) and they form the core of your mobile usage until you start adding in your own apps.
Having said that, I'd love to be able to pick a carrier for my iPhone, but I don't want the fractured environment/ecosystem of Android.
The scenario you describe - where you just pick a phone like a PC - is what the carriers are trying to avoid. That turns them into a commodity, a bunch of wires.
They'll obviously fight that to the death, hence the customising of phones, the exclusive models, the provision of non-transferable services, handset subsidies and doing everything they can to prevent the average user seeing the alternatives.
The problem is that so long as they keep doing handset subsidies, they'll likely keep winning. I know someone who has just bought a Dell Streak on a two year contract. He got it free but over time he's going to pay more for it than he would for an iPad. Now he's a smart guy - if he's not thinking in those terms you can bet the average consumer isn't.
Basically the networks are providing cheap credit to tie people in to overpriced telecoms services and the consumers love it because it means that for $50 a month (which you can afford) you can have a $600 phone (which you can't, at least not easily).
We need to stop the carriers (through banking regulation, ideally) from behaving like incredibly dishonest banks the way they are now. At the very least they should be forced to break out the handset subsidy amortization on your bill - IOW your bill would show $25 for your voice service, $25 for your data service, and then $15 for your handset amortization. Moreover they'd have to list a proper interest rate and how much of your principle is left with each bill.
Once people visibly see the handset amortization on their bill, they can reasonably ask, "if I didn't upgrade to a new phone, why am I still paying handset amortization?"
At some point, someone will enter the market and provide "just the pipe". Or, the telcos will fight themselves into that situation. We just have a lot of historical baggage to work through first.
Telcos are already a commodity, there's just a bit of cognitive dissonance going on.
A network requires a massive investment to build, it sadly makes no sense for someone to spend that money and then comoditize the market taking the bulk of the profit out if it.
I think any change will be more gradual, each carrier having to relinquish little bits more control over time to please users and other companies in the market (such as Apple and maybe Google who could threaten to withdraw funding for Android if the carriers keep screwing with it so much).
The system you described is implemented in parts of Europe, specifically in Eastern Europe - the cell phone and voice/data plan markets are separated completely. As a result, the prices are very low and the network coverage is much better than in the North America.
But I think the paradox of choice kicks in, somewhat, in that users really like the iPhone world's somewhat-curated experience, and that you get a base set of well-built apps that are provided by Apple for the basics (phone, texting, web, email) and they form the core of your mobile usage until you start adding in your own apps.
Having said that, I'd love to be able to pick a carrier for my iPhone, but I don't want the fractured environment/ecosystem of Android.