Why don't the FCC mandate two parts/bills for phone contract?

[EbookReader]

Part 1 of the bill is for the phone hardware
Part 2 of the bill is for the wireless service



Crude Example:

Part 1: $30 a month for phone on a 2 yr contract ($720 total)
Part 2: $70 a month for wireless service on a 2 yr contract

Total bill: $100 a month



Crude Example #2

Part 1: $15 a month for phone on a 2 yr contract ($360 total)
Part 2: $70 a month for wireless service on a 2 yr contract

Total bill: $85 a month




Crude example #3

Part 1: $0 a month (because you bring your own phone or still using your 2 years old phone)
Part 2: $70 a month for wireless service on a 2 yr contract

Total bill: $70 a month

 

[dukebound85]

because they don't have to?

 

[kdarling]

I said yes, because my first reaction is that if I bring my own phone, I shouldn't have to pay the same as those who are getting a $15-20 a month subsidy.

OTOH, I'm sure the carriers factor in the extra payments from people who don't upgrade, so the price of the voice/data service might go up if the two items were split.

So ... (throws arms up in air) .... who knows.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Because it's not a loan with a repayment period.

It's a "discount" for agreeing to a minimum-length contract.

 

[EbookReader]

if the FCC do this, would the consumers benefit?