Why? The whole point of GSM is that carrier and phone can (and should) be entirely disconnected, decoupled and only connected through the means of whatever SIM the user puts in his phone.
The notion that a carrier needs to be involved in the making of a phone makes about as much sense as if my ISP needed to test and "approve" what Ethernet hardware I use at home.
It's frankly none of their business.
> This problem is made worse on Verizon and Sprint which use CDMA
So don't use them, just like you wouldn't use an ISP which doesn't speak IP.
Pretty much any argument for network/device tie-in is fallacious on its face for the simple reason that there are many countries out there which don't have that arrangement. And yet the phones there work fine, and so do the networks.
It is none of their business, but they desperately want a piece of the pie so they brand their phones (and probably sell them at a small discount - this is the value proposition here). Branding also results in shifting responsibilities from OEM manufacturer to carrier with regard to testing and stuff.
Also, plenty ISPs actually do sell branded wireless routers with branded firmware, so it's not uncommon practice in other neighboring industries.
Why? The whole point of GSM is that carrier and phone can (and should) be entirely disconnected, decoupled and only connected through the means of whatever SIM the user puts in his phone.
The notion that a carrier needs to be involved in the making of a phone makes about as much sense as if my ISP needed to test and "approve" what Ethernet hardware I use at home.
It's frankly none of their business.
> This problem is made worse on Verizon and Sprint which use CDMA
So don't use them, just like you wouldn't use an ISP which doesn't speak IP.