> people don't want to pay $500 up front for a phone, even though they're paying more down the line. As far as I can tell, T-Mobile is (was?) the only major US

> people don't want to pay $500 up front for a phone, even though they're paying more down the line. As far as I can tell, T-Mobile is (was?) the only major US carrier to even offer the option of buying a phone up front and then getting a month-to-month plan that costs less than the equivalent 2-year contract. That is what I use and all told it is going to save me about $200 over two years vs. a subsidy based plan. But if hypothetically my monthly rate were the same as what it would be on a 2-year contract, as it would be on AT&T, why wouldn't I take advantage of the subsidized phones (apart from lock-in)? OK, there are prepaid plans, but the choice of phones (especially smartphones) is limited compared to what's available on postpaid.