It may well be that internet access in general is an essential utility, though I'd disagree that any device in particular is. However, the fact that the 'two do

It may well be that internet access in general is an essential utility, though I'd disagree that any device in particular is. However, the fact that the 'two dominant platforms' continue existing is mostly due to people's personal preferences. Besides, saying that Android devices even approach the same level of locked-downness of Apple devices is absurd; I run an open source version of android on all my mobile devices, and not once was it particularly difficult to install. Even more, it doesn't seem to me that cell phone manufacturers are currently moving the market in particular unison. There are still more and less open devices, just as there are more or less expensive ones. Perhaps we're moving slowly towards that, but we're certainly a long way away as of now. My primary issue is the difference between ensuring that no one has to get screwed and ensuring that no one can get a product they want. So long as there are more open devices, no one is compelled to use an IPhone. Anyone who wants to be protected from big bad apple may simply refrain from paying them. A utility is generally regulated not because of its vitality, but because of inherent restrictions on consumer choice. Unless it becomes impossible to just not buy Apple's shitty locked down hardware, it doesn't make sense to constrict.