Sprint: We've Disabled CarrierIQ On Our Devices → Who Owns The Phone?

It seems to me that carriers want to own the phone when it suits them, and the customer to own the phone when it does not. E.g.: I have to pay for the phone, but I can't take it to whatever network I want (after any subsidizing contract is up) or put it on another network when I can't get to theirs. The carrier believes it has the right to put spyware on the phone or determine what electronic payments system can be installed upon it, but if it breaks I'm the one who has to pay to replace it.

This is simply blatantly wrong, in my view. You either own the phone or you do not. If you own the phone, the most the carrier ought to have the right to do is enforce technical standards that ensure compatibility with their network. Period. Exception is subsidized phones, while the subsidizing contract is still in force, of course. Then you're obliged to stay on their network until the contract is up or you pay the ETF. But that should be the limit of their control over your phone. If the carrier owns the phone then you're at their mercy, but it's also on their dime for repairs and replacements.

Carriers ought not to be able to have it both ways.

Exactly. If you own your phone, or at the end of your subsidy, the phone should be unlocked and and privileges given to full (Like rooting). The user shouldn't be the one who has to try and find custom roms, or manually root or jailbreak the phone.

As you say: They want "ownership" control and rights, but none of the liability or responsibility. IE they control it and use it how they see fit, however you pay for it and are responsible for it should it break or need replacement.

It's completely messed up.