"It will likely not be the end of the debate, in our view, as US Cellular, one of the more vigorous advocates for eliminating exclusives, will not benefit from this move," Arbogast said in a research note. "But with so much current emphasis on rural service, we believe it will take pressure off the FCC to regulate."

A spokesman for U.S. Cellular told InternetNews.com that the company's top executives were traveling outside of the country and not immediately available to comment.

The wireless industry has been facing increasing regulatory scrutiny these days, both for the handset exclusivity deals and a bevy of other issues, such as the price of text-messaging rates, open access requirements and the overall level of competition in the market.

The top carriers defend the exclusivity arrangements for promoting innovation. When carriers partner with a manufacturer like Apple or Samsung, they typically subsidize the development and production of the phone, which fuels their argument that without such arrangements, devices like the iPhone might never come to market.

Here's how Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam put it in today's letter:

"This new approach is fair to all sides. Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design. We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers. When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device. This of course constitutes a major risk for us, because if the device is not popular in the marketplace we end up with excess inventory and potential competitive losses. On the other hand, if the device does well in the market, six months is a reasonable time for us to earn the benefit of our risk and investment."

But for some of the consumer advocates who have been calling for regulators and lawmakers to crack down on the practice, Verizon's move rang tinny.

"Verizon's gesture should be seen for what it is -- an inadequate attempt to influence legislation and regulation," Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "It should not be up to Verizon to decide the terms and conditions under which consumers can have the benefit of wireless handset competition."