[Cyrilmak]

FCC commish says Verizon's ETF response is 'unsatisfying and, in some cases, troubling' -- Engadget


Seems things are about to get interesting.

[Jim from NW Pa]

This is a serious waste of taxpayer dollars.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[jburris020]

This is a serious waste of taxpayer dollars.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I totally agree

[Slingbox]

Government will save us & take freedom.

[TheScionicMan]

I noticed when looking at my T-Mo acct that the ETF is $200 dollars. Can Congress waste time looking at that extra $25 more than VZW for a standard phone and make them lower it? Please disregard the fact that I voluntarily signed the agreement and that I was easily able to avoid paying the ETF by completing my contract....

[gotblackberry]

Ok, we'll lower the tf but just raise rates for everyone whether you have a pda or not.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[cenloe]

This is a serious waste of taxpayer dollars.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I disagree and am glad that the FCC is (or will be) cracking down.

[gotblackberry]

I disagree and am glad that the FCC is (or will be) cracking down.

Cracking down on private business, love it. If you ever own a business I hope they tell you that you can't charge that much for your item.

[gotblackberry]

I wish they would crack down on government taxes and spending.

[cenloe]

Cracking down on private business, love it. If you ever own a business I hope they tell you that you can't charge that much for your item.

It's not an item, it's a penalty. Oh, and I do own a business, a bar to be exact. I understand firsthand what excessive regulation is, but I deal with it. If you don't like it, don't get into the business.

Here is the key paragraph of the FCC's letter to Verizon, it's not that hard to understand.

“Late Friday, Verizon Wireless responded to the Bureau’s queries. The company’s
answers, however, are unsatisfying and, in some cases, troubling. In particular, I am concerned
about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that
ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot
the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers
already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business.
So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their
contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served."

Enough said.

[beavercountyemt]

Hahahaha. weekendbum you make me laugh. Got a better chance of aliens abducting you and giving you a anal probe that shoots a satalite dish out your bum. (if this has ever happened to anyone on here I appologise for my being inconsiderate). I must agree though the I agreed to my contract so why the **** shouldn't Verizon charge me if I break my contract. Dish network and direct TV do it don't they? Should we investigate them too? What the **** happened to personal responsibility in this world? Its a shame, a handshake used to be a binding agreement. Now a signed contract is going to be under review by the government? Seriously people. If you agree to something follow through with it. Man up ant take responsibility.


END RANT

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[cenloe]

Hahahaha. weekendbum you make me laugh. Got a better chance of aliens abducting you and giving you a anal probe that shoots a satalite dish out your bum. (if this has ever happened to anyone on here I appologise for my being inconsiderate). I must agree though the I agreed to my contract so why the **** shouldn't Verizon charge me if I break my contract. Dish network and direct TV do it don't they? Should we investigate them too? What the **** happened to personal responsibility in this world? Its a shame, a handshake used to be a binding agreement. Now a signed contract is going to be under review by the government? Seriously people. If you agree to something follow through with it. Man up ant take responsibility.


END RANT

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I agree with the principle of having an ETF in place, just not the entire rationale behind what can constitute an ETF charge.

[howie]

It's not an item, it's a penalty. Oh, and I do own a business, a bar to be exact. I understand firsthand what excessive regulation is, but I deal with it. If you don't like it, don't get into the business.

Here is the key paragraph of the FCC's letter to Verizon, it's not that hard to understand.

�Late Friday, Verizon Wireless responded to the Bureau�s queries. The company�s
answers, however, are unsatisfying and, in some cases, troubling. In particular, I am concerned
about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that
ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot
the bill for �advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.� Consumers
already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business.
So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their
contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served."

Enough said.

I'm with you.

[Jim from NW Pa]

So you agree with having an etf but are happy they are cracking down on them? Btw further investigation means just that. Not cracking down. Would you rather have Verizon take people to court for breach of contract? Have you ever been sued? Know how much it costs to go to court over it?

Its in your contract that you will pay an etf iff you break contract. You agree to that. When you break contract, Verizon holds you to this. Don't see where that is deserving of wasting money investigating it.

As far as the mobile web thing, all they need to do is pick up a phone and push the button to see that that is false, and that the button can in fact be changed.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[cenloe]

So you agree with having an etf but are happy they are cracking down on them? Btw further investigation means just that. Not cracking down. Would you rather have Verizon take people to court for breach of contract? Have you ever been sued? Know how much it costs to go to court over it?

Its in your contract that you will pay an etf iff you break contract. You agree to that. When you break contract, Verizon holds you to this. Don't see where that is deserving of wasting money investigating it.

As far as the mobile web thing, all they need to do is pick up a phone and push the button to see that that is false, and that the button can in fact be changed.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I don't believe Verizon should have complete say over what the ETF can be for. It should be about recovering the cost of the device, not for doing business, store costs, etc. Limit it to the cost of the device and I have no problem with it, otherwise it becomes a penalty for leaving them-which is anti competitive.

The mobile web thing is a non issue to me.

[Jim from NW Pa]

And cenloe, let me describe a situation you might understand. You have a bar. You and your customer enter into an implied contract when you sell them a drink on tab. You currently have a 25 dollar penalty on a breach of contract, ie a person writing you a bad check, thereby failing to uphold their end of the contract (reimbursing you).

Lately, you have had a ton of a holes writing you bad checks, and its costing you money. You determine the need to raise your penalty on returned checks to 50 dollars to try and keep this from happening. At that time, the liquor control board (regulatory commission) steps in and says they feel its not in the interest of the consumer for this to happen, and makes you drop it.

Is that fair? Same exact thing.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[TheScionicMan]

I don't believe Verizon should have complete say over what the ETF can be for. It should be about recovering the cost of the device, not for doing business, store costs, etc.

The ETF is for ONLY one thing: terminating your contract early. The accounting games have nothing to do with the agreement. If they spend your ETF on cotton candy, it doesn't change the fact that they let you buy out of your contract early. The contract is about a device plus service for a certain length of time. The ETF is not a phone subsidy fee.

Limit it to the cost of the device and I have no problem with it, otherwise it becomes a penalty for leaving them-which is anti competitive.

The cost of the device is $400-500, but you are saying you have a problem with $350?

[Cyrilmak]

Oh lord what have I done.....

[gotblackberry]

It's not an item, it's a penalty. Oh, and I do own a business, a bar to be exact. I understand firsthand what excessive regulation is, but I deal with it. If you don't like it, don't get into the business.

Here is the key paragraph of the FCC's letter to Verizon, it's not that hard to understand.

�Late Friday, Verizon Wireless responded to the Bureau�s queries. The company�s
answers, however, are unsatisfying and, in some cases, troubling. In particular, I am concerned
about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that
ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot
the bill for �advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.� Consumers
already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business.
So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their
contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served."

Enough said.

Wow! You own a bar? Talk about excessive pricing! How much do you charge for a double jack & coke on a friday night? $10? $13? Then you say that ETF's are excessive? I can get a full bottle for $20. If any business has excessive pricing it's the bar industry on alcohol.

The Verizon ETF is voluntary. You have three options for it not to apply to you. 1) Don't get a PDA. 2). Pay full retail. 3) Pick a company with a lower ETF. When you sign on the line, then complain it's excessive, that's where it gets ridiculous because you're relying on the government to protect you when, with a little voting with your wallet, you can decided what policies you do or do not agree with.

[SCrid2000]

It's in the US constitution people, the FCC has to do this. Read Article 7 section 4:
"Congress shall regulate all cellular companies to be sure that they do not charge an excessive ETF."
Go check it.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Cyrilmak]

Wow! You own a bar? Talk about excessive pricing! How much do you charge for a double jack & coke on a friday night? $10? $13? Then you say that ETF's are excessive? I can get a full bottle for $20. If any business has excessive pricing it's the bar industry on alcohol.

The Verizon ETF is voluntary. You have three options for it not to apply to you. 1) Don't get a PDA. 2). Pay full retail. 3) Pick a company with a lower ETF. When you sign on the line, then complain it's excessive, that's where it gets ridiculous because you're relying on the government to protect you when, with a little voting with your wallet, you can decided what policies you do or do not agree with.

Weekendbum I respectfully disagree with you on the entire matter. That is all.

[howie]

The ETF is for ONLY one thing: terminating your contract early. The accounting games have nothing to do with the agreement. If they spend your ETF on cotton candy, it doesn't change the fact that they let you buy out of your contract early. The contract is about a device plus service for a certain length of time. The ETF is not a phone subsidy fee.



The cost of the device is $400-500, but you are saying you have a problem with $350?

For the last 10+ years all of the wireless carriers have said that the ETF is ONLY to recover the cost they have in subsidizing a phone... that's it! If the phone is 400-500 and you go 22 of 24 months then they should have recovered most of that subsidy. Now they are saying that the ETF is not only the subsidy but other "fees". Breech of contract or not, they have been lying to the FCC, FTC, and consumers about what the fees are for. I have been saying for years that wireless carriers should NOT be allowed to sell devices, only service. You don't buy your TV from Time Warner. All this does is create an anti-competitive market.

[Cyrilmak]

For the last 10+ years all of the wireless carriers have said that the ETF is ONLY to recover the cost they have in subsidizing a phone... that's it! If the phone is 400-500 and you go 22 of 24 months then they should have recovered most of that subsidy. Now they are saying that the ETF is not only the subsidy but other "fees". Breech of contract or not, they have been lying to the FCC, FTC, and consumers about what the fees are for. I have been saying for years that wireless carriers should NOT be allowed to sell devices, only service. You don't buy your TV from Time Warner. All this does is create an anti-competitive market.

Exactly. Thank You.

[cenloe]

The ETF is for ONLY one thing: terminating your contract early. The accounting games have nothing to do with the agreement. If they spend your ETF on cotton candy, it doesn't change the fact that they let you buy out of your contract early. The contract is about a device plus service for a certain length of time. The ETF is not a phone subsidy fee.



The cost of the device is $400-500, but you are saying you have a problem with $350?

Wrong, the ETF is a subsidy. All the major carriers have stated that an ETF is to recoup the cost of the device should a customer break the contract. Only now Verizon is adding other reasons for the raised ETF. If you buy your device outright you don't enter into a contract and will incur no ETF. I have a problem with $120 left on the ETF after 23 months into the contract.

I will be buying all of my devices at full retail in the future.

[TheScionicMan]

The FCC should also look to cap prices on eBay that you could sell a phone for. If that phone has been depreciated down to zero and then you sell it for more, you're ripping someone off...

Shouldn't the real issue be "Why can't I pay an ETF and get out of my apt. lease, car loan, Cable TV, Credit Card, etc?" These guys don't even give you option to break your contract without paying it off...