01-13-10 02:30 AM
100 1234
tools
  1. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    I have a problem with $120 left on the ETF after 23 months into the contract.(for a $500 device)

    I will be buying all of my devices at full retail in the future.
    Who in their right mind would cancel a contract at 23 months and pay the 120 ETF when they could just pay the last month's bill?

    You'll really teach them a lesson buying full retail. Have you checked the prices lately? Tour = $489.00, 8830WE = $519.00. Hey, at least you won't have an ETF when you quit them and take that phone to one of your other CDMA-provider choices...
    12-24-09 04:37 PM
  2. cenloe's Avatar
    Who in their right mind would cancel a contract at 23 months and pay the 120 ETF when they could just pay the last month's bill?

    You'll really teach them a lesson buying full retail. Have you checked the prices lately? Tour = $489.00, 8830WE = $519.00. Hey, at least you won't have an ETF when you quit them and take that phone to one of your other CDMA-provider choices...
    Your sarcasm and condescending tone is not appreciated. If you cant have a discussion like an adult then go elsewhere.

    I respect the opinions of all here, even if we don't agree.

    You're right, why buy full retail when my monthly rate is still the same? It's still the same because the fee to recoup the cost of the device is in the ETF. Any other fee's added on to this is wrong.
    12-24-09 04:42 PM
  3. jahoobob's Avatar
    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.
    So if you sell a margarita in your bar does it matter that a part of that price goes to paying the person who made the drink and a part of that price also pays for the person cleaning the toilets. I think ALL of the price I pay for a drink should go only to what goes into making and delivering that drink. That would include such things as electricity for the lights so the bartender can see what he is doing, etc.
    I think the stat ABC should check you out to make sure all the money collected from that drink goes to things associated with that drink. This would be especially relevant if you raise the price of drinks because people are breaking their margarita glasses but also give a raise to the janitor.
    12-24-09 04:43 PM
  4. dchawk81's Avatar
    I will be buying all of my devices at full retail in the future.
    Cutting off your nose to spite your face?

    I dunno about you but I need my mobile phone and mobile number for as long as I'm in business/alive/need to be contacted, so I'm not going to voluntarily and intentionally ditch it at all, let alone within 2 years. That means I may as well sign on the dotted and save some bucks.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-24-09 04:45 PM
  5. cenloe's Avatar
    Cutting off your nose to spite your face?

    I dunno about you but I need my mobile phone and mobile number for as long as I'm in business/alive/need to be contacted, so I'm not going to voluntarily and intentionally ditch it at all, let alone within 2 years. That means I may as well sign on the dotted and save some bucks.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    I agree, after some thought It seems ridiculous to not have it subsidized.
    12-24-09 04:48 PM
  6. dchawk81's Avatar
    Also remember that you become month-to-month anyway at the end of the contract. So if your phone is still adequate and you don't upgrade, the ETF is no longer hanging over your head.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-24-09 04:56 PM
  7. gotblackberry's Avatar
    Please respond to my post, cenloe. Your industry (the bar industry) grossly increases costs of products (alcohol) why is that ok?
    12-24-09 08:28 PM
  8. gotblackberry's Avatar
    Weekendbum I respectfully disagree with you on the entire matter. That is all.
    Thank you & I respectfully disagree with you.
    12-24-09 08:39 PM
  9. larrygump's Avatar
    you know I asked to have my account cancelled just because im so sick of the blatant censorship on this site......and since these "mods" ahahaha cant seem to fathom that idea or have the basic politeness to respond Ill share some hate and discontent....

    I just love that the fcc is rubbing VZW's nose in this......particularly where in "other" forums people are laughing at the irony of how vzw is saying the etf helps recover initial investment .....

    what are the activation fees for.......ahahaah vzw......FAIL

    oh and now I've got my iPhone yay.....good timing now that RIMS having outage after outage


    there now ban me "mods"........

    (EDIT) almost forgot ........merry christmas........
    Last edited by larrygump; 12-24-09 at 10:53 PM.
    12-24-09 10:24 PM
  10. Super_Mario's Avatar
    Oh wow. This really gets you that excited?
    12-24-09 10:42 PM
  11. i7guy's Avatar
    Please respond to my post, cenloe. Your industry (the bar industry) grossly increases costs of products (alcohol) why is that ok?
    Ever eat in a restaurant with a minimum tab policy? Why doesn't the government crack down on this practice? All that will wind up by happening is the consumer is going to get stuck with the tab. I definitely don't support a higher etf, but one can vote with their dollars and go to another more "consumer friendly" carrier. I don't see Microsoft or Intel really fundamentally changed business practices, neither will VZW.
    12-24-09 10:49 PM
  12. larrygump's Avatar
    Oh wow. This really gets you that excited?
    ya man......i love it.....i absolutely love it

    suite.......ahahahahaha
    12-24-09 10:51 PM
  13. cenloe's Avatar
    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.
    You are comparing apples to oranges. It's nowhere nearly the same thing. Im not complaining about the markup of a device, that would be comparing apples to apples.

    You can go down to the liquor store and buy your own or even head to a different establishment. I agree that the prices we charge are high, but part of what you pay for is the service as well as the atmosphere, which you cant get at home.

    I dont have a problem with Verizon marking up the cost of what it costs to do business, just as long as it's not included in the ETF. In fact, they already do this, the markup is in the rate of monthly plan. BTW a double Jack and Coke is $10.

    There is only so much spectrum with so many service providers, I cant just go out and buy my own spectrum, it doesn't work that way. Verizon "rents" spectrum from the government and thats why they are subject to federal oversight. Heck, the bar industry is heavily regulated as well, but there are more than enough liquor licenses for any given community, unlike licenses to operate a wireless communications network.

    Once again, I dont have a problem with an ETF that is in place to recoup the cost of a device, but Im not for one that also tacks on the price of marketing, commissions or store costs.
    12-24-09 10:56 PM
  14. larrygump's Avatar
    they know this cenloe....its not even about that for him.......too many on here primarily those who WORK for VZW are just so darned consumed with supporting the brand that they don't even know how when the corporation ends and they begin....

    this isn't even an argument about anti trust anymore......its class warfare.....the rich just cant stand that the working class actually has a entity that will stand up and make the game fair.......

    they use ridiculous arguments about govt. becoming too involved......and use stupid words like socialism......capitalism and tea party....

    I started a whole new thread about this ....and I for one am glad that the prez. is pushing for a consumer protection agency and encouraging his agencies to squeeze the likes of VZW.....
    12-24-09 11:07 PM
  15. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    you know I asked to have my account cancelled just because im so sick of the blatant censorship on this site......and since these "mods" ahahaha cant seem to fathom that idea or have the basic politeness to respond Ill share some hate and discontent....
    Good excuse for going back on your "I won't be posting here ever again, Goodbye Cruel World" post. It's the mods fault you have to come back!
    12-25-09 01:04 AM
  16. Super_Mario's Avatar
    Good excuse for going back on your "I won't be posting here ever again, Goodbye Cruel World" post. It's the mods fault you have to come back!
    I thought I remembered him saying that, now he's back getting all hot about bringing down VZW.......
    12-25-09 01:38 AM
  17. Cyrilmak's Avatar
    they know this cenloe....its not even about that for him.......too many on here primarily those who WORK for VZW are just so darned consumed with supporting the brand that they don't even know how when the corporation ends and they begin....

    this isn't even an argument about anti trust anymore......its class warfare.....the rich just cant stand that the working class actually has a entity that will stand up and make the game fair.......

    they use ridiculous arguments about govt. becoming too involved......and use stupid words like socialism......capitalism and tea party....

    I started a whole new thread about this ....and I for one am glad that the prez. is pushing for a consumer protection agency and encouraging his agencies to squeeze the likes of VZW.....
    After living in Norway I have come to agree and admire the socialistic government on many levels. As with France. Health, standard of living - all way higher than the United States. The job rates are all in the upper 90's for both countries.

    However there are also things that I don't care for, like less of a choice betweens services or brands. While both countries have a pretty large tax rate, there are also many benefits that go along with it, superior health care, much better public works and services, etc.

    Anyhow back on topic.
    12-25-09 03:04 AM
  18. Gawain's Avatar
    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 Bureaus queries. The companys
    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.
    Pretty sure you charge enough for your liquor to pay your employees, keep the lights on, wash the dishes, water flowing in the toilets and mop the floor every now and again...and oh yeah, pay for, and buy more liquor.

    That Commissioner's response was akin to telling you that you should be only charging enough to buy more liquor.

    As a business owner, dealing with regulation is one thing, but when/if the day came and they told you that you could only charge $2.50+tax for a double shot of Tangere...are you really going to take it up the @*s?

    The regulations keep getting heaped on, and we're not too far off from where it's not going to be possible to build a building, or heaven forbid, get a drink...

    I'd like to know how many of the commissioners in the FCC have run a business.
    12-25-09 03:25 AM
  19. gotblackberry's Avatar
    You are comparing apples to oranges. It's nowhere nearly the same thing. Im not complaining about the markup of a device, that would be comparing apples to apples.

    You can go down to the liquor store and buy your own or even head to a different establishment. I agree that the prices we charge are high, but part of what you pay for is the service as well as the atmosphere, which you cant get at home.

    I dont have a problem with Verizon marking up the cost of what it costs to do business, just as long as it's not included in the ETF. In fact, they already do this, the markup is in the rate of monthly plan. BTW a double Jack and Coke is $10.

    There is only so much spectrum with so many service providers, I cant just go out and buy my own spectrum, it doesn't work that way. Verizon "rents" spectrum from the government and thats why they are subject to federal oversight. Heck, the bar industry is heavily regulated as well, but there are more than enough liquor licenses for any given community, unlike licenses to operate a wireless communications network.

    Once again, I dont have a problem with an ETF that is in place to recoup the cost of a device, but Im not for one that also tacks on the price of marketing, commissions or store costs.
    I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing one industry to the other. You come in here and complain and agree with the FCC for investigating a $350 for an ETF (when the phone does, in fact, cost about twice as much as a dumb phone) because they're using it to cover other costs except the phone? Why is that a problem and why is that any of yours (or the FCC's) business? They're not forcing people to sign, they're not charging people if they don't disconnect. I just don't see where you, or the FCC, feel it's your right to pick and choose where they spend this fee and/or how much they charge. If you don't agree to the terms, DON'T AGREE. I'm not saying you have to start your own cellco, but when SPRATTMO all have lower ETF's there really is a huge choice for you, isn't there?


    $10 for a double jack and coke, How many shots are in a fifth? 24? 25? So you're basically charging up to $125 per bottle when I go to safeway and get the same thing for $20, for the experience? LOL. No, it's because you can and I support your right to do it. I would oppose the FCC investigating you too.
    12-25-09 04:33 AM
  20. i7guy's Avatar
    You are comparing apples to oranges. It's nowhere nearly the same thing. Im not complaining about the markup of a device, that would be comparing apples to apples.

    You can go down to the liquor store and buy your own or even head to a different establishment. I agree that the prices we charge are high, but part of what you pay for is the service as well as the atmosphere, which you cant get at home.

    I dont have a problem with Verizon marking up the cost of what it costs to do business, just as long as it's not included in the ETF. In fact, they already do this, the markup is in the rate of monthly plan. BTW a double Jack and Coke is $10.

    There is only so much spectrum with so many service providers, I cant just go out and buy my own spectrum, it doesn't work that way. Verizon "rents" spectrum from the government and thats why they are subject to federal oversight. Heck, the bar industry is heavily regulated as well, but there are more than enough liquor licenses for any given community, unlike licenses to operate a wireless communications network.

    Once again, I dont have a problem with an ETF that is in place to recoup the cost of a device, but Im not for one that also tacks on the price of marketing, commissions or store costs.
    I have no problem with the ETF including all sorts of costs. Car dealers do the same thing when the sell you a car...advertising costs are included. Everybody is clearly welcome to vote with their dollars. The government should keep their nose out of private enterprise unless laws are being broken. Maybe you would like the government to tell you what doctors you can see if your sick. Wait...they are already about to do that. Or how much you can mark up a drink?
    12-25-09 11:26 AM
  21. larrygump's Avatar
    I thought I remembered him saying that, now he's back getting all hot about bringing down VZW.......
    I did....but they have yet to delete my account so I figured I'de come back and spread my manifesto a bit more.....

    but as far as VZW......heck Ive always been anti VZW....this isnt new
    12-25-09 12:35 PM
  22. Gawain's Avatar
    Verizon "rents" spectrum from the government and thats why they are subject to federal oversight.
    This is incorrect. Incumbent frequencies were given away decades ago. PCS and C-Block/700MHz frequencies were bought and paid for, subject to conditions of use, not "cost".

    An ETF is a condition of use.
    12-25-09 01:53 PM
  23. larrygump's Avatar
    Uhmmm .......incumbent licensee's who were given spectrum decades ago were offered the option for two sided auction in 2002-2003.......FCC STILL held a large never before assigned portion which was leased in latter 2005-08.......subject to conditions.....VZW purchased unallocated spectrum not previously licensed

    and anyone who broadcasts in any manner over air is subject to FCC as is ANYONE or anything that can interfere with OTA transmission
    Last edited by larrygump; 12-25-09 at 03:16 PM.
    12-25-09 03:04 PM
  24. larrygump's Avatar
    Pretty sure you charge enough for your liquor to pay your employees, keep the lights on, wash the dishes, water flowing in the toilets and mop the floor every now and again...and oh yeah, pay for, and buy more liquor.

    That Commissioner's response was akin to telling you that you should be only charging enough to buy more liquor.

    As a business owner, dealing with regulation is one thing, but when/if the day came and they told you that you could only charge $2.50+tax for a double shot of Tangere...are you really going to take it up the @*s?

    The regulations keep getting heaped on, and we're not too far off from where it's not going to be possible to build a building, or heaven forbid, get a drink...

    I'd like to know how many of the commissioners in the FCC have run a business.
    you should read Free book: Beyond Plutocracy - Direct Democracy for America, Home/Table of Contents

    great insight into how your "thinking" is so typical of the corrupt capitalist.....the rich stay rich and the poor subsidize the rich's lifestyle

    and then when the only entity capable of protecting the working class and the poor (the govt.) imposes restrictions to level the playing field the elitist rich cry about wealth redistribution .....and overbearing regulation......

    the problem with your argument.....the 1st wealth redistribution was when the rich fleeced the working class by unfair market practices and corrupt antitrust markets and ETF's are a perfect example...........all we want is our fair share .....or at least a level playing field going forward.....read that book and get back to me.....LMAO

    and don't try to use that lame argument that nobody has to have a cell phone or a smartphone....we all know in todays society that cell technology is required as matter of safety.....especially if you have children....and if theres only 4 "real" carriers....well then we have a market where anti trust is a real threat....
    Last edited by larrygump; 12-25-09 at 03:15 PM.
    12-25-09 03:12 PM
  25. gotblackberry's Avatar
    I was reading the response from VzW and found this interesting:

    Indeed, in the absence of an ETF, the company would be entitled to recover a far greater amount from customers
    who terminate early. Unless the ETF is viewed as a fee for the exercise of an option to terminate early, customers who
    terminate before the end of the contract term would be breaching their contractual obligation and would be liable for
    damages—computed as the revenue that they would have paid minus the costs that are avoided by not continuing to
    provide service.
    Very true.
    12-25-09 07:44 PM
100 1234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD