12-28-09 11:51 PM
127 ... 3456
tools
  1. OldChristine's Avatar
    How is he still under the WFG? After 30 days it goes to the 1yr manufactors warranty, NOT WFG. Please stop giving wrong information. If you get a multi-FRU it's not a WFG, its still considered a FRU and gets a 90 day warranty, if it's a multi-FRU it gives you 1 year.. but the WFG does not count with a multi-FRU.
    I mean WFG for the one year warranty. Not like the 30 days when you buy a new phone.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-27-09 09:51 PM
  2. Zukin's Avatar
    Yeah, WFG and 1 year warranty is two separate topics. Just becareful, 'cause someone on her can misinterrupt your wording and call VZW and then get upset when they don't get what they want...

    I see it ALL the time... I work for VZW
    12-27-09 10:04 PM
  3. Doc_Havoc's Avatar
    Its a shame you won't be able to respond back... But like I said before, taking advantage of the BOGO offer just so you can break the contract and sell the phone is unethical. Contracts are in place for a reason...
    No, actually it's quite ethical. VZW makes no restriction that the 2nd phone on a BOGO or BAGO offer must be kept on the line it was ordered for. (It does have to be activated on that line.) The customer always has a choice, it's spelled out in the contract in plain language. Either abide by the contract and keep service on that line for the next two years, or pay the ETF to be released from contract.

    To do a BOGO and then pay the ETF to get rid of the line or, put an older phone on the line and sell the new phone is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. A bit morally ambiguous, perhaps. However, you're acting within the terms of the contract as written. You are correct, contracts are written for a reason. Where I think you're getting off-track is that no one in this particular situation as described is actually breaking a contract. They're just using an escape clause. I.e., the ETF.
    12-27-09 10:53 PM
  4. R.O.C.'s Avatar
    Thats a good way to put it... Morally ambiguous...

    Though, I still find it to be unethical... Signing a contract with the intentions of immidiately breaking (yes they're breaking the contract even if they're paying the ETF), just to get a free phone out of the deal to make some money. If there wasn't a problem with this, VErizon wouldn't have raised the ETF....
    Last edited by R.O.C.; 12-27-09 at 11:50 PM.
    12-27-09 11:45 PM
  5. Doc_Havoc's Avatar
    Thats a good way to put it... Morally ambiguous...

    Though, I still find it to be unethical... Signing a contract with the intentions of immidiately breaking (yes they're breaking the contract even if they're paying the ETF), just to get a free phone out of the deal to make some money. If there wasn't a problem with this, VErizon wouldn't have raised the ETF....
    Okay, time for the game face.

    Sir, I do believe in this case you're laboring under a series of misconceptions. First of all, at no time is exercising the ETF clause of the Customer Agreement in any way considered breaking the contract. There is no direct link between handset and contract. Yes, VZW does ask you to sign a two-year contract with the discounted purchase of a new phone. But, and I repeat, but there is no direct link between contract and handset. This is on purpose. Why? So that VZW can give you the option to use whatever VZW compatible phone you want on your phone line. Why would VZW want to give you that option? That part is easy. One, letting customers have that kind freedom contributes to making our customers promoters. Two, I hope you can imagine logistical nightmare that would ensue if VZW were to announce tomorrow that retroactively all phones purchased with a contractual agreement must be kept on the phone line it was ordered for. The two-year contract is to defray the high cost of a phone. VZW makes back over the two year contract more than enough to cost the initial discount of the phone. Three, even if the contract is terminated early, the ETF is paid, that again is a payment to cover VZW's discounting of the phone. At this point it should be obvious why VZW does not care what you do with the phone once you purchase it.

    Does VZW care if you pay the ETF and disconnect? Of course they do. That's called Churn. VZW goes to fairly long lengths to prevent Churn and keep customers. It's why VZW offers early upgrades, promotions, etc. to customers when said customers begin discussing disconnecting. VZW wants the chance to sell you another phone, get you back under contract for another two years. For obvious reasons.

    I also think you're making a poor assumption in linking the increased ETF for advanced devices to people selling second phones from BOGO/BAGO offers. From my own experience as a customer care rep, I haven't seen much of this at all.

    At any rate, the final point I'd like to make about your reasoning in this matter is this: By your logic, if I sign a five-year car loan with my bank, pay it off early so I don't have to give them as much interest, and sell the car for a profit, I "broke" my contract with my bank.

    Is selling the second phone from a BOGO/BAGO unethical? No. Is it illegal? No. Is it wrong? That's an arguable issue. It doesn't legally matter, because VZW doesn't care what you do with that second phone. You signed for the two-year agreement. You can opt out of that by paying the ETF. No one's breaking the contract. Breaking the contract would be disconnecting the line and refusing to pay the ETF. Then, at that point, you've definitely and definitively broken the contract, by refusing to honor your end of the Customer Agreement.

    It might be against your personal ethics, and I can respect that. However, I would ask you to stop insisting that exercising the ETF clause is "breaking" the Customer Agreement, because that's exactly what isn't happening.

    Honestly, I think it comes right down to your definition of "breaking" a contract isn't the same as mine. For me the terminology of "breaking" a contract has certain legal implications. Those being, that one or both parties to the contract not honoring the terms of the contract. Said legal implications do not come into play when using the ETF clause to terminate the Customer Agreement. It's that simple.

    My apologies to other readers for the large wall of text.
    12-28-09 02:23 AM
  6. OldChristine's Avatar
    ^ what he said... R.O.C = fail

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-28-09 02:44 AM
  7. R.O.C.'s Avatar
    Okay, time for the game face.

    Sir, I do believe in this case you're laboring under a series of misconceptions. First of all, at no time is exercising the ETF clause of the Customer Agreement in any way considered breaking the contract. There is no direct link between handset and contract. Yes, VZW does ask you to sign a two-year contract with the discounted purchase of a new phone. But, and I repeat, but there is no direct link between contract and handset. This is on purpose. Why? So that VZW can give you the option to use whatever VZW compatible phone you want on your phone line. Why would VZW want to give you that option? That part is easy. One, letting customers have that kind freedom contributes to making our customers promoters. Two, I hope you can imagine logistical nightmare that would ensue if VZW were to announce tomorrow that retroactively all phones purchased with a contractual agreement must be kept on the phone line it was ordered for. The two-year contract is to defray the high cost of a phone. VZW makes back over the two year contract more than enough to cost the initial discount of the phone. Three, even if the contract is terminated early, the ETF is paid, that again is a payment to cover VZW's discounting of the phone. At this point it should be obvious why VZW does not care what you do with the phone once you purchase it.

    Does VZW care if you pay the ETF and disconnect? Of course they do. That's called Churn. VZW goes to fairly long lengths to prevent Churn and keep customers. It's why VZW offers early upgrades, promotions, etc. to customers when said customers begin discussing disconnecting. VZW wants the chance to sell you another phone, get you back under contract for another two years. For obvious reasons.

    I also think you're making a poor assumption in linking the increased ETF for advanced devices to people selling second phones from BOGO/BAGO offers. From my own experience as a customer care rep, I haven't seen much of this at all.

    At any rate, the final point I'd like to make about your reasoning in this matter is this: By your logic, if I sign a five-year car loan with my bank, pay it off early so I don't have to give them as much interest, and sell the car for a profit, I "broke" my contract with my bank.

    Is selling the second phone from a BOGO/BAGO unethical? No. Is it illegal? No. Is it wrong? That's an arguable issue. It doesn't legally matter, because VZW doesn't care what you do with that second phone. You signed for the two-year agreement. You can opt out of that by paying the ETF. No one's breaking the contract. Breaking the contract would be disconnecting the line and refusing to pay the ETF. Then, at that point, you've definitely and definitively broken the contract, by refusing to honor your end of the Customer Agreement.

    It might be against your personal ethics, and I can respect that. However, I would ask you to stop insisting that exercising the ETF clause is "breaking" the Customer Agreement, because that's exactly what isn't happening.

    Honestly, I think it comes right down to your definition of "breaking" a contract isn't the same as mine. For me the terminology of "breaking" a contract has certain legal implications. Those being, that one or both parties to the contract not honoring the terms of the contract. Said legal implications do not come into play when using the ETF clause to terminate the Customer Agreement. It's that simple.

    My apologies to other readers for the large wall of text.



    Its about time someone made a logical argument... Instead of the typical "lol.... you're so dumb... hollow head...lol...lol..." nonsense that comes from every Christine post... I'll have to get back to you sometime tomorrow...



    ^ what he said... R.O.C = fail

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Its a shame you haven't been able to make a sensible argument yet... You might learn a thing or two from this guy...
    Last edited by R.O.C.; 12-28-09 at 07:26 AM.
    12-28-09 07:01 AM
  8. pkcable's Avatar
    ROC & OC you guys are going to need to learn to coexist, if you both want to remain CB members! Shesh just ignore each other!
    12-28-09 10:10 AM
  9. OldChristine's Avatar
    Its about time someone made a logical argument... Instead of the typical "lol.... you're so dumb... hollow head...lol...lol..." nonsense that comes from every Christine post... I'll have to get back to you sometime tomorrow...





    Its a shame you haven't been able to make a sensible argument yet... You might learn a thing or two from this guy...
    All of my previous posts regarding this matter have been logical and have basically said the same thing as DOC. I fully explained why doing a BOGO just to turn around and sell the device, is not wrong in any way.

    Its a shame that it will take you a full day to think up a response....


    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by OldChristine; 12-28-09 at 01:26 PM.
    12-28-09 01:24 PM
  10. Doc_Havoc's Avatar
    Its about time someone made a logical argument... Instead of the typical "lol.... you're so dumb... hollow head...lol...lol..." nonsense that comes from every Christine post... I'll have to get back to you sometime tomorrow...
    I'd never call a customer dumb, whether on the phone during a call, or here. It's just unproductive. If you're capable of using a smartphone, intelligence is not an issue.

    It's my hope that my long-winded post helped clarify, what I see as, some misconceptions on your part. If you see it as personally unethical, that's fine. As I said above, I can respect that. However, in terms of being ethical in terms of the Customer Agreement, the issue at hand is ethical because it in no way violates the contractual agreement. VZW specifically does not include any clause concerning what you legally can do with a phone you purchase from them. In that rather lengthy first paragraph of my post above, I think I outlined why. This then provides no impedance to what you can do with that phone, just like any other physical product you purchase. It's yours, and you can do with it what you want. Again, as I included above, there is no direct link between contract and phone. The contract is linked to the phone line in question, not the handset.
    12-28-09 02:20 PM
  11. pkcable's Avatar
    All of my previous posts regarding this matter have been logical and have basically said the same thing as DOC. I fully explained why doing a BOGO just to turn around and sell the device, is not wrong in any way.

    Its a shame that it will take you a full day to think up a response....


    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    It's the little digs at each other that you both throw in that are the problem. It's fine to disagree, but you must do so WITHOUT being disagreeable. Get my drift?
    12-28-09 04:22 PM
  12. OldChristine's Avatar
    It's the little digs at each other that you both throw in that are the problem. It's fine to disagree, but you must do so WITHOUT being disagreeable. Get my drift?
    You take all the fun out of it lol

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-28-09 04:57 PM
  13. R.O.C.'s Avatar
    I'd never call a customer dumb, whether on the phone during a call, or here. It's just unproductive. If you're capable of using a smartphone, intelligence is not an issue.

    It's my hope that my long-winded post helped clarify, what I see as, some misconceptions on your part. If you see it as personally unethical, that's fine. As I said above, I can respect that. However, in terms of being ethical in terms of the Customer Agreement, the issue at hand is ethical because it in no way violates the contractual agreement. VZW specifically does not include any clause concerning what you legally can do with a phone you purchase from them. In that rather lengthy first paragraph of my post above, I think I outlined why. This then provides no impedance to what you can do with that phone, just like any other physical product you purchase. It's yours, and you can do with it what you want. Again, as I included above, there is no direct link between contract and phone. The contract is linked to the phone line in question, not the handset.

    I certainly agree that my issue is more on a personal level of morality and legally has no merit. I just take issue with someone who thinks its ok to do this.

    All of my previous posts regarding this matter have been logical and have basically said the same thing as DOC. I fully explained why doing a BOGO just to turn around and sell the device, is not wrong in any way.

    Its a shame that it will take you a full day to think up a response....
    You're delirious. You've not had one response that comes even close to being sensible as Doc's...


    And regardless... The ETF is now $350... So people who sell their free phones are going to make little to no money... So theres no point in arguing this anymore... I'm sure you know who will come back with some smart @ss response followed by a series of "lol." But I'll let it go...
    Last edited by R.O.C.; 12-28-09 at 05:43 PM.
    12-28-09 05:35 PM
  14. Doc_Havoc's Avatar
    I certainly agree that my issue is more on a personal level of morality and legally has no merit. I just take issue with someone who thinks its ok to do this.
    From a personal standpoint, I think it's a little underhanded myself. However, unless a person is keeping that 2nd line with an older phone on it, it's just not likely they will actually profit much from the situation. I.e., they need to find someone clueless enough to pay them enough to make a profit, or break even.
    12-28-09 05:58 PM
  15. R.O.C.'s Avatar
    Right. And like I said, now with the ETF raised up to $350... One would have to find a fat pigeon to over pay enough to make enough money that its worth the effot.
    12-28-09 06:09 PM
  16. tony bag o donuts's Avatar
    It's the little digs at each other that you both throw in that are the problem. It's fine to disagree, but you must do so WITHOUT being disagreeable. Get my drift?
    +1 for the MODS!!!!!!!
    12-28-09 06:25 PM
  17. OldChristine's Avatar
    I certainly agree that my issue is more on a personal level of morality and legally has no merit. I just take issue with someone who thinks its ok to do this.



    You're delirious. You've not had one response that comes even close to being sensible as Doc's...


    And regardless... The ETF is now $350... So people who sell their free phones are going to make little to no money... So theres no point in arguing this anymore... I'm sure you know who will come back with some smart @ss response followed by a series of "lol." But I'll let it go...
    I understand that selling a BOGO smart phone is no longer profitable. I made my point many times and clearly at that. I happened to be in a VZW about 30 mins ago and had the rep (store isn't busy) read my posts in this thread regarding my opinion in this matter. They had no trouble understanding my view and disagree with R.O.C 's comments about my previous posts. I basically stated the same thing as DOC. Once the phone is legally yours, you can do as you please with it.

    R.O.C I'm done arguing.. You aren't worthy of my time anymore.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-28-09 07:35 PM
  18. Zukin's Avatar
    I can't believe you actually made them read a FORUM post... I agree with the mod, just ignore ROC and ROC ignore you... The petty bickering about X subject every thread you both post in is a real turn off for this forum.
    12-28-09 07:37 PM
  19. R.O.C.'s Avatar
    I understand that selling a BOGO smart phone is no longer profitable. I made my point many times and clearly at that. I happened to be in a VZW about 30 mins ago and had the rep (store isn't busy) read my posts in this thread regarding my opinion in this matter. They had no trouble understanding my view and disagree with R.O.C 's comments about my previous posts. I basically stated the same thing as DOC. Once the phone is legally yours, you can do as you please with it.

    R.O.C I'm done arguing.. You aren't worthy of my time anymore.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    So one rep took your side? I've had several reps read this thread (not just the reps on this site)... And all have similar opinions to my own...
    12-28-09 08:07 PM
  20. MofoMagic's Avatar
    R.O.C. and OldChristine,

    at this point, there is only one way to settle this IMO.

    Steel Cage match!

    pk as special guest enforcer...all weapons legal. Let's do this!!!

    It will draw more money than manny vs. Mayweather
    12-28-09 08:44 PM
  21. OldChristine's Avatar
    R.O.C. and OldChristine,

    at this point, there is only one way to settle this IMO.

    Steel Cage match!

    pk as special guest enforcer...all weapons legal. Let's do this!!!

    It will draw more money than manny vs. Mayweather
    Lmao I can see it now.... R.O.C sweating through his hair piece... One hand guarding his face, the other in a weak fist swinging wildly in front of him.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-28-09 08:49 PM
  22. pkcable's Avatar
    You even got a chuckle out of me on that one.
    12-28-09 08:52 PM
  23. OldChristine's Avatar
    You even got a chuckle out of me on that one.
    I've been giggling since I posted it. The image of such an altercation is hilarious!

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-28-09 09:01 PM
  24. tony bag o donuts's Avatar
    I think Mankind would take both of you down and then transform himself into Cactus Jack!

    12-28-09 09:05 PM
  25. R.O.C.'s Avatar
    Nah sorry... I don't hit women...
    12-28-09 09:20 PM
127 ... 3456
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD