01-20-10 09:52 AM
128 ... 3456
tools
  1. dawnierae's Avatar
    Gee. You guys are lucky. I want to cancel my contract with Rogers because they're charging me around 80$ a month (last bill was $90) for a standard voice/data plan, but I'll be charged a whopping $500 ETF...
    Did you not know the plan was $80 when you signed up for it?
    01-03-10 09:38 PM
  2. PhiPsi32's Avatar
    Isn't it amazing how when the subsidy ends your phone bill doesn't go down at all?
    Yeah the phone bill should go down after the contact is up. A small cell phone company that att just bought ALWAYS DID THAT. If you kept the old phone your bill was lowered and some bonus minutes add to the plan all for doing NOTHING.

    EFT should not apply if you have to move away or something. Another feature centennial wireless did.
    As I mentioned before, this system provides an incentive to purchase a new, subsidized, phone. You're paying the same monthly. Why not get a new phone . . . for free or as little as $150 (for a smartphone). And the carrier locks the customer into a new service contract.

    Reducing the monthly subscriber fees for an out of contract phone only encourages the consumer to stay out of contract and maintain their existing phone. This isn't good for business.

    Seems pretty straightforward to me.
    Last edited by esahota; 01-04-10 at 04:14 AM. Reason: Spelling
    01-04-10 04:13 AM
  3. PhiPsi32's Avatar
    Gee. You guys are lucky. I want to cancel my contract with Rogers because they're charging me around 80$ a month (last bill was $90) for a standard voice/data plan, but I'll be charged a whopping $500 ETF...
    That's because you live in Vancouver . . . everything is more expensive there . . .
    01-04-10 04:16 AM
  4. trumptman's Avatar
    That's because your bill isn't financing a phone. It's paying for service. The subsidy is granted if you commit to a term of service. The subsidy is not given if you don't commit to a contract. The price of the service is the same.

    The only carrier that makes such a distinction is T-Mobile. Buy a subsidized phone from them on contract, and you pay more for your plan. Buy at retail, with no contract and your plan costs slightly less. They'll also let you finance the price of your phone into your monthly plan (costs extra of course).
    Actually that is why it is called doubletalk and why the FCC is investigating it.

    It's a subsidy. It's a service. It's actually the cost of maintaining the network and the advertising. It's....

    Repeating the spin doesn't help. The spin is what just got spanked by the FCC. The reasoning behind it, that was repeated here, was correctly labeled by a member of the FCC as "unsatisfying" and "troubling."

    It can't be both subsidy and service. You might be right that as a business Verizon could do whatever they want, but the frequencies they lease are public and thus the reasoning has to make more sense than "because I said so and I'm Dad."
    01-04-10 05:14 AM
  5. decolur455's Avatar
    In a report I read yesterday, the FCC is not happy at all with Verizon's excuse for doubling the ETF. Check the article out on Phonescoop.com.
    01-04-10 05:41 AM
  6. Gawain's Avatar
    Actually that is why it is called doubletalk and why the FCC is investigating it.

    It's a subsidy. It's a service. It's actually the cost of maintaining the network and the advertising. It's....

    Repeating the spin doesn't help. The spin is what just got spanked by the FCC. The reasoning behind it, that was repeated here, was correctly labeled by a member of the FCC as "unsatisfying" and "troubling."

    It can't be both subsidy and service. You might be right that as a business Verizon could do whatever they want, but the frequencies they lease are public and thus the reasoning has to make more sense than "because I said so and I'm Dad."
    That is not correct. The service is independent of the equipment. You can buy a used CDMA/VZW compatible device and use their service. The rate-plan is the rate-plan. In "theory", the money spent to advertise the "new stuff" is not a factor. But, if you go to the store, and buy the newest whiz-bang-gadget, you are, by definition a product of the marketing, etc. Buy a new Droid or Storm2 at $199 or $179, you get a break on the equipment provided that you buy the service for 2 years. They are mutually exclusive.

    As the "gee-whiz" factor of the newest stuff wears on, VZW actually increases the subsidy on the phones (hence why a Pearl 8230 is only $9.99 with 2-yr, but still $429 retail) to keep the product moving.

    Regardless of what phone/device you buy, the price point for the rate plans are the same.

    As for the one commissioner that voiced concerns, notice that the rest of the body has remained relatively quiet. These companies bought the spectrum, at auction, for billions. With exception to the incumbent 800MHz spectrum (which those licenses were given to spur development).

    The "premium" VZW ETF is easy to avoid, either pay retail for the phone, or go to another carrier. I'm betting that this issue has not affected their subscriber rates much, but we'll have to see their next quarterly.

    Those that are truly miffed about this, will walk with their wallets to another carrier. Me, I have no plans to cancel my contract, and if I do, I will honor said contract (though I'm still under the "old" ETF).

    On top of all that, depending on what the FCC does, it could, in fact be in direct violation of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution (not that that would stop the Federal Government nowadays) if they took a punitive stance against VZW. The government is not allowed to interfere with legal, private transactions between willing entities.

    If you're not willing, don't sign the contract.
    01-04-10 08:12 AM
  7. IDsweetcheeks's Avatar
    thats VZW's own fault for doing BOGO then. They were doing it to keep BB sales up to compete with the iphone sales since VZW gets the most BB business.

    And who sets that ARBITRARY $5-600, thats right, that same carrier. Its no "bargain," you just buy into the retail price should be that high and theyre doing you a favor at $199. Everyone knows the phones only cost $150-175 to build a smartphone seeing the iphone and Storm build costs as a guage.

    The MOST they should "retail" full price for is $400

    You also dont think theyre recouping those "discounts" in your monthly bill too? say you get a $600 phone for $199 and complete your 2 years, how are they making that money back in discounts then? Theyre recouping in your monthly fee too!! So theyre double dipping the system on the phone excuse.

    I beg to differ... go to the blackberry website or any other website that sells smartphones... Palm, HTC, Motorola ect.
    Do you see the retail price there???
    The manufacturer sets the prices... not the carrier.
    01-04-10 09:05 AM
  8. Masahiro's Avatar
    Did you not know the plan was $80 when you signed up for it?
    Nagh. It was cheaper when I first signed up because I was new to BlackBerries and signed up for unlimited email and messaging but no data. It was when I switched over to data that the bill started inflating. Oh well. I don't feel too resentful, as it is what I signed up for. Nonetheless, I'd love to have a carrier like Verizon up here, even if they double the ETF.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-04-10 02:15 PM
  9. gotblackberry's Avatar
    On top of all that, depending on what the FCC does, it could, in fact be in direct violation of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution (not that that would stop the Federal Government nowadays) if they took a punitive stance against VZW. The government is not allowed to interfere with legal, private transactions between willing entities.

    If you're not willing, don't sign the contract.
    To bad the federal government doesn't actually follow this anymore.
    01-04-10 06:29 PM
  10. m1a1mg's Avatar
    I simply can not fathom the outcry about this. First, why complain about something that hasn't actually happened to you. Secondly, vote with your wallet. Don't like how VZW does business, go elsewhere.

    I was a T-Mobile customer for 4 years. I listened to their promises of building a new tower on my side of our small town. Never happened. When my contract was up, I left to Alltel. When VZW swallowed Alltel, I searched around for the best deal and the best connection. AT&T doesn't have 3G here and my friends with their cool iPhones wait endlessly for things to download.

    So, I may have a $350 ETF with VZW, but I signed a 2 year contract. Shame on me if I don't honor that contract. If VZW doesn't live up to my expectations, I'll vote with my wallet, again.
    01-05-10 05:16 PM
  11. Doc_Havoc's Avatar
    Actually that is why it is called doubletalk and why the FCC is investigating it.

    It's a subsidy. It's a service. It's actually the cost of maintaining the network and the advertising. It's....

    Repeating the spin doesn't help. The spin is what just got spanked by the FCC. The reasoning behind it, that was repeated here, was correctly labeled by a member of the FCC as "unsatisfying" and "troubling."

    It can't be both subsidy and service. You might be right that as a business Verizon could do whatever they want, but the frequencies they lease are public and thus the reasoning has to make more sense than "because I said so and I'm Dad."
    Actually, you're so wrong here, it's almost funny. Almost.

    The subsidy is on the price of the phone. The contract is tied to the subsidized purchase of the phone and assigned to the line the phone was purchased for. I'm sorry, but at what point did you see your calling plan mentioned in that? Your plan is separate from your contract, and with the exception of certain dataplan requirements by certain phones, has nothing to do with your handset. Nothing at all. This is core to why VZW will let you change your plan without changing your contract.

    So, yes it's a subsidy. On the phone. Which doesn't affect your calling plan in the slightest. Discounted price on phone = contract. Contract does not affect calling plan. So the service you select, i.e. your calling plan, is not subject to or affected by the subsidized price on a phone. It's not rocket science.

    As for VZW setting the price on phones... Even Amazon.com sells the Droid at full retail for over $500 (Choose without a service plan). That's Motorola's hand at work there, not VZW. And, Amazon has the best 2-year contract price on a Droid I've seen yet.

    Plus, if you have or purchase an old (read: used) VZW phone, you can start a new line of service with no contract. Doesn't that kind of shoot your whole argument in the head?
    Last edited by Doc_Havoc; 01-05-10 at 11:55 PM.
    01-05-10 11:52 PM
  12. lastraid's Avatar
    And you all though that VZW raises were bad? Check out google and TMO

    ETF for Nexus One May Reach $550
    Today, 9:22 AM by Eric M. Zeman

    According to Google's terms of sale for the Nexus One, both Google and T-Mobile will charge customers an early termination fee for breaking their contract. Google said customers who buy the Nexus One for the T-Mobile contract price of $179 will be charged $350 if they cancel service within 120 days. That $350 goes to Google. T-Mobile will also apply an ETF of $200 to any customer who breaks their contract with more than 180 days remaining on that contract. The total ETF can hit $550, which is more than the unlocked version of the Nexus One costs ($529). Those who buy the unlocked version at full price won't have to worry about these ETFs.

    Source Phonescoop.com
    01-06-10 04:53 PM
  13. papped's Avatar
    And you all though that VZW raises were bad? Check out google and TMO

    ETF for Nexus One May Reach $550
    Today, 9:22 AM by Eric M. Zeman

    According to Google's terms of sale for the Nexus One, both Google and T-Mobile will charge customers an early termination fee for breaking their contract. Google said customers who buy the Nexus One for the T-Mobile contract price of $179 will be charged $350 if they cancel service within 120 days. That $350 goes to Google. T-Mobile will also apply an ETF of $200 to any customer who breaks their contract with more than 180 days remaining on that contract. The total ETF can hit $550, which is more than the unlocked version of the Nexus One costs ($529). Those who buy the unlocked version at full price won't have to worry about these ETFs.

    Source Phonescoop.com
    If the $350 is going to google, it's not exactly TMobiles problem.

    Their end of it is the $200 for the contract termination, which is more or less normal. Sounds like Google is the one to blame for the odd self-subsidization they are doing here...
    01-06-10 05:08 PM
  14. lastraid's Avatar
    If the $350 is going to google, it's not exactly TMobiles problem.

    Their end of it is the $200 for the contract termination, which is more or less normal. Sounds like Google is the one to blame for the odd self-subsidization they are doing here...
    Ah true, but TMO would have to agree to it and they (TMO) will be handling the billing I am sure for google. They pay google and TMO gets it from the customer. Over all at $550 due both companies, the issue is the over all amount. $550 vs $350.

    Agian my thought is if you do not break your contract, who cares about the amount
    01-06-10 05:13 PM
  15. i7guy's Avatar
    Ah true, but TMO would have to agree to it and they (TMO) will be handling the billing I am sure for google. They pay google and TMO gets it from the customer. Over all at $550 due both companies, the issue is the over all amount. $550 vs $350.

    Agian my thought is if you do not break your contract, who cares about the amount
    I'm sure the FCC will be investigating TMO and Google for charging a $550 ETF. It really doesn't matter what happens to the money, the fact the consumer has to fork it over is the issue. Right? Or is it okay for TMO but not for Verizon?
    01-06-10 05:26 PM
  16. lastraid's Avatar
    I'm sure the FCC will be investigating TMO and Google for charging a $550 ETF. It really doesn't matter what happens to the money, the fact the consumer has to fork it over is the issue. Right? Or is it okay for TMO but not for Verizon?
    I hope they are investigated in the interest of fairness. For me, I do not care what the ETF is, not planning on changing anytime soon.

    My point being about the out cry of $350, where is the out cry about this? Coming I am sure the info just came out today
    01-06-10 05:30 PM
  17. Super_Mario's Avatar
    Again, I have no idea what there is to complain about. As a consumer making the choice to purchase the phone at a subsidized cost, they are entering that agreement in full awareness of these terms. It can be avoided with a full retail purchase. But if the retailers or OS developers are going to start charging a fee as well, now that’s interesting.
    01-06-10 05:36 PM
  18. lastraid's Avatar
    Again, I have no idea what there is to complain about. As a consumer making the choice to purchase the phone at a subsidized cost, they are entering that agreement in full awareness of these terms. It can be avoided with a full retail purchase. But if the retailers or OS developers are going to start charging a fee as well, now thats interesting.
    Great point, can se it now RIM charges $200 for ETF on BB devices. What a trip
    01-06-10 05:43 PM
  19. Super_Mario's Avatar
    Great point, can se it now RIM charges $200 for ETF on BB devices. What a trip
    That would really put a damper on the BOGO sellers.
    01-06-10 05:47 PM
  20. papped's Avatar
    It's not really that it's something to complain about, it's more that it's unusual.

    Amazon offers additional subsidization, if you break their terms in 6 months they charge you $250 in addition to whatever ETF the carrier would.

    Whats different here?

    1) The 3rd party never holds you to the same contract terms as the carrier... Amazon or wirefly doesn't hold you to almost 2 years of your contract, more like 6 months...
    2) It doesn't look like Tmobile is doing a normal subsidization in the first place if the original subsidization fee is going to google, then they are charging an ETF on top of that... Normally the money lost from subsidization is to be made back by the monthly fees and contract. Yet here it apparently is not... Maybe because Tmobile isn't the one subsidizing it? It introduces a new cost...

    In other words RIM isn't gonna do this unless they have to start self-subsidizing their own phones, which they would have to choose to do (why would they if the carriers will buy it at full, then subsidize it anyways?).
    01-06-10 05:48 PM
  21. mcnally89's Avatar
    Last i heard it that all the carriers since dealing with alot of hype from customers for expensive cancelation fees have acctually all agreed to some new government agreement or what not that they will acctually give prorated fees now. so if you have 3 months left on your contract it will cost less to cancel rather than if you had 6.
    01-06-10 05:53 PM
  22. lastraid's Avatar
    Last i heard it that all the carriers since dealing with alot of hype from customers for expensive cancelation fees have acctually all agreed to some new government agreement or what not that they will acctually give prorated fees now. so if you have 3 months left on your contract it will cost less to cancel rather than if you had 6.
    This is true, but on the other hand VZW and now Google and TMO are raising them, but they will still reduce over time
    Last edited by lastraid; 01-06-10 at 06:55 PM.
    01-06-10 05:54 PM
  23. papped's Avatar
    Last i heard it that all the carriers since dealing with alot of hype from customers for expensive cancelation fees have acctually all agreed to some new government agreement or what not that they will acctually give prorated fees now. so if you have 3 months left on your contract it will cost less to cancel rather than if you had 6.
    Most of them have already been doing this for quite a while (Sprint being one of the last to adopt it).
    01-06-10 05:58 PM
  24. Kepeli's Avatar
    As much as I am not glad for ETFs or contract stipulations, I do understand that I did enter into the contract and agreed to it's terms. It's because it is in connection to a particular service that I need to use whether it be for personal or business. Many factors affect ETFs including inflation, economy, profit/loss margins, etc. To avoid situations like these, consider the fine lines in the contracts, not only the available services and products when choosing a company to sign with. Other situations, such as natural disasters and economy fluctuations are uncontrollable and have to be accepted as such.
    01-06-10 07:05 PM
  25. Jude526's Avatar
    Ok I had to call VZW last night and the rep I talked to was great. I was curious about the ETF change on the BB and it is on everyone with a BB and we owe it to those who get the BOGO and don't activate that 2nd BB this is how the rep put it to me. But on a good note, it is prorated monthly with a 10.00 deduction every month you are in contract. So like the 175.00 ETF on a dumbphone that gets 5.00 off it every month, on the BB it is 10.00 a month taken off. They have to offset those who don't activate the 2nd BB that is offered on the BOGO offers they do. That is how she put it to me. I don't care. I don't plan to leave VZW
    So if you don't want this high ETF then you can always switch to another carrier.

    But like I said, it doesn't bother me any. I have been with them for so many years and to even think about another carrier doesn't enter my mind. I have friends on other carriers and all they do is complain about their coverage half the time. We choose who we want to be with and they have their terms. I know it is steep but she told me it is simply because of those who take advantage of the BOGO and don't activate them. Well, then Verizon should make those people activate them.
    01-06-10 11:17 PM
128 ... 3456
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD