02-08-10 08:51 AM
54 123
tools
  1. jahoobob's Avatar
    It's in the news again today...felt like leaving a comment about it just in case "anybody else" beside YOU didn't know it was.

    Thanks for pointing out the exact date though, why don't you go and get me the exact time now?
    Get your news from the Comedy Channel, ey?
    02-04-10 10:49 PM
  2. Jude526's Avatar
    If people who get the buy one get one BB and activated like they were suppose to then maybe MAYBE this wouldn't had happened. I talked to someone who works for Verizon and I was told because many people take that 2nd BB and sell it, they have to recoup the loss somehow and this is how they have decided to do it. I think if this is the case, then Verizon should make it mandatory that both BB be activated. A rep told me this. I always thought that was the case cause when I sold wireless and there was a buy one get one, (I worked for an indirect) they had to activate both of them to get it. And if they didn't then we wouldn't let them have the promotion.
    02-05-10 12:19 AM
  3. ok4a56's Avatar
    I have been with VZW for 10 years now, and never once paid an ETF. I could care less if it was $5 or $500 bucks.
    02-05-10 06:05 AM
  4. mjbesen310's Avatar
    I have been with VZW for 10 years now, and never once paid an ETF. I could care less if it was $5 or $500 bucks.
    I was just going to post the same thing.. I can care less if Verizon raises it to 1,000 for the ETF.... why would anyone want to break a contract and leave Verizon anyway? I've been with Verizon many years and have never thought about leaving for a lesser of a company
    02-05-10 07:09 AM
  5. lastraid's Avatar
    If people who get the buy one get one BB and activated like they were suppose to then maybe MAYBE this wouldn't had happened. I talked to someone who works for Verizon and I was told because many people take that 2nd BB and sell it, they have to recoup the loss somehow and this is how they have decided to do it. I think if this is the case, then Verizon should make it mandatory that both BB be activated. A rep told me this. I always thought that was the case cause when I sold wireless and there was a buy one get one, (I worked for an indirect) they had to activate both of them to get it. And if they didn't then we wouldn't let them have the promotion.
    Excellent thought, but right after the device is activated, you go home longin to your account and change the device on your account. Nothing to stop this. turn around and sell it. So much for the mandatory activation.
    02-05-10 07:15 AM
  6. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    Cool, I think all carriers should drop ETF's and contracts. Then when you want new BB device you can 599 bucks at reatil. No skin off my back.
    If a 2 year contract is in place to subsidize the price of the phone, but.... theres no subsidy anymore, then I have no problem paying 599 either. I just expect that monthly price tag to drop
    02-05-10 07:32 AM
  7. lastraid's Avatar
    If a 2 year contract is in place to subsidize the price of the phone, but.... theres no subsidy anymore, then I have no problem paying 599 either. I just expect that monthly price tag to drop
    I agree, just making a point, but like any other big ticket item, you would not pay full retail. This applies generally to larger ticket items in my opinion (eg computers). Rather than paying the full retail, you may get the device for $399 or $499. These number are just examples and can change by region

    The price would still be a lot higher without contracts, is all I am saying.
    Last edited by lastraid; 02-05-10 at 08:56 AM.
    02-05-10 07:47 AM
  8. jlfberry's Avatar
    Think about it. The FULL retail value for an advanced device is usually over 350 dollars. There are customers that cancel contracts after having a phone for two months, only to come back later and reopen a new contract with the same carrier just to get the 1 or 2 year "sales" price.

    The company will end up losing much more money then they are charging for the ETF:
    1) They are losing most of the value of the phone, since it has already been "used" and they can not re-sell it a full value
    2) They are losing the money that could have been made if the customer stayed under contract for the full term
    3) They are losing monies paid for any per month "data" features on the device.
    4) They have to spend money shipping the used device back to the "maker"

    If you are going to fulfill your end of the contract, then you should NOT have to worry about the ETF. Legally, they can not change your ETF right now of 175 if you were under contract before the change. Remember they are under contract with you as well.

    At the end of the day, its about re-couping monies lost for a $400-$500 device, not including monies that would have been paid per month for the phone plan.
    02-05-10 08:07 AM
  9. pkcable's Avatar
    I was just going to post the same thing.. I can care less if Verizon raises it to 1,000 for the ETF.... why would anyone want to break a contract and leave Verizon anyway? I've been with Verizon many years and have never thought about leaving for a lesser of a company
    I'd have a problem if they raised it THAT much, but I get your point.
    02-05-10 08:34 AM
  10. Gawain's Avatar
    Actually I guessed the date. I don't really care that much about beat to death discussions. Verizon = Big bad evil corporation who sits around all day figuring out new ways to stick it to its customer base.

    Meanwhile its customers quite literally sit around all day here figuring out ways to stick it to" Big Red". "hai guize how do i get vzw to give me a droid I'm bored with my storm after 8 months please tell me how to multifru lol"

    Double standards. Gotta love 'em!

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Hit the nail on the head. :-/

    What's funny is that there's an easy way to get around that terrible ETF...buy your device at retail, or buy a used one and activate it as CPE....et voila! No ETF.
    02-05-10 08:44 AM
  11. Gawain's Avatar
    If a 2 year contract is in place to subsidize the price of the phone, but.... theres no subsidy anymore, then I have no problem paying 599 either. I just expect that monthly price tag to drop
    Incorrect. The rate plan does not finance the cost of the phone - you are not paying for the phone in monthly installments as part of the rate plan. The rate plans cost the same whether on contract or not.
    02-05-10 08:54 AM
  12. Robinson_78's Avatar
    Sprint pcs tried the whole no contract, no etf, pay retail price on the phone deal when it first hit. That didnt last too long, maybe 3 years or so.

    As some have said simply honor your contract and you don't have to worry about the etf.
    02-05-10 09:08 AM
  13. cenloe's Avatar
    Incorrect. The rate plan does not finance the cost of the phone - you are not paying for the phone in monthly installments as part of the rate plan. The rate plans cost the same whether on contract or not.
    I think he was saying that he would want/expect the monthly fee to drop. The rate plan should include the financing of the device, especially since the carriers are claiming the ETF is to recoup the cost. Buy it off contract and the rate plan should be lower, but currently that is not how it works and thats one reason the FCC is investigating.
    02-05-10 01:10 PM
  14. bs1two's Avatar
    [QUOTE=lastraid;4618782]
    Cool a new business. Finance your Blackberry @ 5% interest APR, based credit history. Will finance the device for two years. Could there be money made at this?
    I think this is a great idea!
    02-05-10 01:23 PM
  15. Gawain's Avatar
    I think he was saying that he would want/expect the monthly fee to drop. The rate plan should include the financing of the device, especially since the carriers are claiming the ETF is to recoup the cost. Buy it off contract and the rate plan should be lower, but currently that is not how it works and thats one reason the FCC is investigating.
    In VZW's case, their model clearly indicates that their margin recoups the cost. T-Mobile's model is different, offering two different sets of plans for those on contract and those that aren't. They are allowed to finance the cost of their phone on top of the rate plan.

    It could be argued that T-Mobile's model holds more "value", but it's still a factor of getting what you pay for. VZ and VZW make no secret about the heaps of money they pour into their network. Factor in prudent marketing, and there it is.
    02-05-10 05:35 PM
  16. Chrisy's Avatar
    November 7th 2009 called; it wants its breaking news back.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    LOL! i miss people saying that!

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    02-05-10 05:37 PM
  17. jahoobob's Avatar
    Actually I guessed the date. I don't really care that much about beat to death discussions. Verizon = Big bad evil corporation who sits around all day figuring out new ways to stick it to its customer base.

    Meanwhile its customers quite literally sit around all day here figuring out ways to stick it to" Big Red". "hai guize how do i get vzw to give me a droid I'm bored with my storm after 8 months please tell me how to multifru lol"

    Double standards. Gotta love 'em!

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    You have nailed the tenor of CB and other cell phone forums! Very succinctly put.
    02-05-10 05:56 PM
  18. greydarrah's Avatar
    Who would want to leave verizon anyway?
    02-05-10 06:36 PM
  19. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    I think he was saying that he would want/expect the monthly fee to drop. The rate plan should include the financing of the device, especially since the carriers are claiming the ETF is to recoup the cost. Buy it off contract and the rate plan should be lower, but currently that is not how it works and thats one reason the FCC is investigating.
    Exactly...

    In VZW's case, their model clearly indicates that their margin recoups the cost. T-Mobile's model is different, offering two different sets of plans for those on contract and those that aren't. They are allowed to finance the cost of their phone on top of the rate plan.

    It could be argued that T-Mobile's model holds more "value", but it's still a factor of getting what you pay for. VZ and VZW make no secret about the heaps of money they pour into their network. Factor in prudent marketing, and there it is.


    Logic will tell you that if a device is $599 without a contract, yet, with a contract its $179, thats a difference of $420!!! That has to be recouped in your 2 year contract for Verizon to break even with the device.

    So logic again will tell you that monthly prices are set to offset that cost which in their math, takes 2 years to recoup (estimated)

    Logic also tells you that if someone comes to Verizon with their own phone, they will be overpaying on their monthly charges because they are paying the subsidy price! Granted, its an invisible hike, but when you apply logic, we know its there....

    Gosh, I love logic!
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 02-07-10 at 12:48 PM.
    02-07-10 11:07 AM
  20. i7guy's Avatar
    Exactly...





    Logic will tell you that if a device is $599 without a contract, yet, with a contract its $179, thats a difference of $420!!! That has to be recouped in your 2 year contract for Verizon to break even with the device.

    So logic again will tell you that monthly prices are set to offset that cost which in their math, takes 2 years to recoup (estimated)

    Logic also tells you that if someone comes to Verizon with their own phone, they will be overpaying on their monthly charges because they are paying the subsidy price! Granted, its an invisible hike, but when you apply logic, we know its there....

    Gosh, I love logic!
    You missed out on a few items, like the network and customer service. The plan is the plan. Even if you don't like the idea, when you NE2 you are agreeing in a reduction of the phone price to pay Verizon your current plan rate for two more years. If you do an esn swap to a dumb phone, you are still obligated to keep the line open for the duration of the contract.

    Logic tells me the price is the price and you are certainly free to shop any of the other alternatives if you don't like the etf or contract period. Once out of contract you are welcome to BYOP without worrying about ETF.

    Bottom line, if you don't like ETF the buy your phone outright.

    edit - I have been with Verizon for a while and hate the idea of ETFs myself. However, I have paid $0 to VZW in ETFs.
    02-07-10 12:56 PM
  21. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    You missed out on a few items, like the network and customer service. The plan is the plan. Even if you don't like the idea, when you NE2 you are agreeing in a reduction of the phone price to pay Verizon your current plan rate for two more years. If you do an esn swap to a dumb phone, you are still obligated to keep the line open for the duration of the contract.
    Yes... but your also keeping the subsidized device, hense the obligation to the contract (obvious!)

    Logic tells me the price is the price and you are certainly free to shop any of the other alternatives if you don't like the etf or contract period. Once out of contract you are welcome to BYOP without worrying about ETF.

    Bottom line, if you don't like ETF the buy your phone outright.

    edit - I have been with Verizon for a while and hate the idea of ETFs myself. However, I have paid $0 to VZW in ETFs.
    I've been with VZW for 10+ years. My comment has absolutely nothing to do with ETF and everything to do with monthly fees and their justification in regards to subsidized vs unsubsidized devices
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 02-07-10 at 01:06 PM.
    02-07-10 01:01 PM
  22. Polychrome's Avatar
    True. xD Doesn't sound like a fun idea though because phone's aren't cheap. People just think they are because of all the discounts you are getting. Oh well. I research before I buy anyways. I am quite happy with my service.

    We'll see what happens.
    It's kinda funny. Before they started having cellular PDAs, a high end Palm device was anywhere from $350-$500 easily, and that was long before Wifi was common on such devices. Palm OS was used on many different devices from different companies. WinMo devices tended to be multimedia-driven and were on the more-expensive side.

    You could get a cheaper 1st party Palm from $100-$300, but they usually had less features or lacked a backlight or SD slot or something.

    People are used to getting them cheap via their phone carrier these days, but back in the day...

    My first PDA was a palm m105. It was $100, was black and white with a green backlight, had no SD slot.... Anything else was a significant jump in price.
    02-07-10 02:42 PM
  23. i7guy's Avatar
    Yes... but your also keeping the subsidized device, hense the obligation to the contract (obvious!)



    I've been with VZW for 10+ years. My comment has absolutely nothing to do with ETF and everything to do with monthly fees and their justification in regards to subsidized vs unsubsidized devices
    What justification are you referring to? Whatever they said is absolutely false because you can hook up an old phone to a new line and pay the same as a subsidized phone on a new line. The only difference is the subsidized phone will have an etf associated to the line. You can swap out the device, but the line has to stay open.

    Verizon Wireless Statement On Wireless Service Pricing Options
    Last edited by i7guy; 02-07-10 at 03:43 PM.
    02-07-10 03:39 PM
  24. Gawain's Avatar
    Logic will tell you that if a device is $599 without a contract, yet, with a contract its $179, thats a difference of $420!!! That has to be recouped in your 2 year contract for Verizon to break even with the device.
    Logic should also be telling you that you've overlooked the wholesale to retail markup.

    So logic again will tell you that monthly prices are set to offset that cost which in their math, takes 2 years to recoup (estimated)
    Logic would also tell you that to "only" recoup costs within a two-year contract period is bad business. The "costs" are recovered quite quickly, within the framework of their established margins for their service plans. The devices are not being "financed" by the service plans. The administrative costs for managing phone subsidies and all the marketing that goes with it most certainly are. VZW does not offer a plan to pay the cost of your phone as a part of their monthly service plan.

    Logic also tells you that if someone comes to Verizon with their own phone, they will be overpaying on their monthly charges because they are paying the subsidy price! Granted, its an invisible hike, but when you apply logic, we know its there....

    Gosh, I love logic!
    There is no subsidy price in Verizon's rate plans...if there were, logic would provide a difference in their pricing scheme. You showing up at the store with a beat-up Motorola V60 has no bearing on the services that Verizon charges to carry that device on the network any more than someone buying a brand new promotional price for a Samsung flip-phone.

    None of the carriers, save T-Mobile, make any distinction in their price plans, based on the purchase of a phone or CPE. They will make the distinction in offering a contract for service though, and thus ETF applicability.

    To borrow a line from the movie "Taken": "The price is the price."
    Last edited by Gawain; 02-07-10 at 04:56 PM.
    02-07-10 04:44 PM
  25. Wireless Vet's Avatar
    It's in the news again today...felt like leaving a comment about it just in case "anybody else" beside YOU didn't know it was.

    Thanks for pointing out the exact date though, why don't you go and get me the exact time now?
    I've got it, time for you stop posting!
    02-07-10 08:43 PM
54 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD