1. mciriello's Avatar
    1.) Not every Verizon customer has a Tour or can roam on GSM carrier's networks because their Verizon CDMA service doesn't work.
    Yes, but they should

    2.) If service in the depths of the basement at your grandmother's house in Cheapeachet is important to you, get a T-Mobile UMA phone and it will work anywhere there is an Internet router. Something else Verizon doesn't offer.
    My grandmother doesn't have an internet router There are also no internet routers if you need to make an emergency call from a rural road.
    11-10-09 12:50 PM
  2. berryite's Avatar
    Yes, but they should

    My grandmother doesn't have an internet router There are also no internet routers if you need to make an emergency call from a rural road.
    LOL. The Tour is a nice device. I'm glad you are happy with Verizon. It's a decision you have to make on your own whether you want to pay 3-4 times as much to call from that basement in Cheapeachet but it sounds like that works for you.

    Long term, I suspect Verizon will be doing some good things. Their 4G plans are pretty impressive. They'll also likely be pretty expensive. Hope it's worth it to you.
    11-10-09 12:59 PM
  3. ortizm74's Avatar
    For what its worth p spoke to a Verizon rep yearryday who told me the new etf will not go into effect on new contracts until the 14th of this month.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    11-10-09 01:01 PM
  4. mciriello's Avatar
    Confession - I have a company-paid BB so the VZ cost is not a personal liability. Can't disagree with you that T-Mobile offers good value if the coverage works for you.

    LOL. The Tour is a nice device. I'm glad you are happy with Verizon. It's a decision you have to make on your own whether you want to pay 3-4 times as much to call from that basement in Cheapeachet but it sounds like that works for you.

    Long term, I suspect Verizon will be doing some good things. Their 4G plans are pretty impressive. They'll also likely be pretty expensive. Hope it's worth it to you.
    11-10-09 01:07 PM
  5. kjjb0204's Avatar
    The concept of locking customers into contracts is clearly an anti-consumer scheme.
    Not true. It's a way of ensuring that a company will see some return from customers on their plans. They have to practically give away devices to be competitive and the only way they make money is on the plans over two years. Don't want a contract, pay full price and go month to month. It's a choice and if someone opts into the contract, they are opting to pay the ETF if they break the contract.

    Cell phone providers aren't the only companies that have contracts.

    Cable or satellite TV
    Vonage VOIP service
    Home water delivery
    Home propane delivery

    Those are just the few I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure there are others.
    11-10-09 01:13 PM
  6. snork's Avatar
    Blah blah blah

    More whining. The ETF is merely an option to get a subsidized phone. Sure it sucks, but the only reason this is being done is because the CUSTOMERS are taking advantage of Verizon's discount programs for their own personal gain. More proof that the actions of a few affect others. You want to be upset as someone? Be upset at all of the customers who scammed VZW to make a profit. Buying 2 blackberries for the price of one only to sell the other online. That wasn't how they intended the promotion to go, and as such, have adapted to the malicious practices of their customers.

    While I do think the ETF should be pro-rated such that the fee to cancel by month 23 is closer to zero, it ensures that you will likely finish out your contract. Why pay $110 when you can have your phone for 1 more month and pay less (or more, depending on the monthly cost of your phone)

    But lastly, remember you CAN get any phone with any plan without a contract, you just can't get the phone for $100-$500 off the REAL price of the device.
    11-10-09 01:51 PM
  7. berryite's Avatar
    Not true. ... They have to practically give away devices to be competitive and the only way they make money is on the plans over two years. Don't want a contract, pay full price and go month to month. It's a choice and if someone opts into the contract, they are opting to pay the ETF if they break the contract.
    Traditionally carriers did NOT offer you the choice to NOT take their so-called subsidized phone and NOT enter a contract. PLUS, traditionally the carriers took any opportunity they could to screw consumers into extended contracts. Make ANY change to your rate plan? You get an extended contract. Let's be honest, it's in the carrier's best interests to make sure you don't have a choice to leave them. This subsidized phone nonsense is silly and always has been.
    11-10-09 02:00 PM
  8. Hankster's Avatar
    Blah blah blah

    More whining. The ETF is merely an option to get a subsidized phone. Sure it sucks, but the only reason this is being done is because the CUSTOMERS are taking advantage of Verizon's discount programs for their own personal gain. More proof that the actions of a few affect others. You want to be upset as someone? Be upset at all of the customers who scammed VZW to make a profit. Buying 2 blackberries for the price of one only to sell the other online. That wasn't how they intended the promotion to go, and as such, have adapted to the malicious practices of their customers.

    While I do think the ETF should be pro-rated such that the fee to cancel by month 23 is closer to zero, it ensures that you will likely finish out your contract. Why pay $110 when you can have your phone for 1 more month and pay less (or more, depending on the monthly cost of your phone)

    But lastly, remember you CAN get any phone with any plan without a contract, you just can't get the phone for $100-$500 off the REAL price of the device.
    So, if I buy a BlackBerry for $249.99 I will have a ETF of $350.00 to offset the price in case I leave early.

    At the same time if I buy a LG for $49.99 I will have an ETF of $350.00 to offset the price in case I leave early.

    If the point of the ETF is to get the profit Verizon is losing back then it should be based on the price of the phone. There are phones that cost less than $100 AT COST yet the ETF of $350.00 will still be in effect. That's anti-consumer, they are trying to lock you into their company. Verizon is doing this because they know people want to upgrade to better phones which ARE NOT with Verizon.

    Verizon is trying to steal as much money from the consumer as possible. Instead of trying to trap you into their contract, how about getting better phones.
    11-10-09 02:01 PM
  9. berryite's Avatar
    Confession - I have a company-paid BB so the VZ cost is not a personal liability. Can't disagree with you that T-Mobile offers good value if the coverage works for you.
    Kudos for the honest confession.

    I had Verizon. They were ok. The problem for me was constant billing errors. Hope they've fixed those.
    11-10-09 02:01 PM
  10. snork's Avatar
    So, if I buy a BlackBerry for $249.99 I will have a ETF of $350.00 to offset the price in case I leave early.

    At the same time if I buy a LG for $49.99 I will have an ETF of $350.00 to offset the price in case I leave early.

    If the point of the ETF is to get the profit Verizon is losing back then it should be based on the price of the phone. There are phones that cost less than $100 AT COST yet the ETF of $350.00 will still be in effect. That's anti-consumer, they are trying to lock you into their company. Verizon is doing this because they know people want to upgrade to better phones which ARE NOT with Verizon.

    Verizon is trying to steal as much money from the consumer as possible. Instead of trying to trap you into their contract, how about getting better phones.
    The $350 ETF is only for advanced devices, standard phones will continue with the $175 ETF. Further, if you like, you can always pay AT COST, and you'll then be free to cancel whenever, penalty free. Heck, go buy a VZW phone on ebay and activate it on a month-to-month contract. Again, you're not forced into a contract with an ETF, it's only if you want a subsidized phone.
    11-10-09 02:11 PM
  11. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    Cool. But in that "fair amount of traveling" that you do, please refrain from getting on a plane to leave the country because your Verizon CDMA service won't work in most other countries on the planet outside of the USA. Of course if you happen to have the good fortune to be traveling internationally next to me or another T-Mobile customer, you can travel in confidence knowing that when you get off the plane in London, Paris, Lisbon or Munich, you'll be able to borrow a T-Mobile cell phone, turn it on and have it work.
    Just call VZW and ask for the Global Traveler Program. They will send out a World Edition phone to use for up to a month. No rental fees, just the $10 for shipping.
    11-10-09 02:25 PM
  12. berryite's Avatar
    Just call VZW and ask for the Global Traveler Program. They will send out a World Edition phone to use for up to a month. No rental fees, just the $10 for shipping.
    LOL. How in the world is that any advantage? Do you look forward to driving a $25 a day Enterprise rental car when your BMW is in for service too?

    So let's get this straight. You sign your life away promising Verizon you'll give them blood if you dare think about going to any other carrier. And your reward when you finally get that vacation trip to Paris is to call Verizon, sit on hold, pay them $10 so they can send you some phone that has NONE of your customizations in it and you get to use that while you are travelling? And THAT's some sort of a deal? Wow.

    Here, let me give you a better deal. You sign up for T-Mobile service like I did. Then when your boss calls to tell you that you've won that all-expense paid trip to Europe, all you need to do is rush home, pack a few clothes and head to the airport. No need to call your mobile carrier, stay on hold and pay them money for a crappy phone to use. No, instead you get on your plane. When you arrive in Paris and deplane, you walk into the airport, hit the "on" button on your very OWN PHONE and viola it turns on and works. AND with T-Mobile, if the airport has Internet connectivity, you can even make a UMA call back to the USA without paying a dime in International calling fees.

    Wow you Verizon folks sure are gullible.
    11-10-09 03:20 PM
  13. kjjb0204's Avatar
    You know, a good option for the ETF would be to charge a customer the difference between full retail and purchase price if the customer cancels. So buy a Tour for $149 subsidized. If you cancel, pay the difference of $350 ($499-149).
    11-10-09 03:21 PM
  14. berryite's Avatar
    You know, a good option for the ETF would be to charge a customer the difference between full retail and purchase price if the customer cancels. So buy a Tour for $149 subsidized. If you cancel, pay the difference of $350 ($499-149).
    Absolutely. That's only fair. Prorated of course for the number of months you have used the phone.
    11-10-09 03:23 PM
  15. kjjb0204's Avatar
    LOL. How in the world is that any advantage? Do you look forward to driving a $25 a day Enterprise rental car when your BMW is in for service too?

    So let's get this straight. You sign your life away promising Verizon you'll give them blood if you dare think about going to any other carrier. And your reward when you finally get that vacation trip to Paris is to call Verizon, sit on hold, pay them $10 so they can send you some phone that has NONE of your customizations in it and you get to use that while you are travelling? And THAT's some sort of a deal? Wow.

    Here, let me give you a better deal. You sign up for T-Mobile service like I did. Then when your boss calls to tell you that you've won that all-expense paid trip to Europe, all you need to do is rush home, pack a few clothes and head to the airport. No need to call your mobile carrier, stay on hold and pay them money for a crappy phone to use. No, instead you get on your plane. When you arrive in Paris and deplane, you walk into the airport, hit the "on" button on your very OWN PHONE and viola it turns on and works. AND with T-Mobile, if the airport has Internet connectivity, you can even make a UMA call back to the USA without paying a dime in International calling fees.

    Wow you Verizon folks sure are gullible.
    I love how these always become a flame war about carriers. Listen, there is not a single person (in their right mind) that would argue that Tmo is not a good value, but along with that good value, you get far inferior coverage across the United States. If it works for where you are 99% of the time, then get Tmo and save money. For anyone who travels outside of any one major geographic area, Tmo is not a good provider based on coverage.

    If you don't want to be subject to the $350 ETF, pay full price for the device and shut up.
    11-10-09 03:25 PM
  16. JustinD2473#IM's Avatar
    You know, a good option for the ETF would be to charge a customer the difference between full retail and purchase price if the customer cancels. So buy a Tour for $149 subsidized. If you cancel, pay the difference of $350 ($499-149).
    Absolutely. That's only fair. Prorated of course for the number of months you have used the phone.

    am i missing something here ? lol

    THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NEW ETF POLICY IS !!!
    11-10-09 03:34 PM
  17. berryite's Avatar
    I love how these always become a flame war about carriers. Listen, there is not a single person (in their right mind) that would argue that Tmo is not a good value, but along with that good value, you get far inferior coverage across the United States. If it works for where you are 99% of the time, then get Tmo and save money. For anyone who travels outside of any one major geographic area, Tmo is not a good provider based on coverage.

    If you don't want to be subject to the $350 ETF, pay full price for the device and shut up.
    1.) No flame war here. Just the facts.

    2.) If Verizon's network is such a tremendous advantage, why are they trying to hybrid their phones to access T-Mobile and AT&T's networks with GSM cards? You don't see T-Mobile and AT&T running around trying to make their phones accessible to CDMA networks now do you?

    3.) T-Mobile far inferior? I guess that's why Verizon and T-Mobile are almost identically rated for service across every region of the country by people like J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports.

    Verizon is not a bad carrier. And yes there may be some rural (read: remote places where not a lot of people ever go to) where they have service. If you study the history of Verizon, they got cheap access to lots of tower sites early on in the evolution of mobile phones because they were the ILEC phone company for landline service and got a jump ahead of other carriers in the landrush for cell tower sites. That advantage has slowly eroded over the years. 10 years ago, Verizon's coverage in West Los Angeles was the best. Today that's no longer true and I'd dare you to find any difference between T-Mobile and Verizon. Most celebrities in LA use T-Mobile. I assure you they wouldn't if the service wasn't the best.

    Shut up you say? I guess when you have no compelling arguments to make, rudeness is the only fallback. Please learn some manners. This is a site to debate the strengths and weaknesses of mobile technology. It's ok to disagree. It's not ok to be disagreeable. You're being rude and there is no reason for that.
    11-10-09 03:38 PM
  18. berryite's Avatar
    am i missing something here ? lol

    THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NEW ETF POLICY IS !!!
    No there is a subtle difference.

    If Verizon demands that I sign say a two-year, 24-month contract for the privilige of using a Tour and I agree to that and 18 months into that contract decide I want to go to another carrier, I must pay $350. That's ridiculous.

    What I said was, prorate the cost of the subsidy. If you've used their service for X months, the cost of the subsidy has in part been paid. Prorate it.

    The cost of the subsidy to Verizon is not the same in month 1 of the contract as it is in month 12, 18 or 24.

    Let me be clear here. I'm not arguing that the carrier should be forced to give away free phones. But let's be fair with the consumer too.
    11-10-09 03:45 PM
  19. kjjb0204's Avatar
    1.) No flame war here. Just the facts.

    2.) If Verizon's network is such a tremendous advantage, why are they trying to hybrid their phones to access T-Mobile and AT&T's networks with GSM cards? You don't see T-Mobile and AT&T running around trying to make their phones accessible to CDMA networks now do you?

    3.) T-Mobile far inferior? I guess that's why Verizon and T-Mobile are almost identically rated for service across every region of the country by people like J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports.

    Verizon is not a bad carrier. And yes there may be some rural (read: remote places where not a lot of people ever go to) where they have service. If you study the history of Verizon, they got cheap access to lots of tower sites early on in the evolution of mobile phones because they were the ILEC phone company for landline service and got a jump ahead of other carriers in the landrush for cell tower sites. That advantage has slowly eroded over the years. 10 years ago, Verizon's coverage in West Los Angeles was the best. Today that's no longer true and I'd dare you to find any difference between T-Mobile and Verizon. Most celebrities in LA use T-Mobile. I assure you they wouldn't if the service wasn't the best.

    Shut up you say? I guess when you have no compelling arguments to make, rudeness is the only fallback. Please learn some manners. This is a site to debate the strengths and weaknesses of mobile technology. It's ok to disagree. It's not ok to be disagreeable. You're being rude and there is no reason for that.
    That's funny. Verizon killed it in these JD Power reports. Are you thinking of a different JD Power company? Hmm, Southwest? Verizon. NorthEast? Verizon. MidWest? Verizon. Shall I continue?

    2009 Business Wireless Satisfaction Study | J.D. Power and Associates

    Ratings | J.D. Power

    2009 Wireless Call Quality Performance Study - Volume 1 | J.D. Power and Associates
    11-10-09 04:06 PM
  20. kjjb0204's Avatar
    No there is a subtle difference.

    If Verizon demands that I sign say a two-year, 24-month contract for the privilige of using a Tour and I agree to that and 18 months into that contract decide I want to go to another carrier, I must pay $350. That's ridiculous.

    What I said was, prorate the cost of the subsidy. If you've used their service for X months, the cost of the subsidy has in part been paid. Prorate it.

    The cost of the subsidy to Verizon is not the same in month 1 of the contract as it is in month 12, 18 or 24.

    Let me be clear here. I'm not arguing that the carrier should be forced to give away free phones. But let's be fair with the consumer too.
    The ETF IS prorated. The ETF is reduced by $10 per month.
    11-10-09 04:07 PM
  21. danimal1968's Avatar
    I don't know what you do for a living (or indeed even what planet you live on) but I've been a senior manager in both a number of technology and retail businesses and what you are saying here is patently silly.

    The way things work in the U.S. economy is based on capitalism. In capitalism, the consumer benefits from competition between companies. The consumer is protected from price gouging by competition. Barnes and Noble can't charge $100 for a new book because Borders is selling it for $20.

    In certain industries, there are a limited number of players. Anti trust laws were established in the United States to prevent these oligopolies from screwing the consumer. The cell phone industry in the United States is an oligopoly (a cartel) with a limited number of players in the business. Unfortunately the cell-phone carrier cartel in the USA has skirted the anti-trust laws of the USA for years. The concept of locking customers into contracts is clearly an anti-consumer scheme.

    Verizon isn't raising their rates and competing company to company on service ... Not at all. What Verizon is doing is enacing a scheme to lock in consumers so they can't leave to go to other providers. It's anti-consumer and it's anti American.




    As a senior director of sales with a Fortune 500 technology company, I traveled all over the United States and never had any more of a problem using T-Mobile than I did using Verizon when I had Verizon service.



    Cool. But in that "fair amount of traveling" that you do, please refrain from getting on a plane to leave the country because your Verizon CDMA service won't work in most other countries on the planet outside of the USA. Of course if you happen to have the good fortune to be traveling internationally next to me or another T-Mobile customer, you can travel in confidence knowing that when you get off the plane in London, Paris, Lisbon or Munich, you'll be able to borrow a T-Mobile cell phone, turn it on and have it work.
    I really have no interest in debating a smug, condescending know-it-all. Have a nice day.
    11-10-09 04:38 PM
  22. berryite's Avatar
    Verizon killed it in these JD Power reports.
    Thanks for the links. I'll review them later.

    Traditionally (the last several report cycles) both T-Mobile and Verizon have tied region by region across the country.

    Based on the fact that it would appear that you are being sheepish about links showing Consumer Reports' ratings, we'll have to look into those too.

    Your style here is though you are looking to prove something. Are you here to learn or to fight?

    Also interesting that you could/would not address one other point I made.
    11-10-09 04:39 PM
  23. berryite's Avatar
    I really have no interest in debating a smug, condescending know-it-all. Have a nice day.
    You made points you can't back up and now your response is to personally attack me.

    Sorry you couldn't back up your positions.
    11-10-09 04:41 PM
  24. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    Oh joy... another thread turned into "My signal indicator has more bars than your signal indicator"
    11-10-09 04:59 PM
  25. kjjb0204's Avatar
    Thanks for the links. I'll review them later.

    Traditionally (the last several report cycles) both T-Mobile and Verizon have tied region by region across the country.

    Based on the fact that it would appear that you are being sheepish about links showing Consumer Reports' ratings, we'll have to look into those too.

    Your style here is though you are looking to prove something. Are you here to learn or to fight?

    Also interesting that you could/would not address one other point I made.
    Sheepish about what links? You mentioned JD Power, so that's what I linked.

    Not here to prove anything. My BB runs just fine, I have the apps I need and I'm pretty experienced with the BB. There are definitely things I can still learn, but the ETF has nothing to do with any of that.

    Tmo and Verizon have traditionally been tied region by region? Verizon has been king for years, trouncing tmo. If anything, tmo has closed the gap a bit over the past several years, but is still nowhere close to vzw service.
    11-10-09 05:12 PM
101 12345
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD