Paul Miner wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Marriott wrote:
>>> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
>>> I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
>>> for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
>>> the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
>>> Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
>>>
>> Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>> iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
>> it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>
> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
> them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
> their device outright and then use it without a contract. I'm in favor
> of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
> latest model, so perhaps it wouldn't affect me.
>
Not really, it is a step in the opposite direction. You are required to
purchase the iphone outright and it requires a mandatory two year
contract with all of the normal provisions.