In alt.cellular.t-mobile Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>
> I'd be surprised if they cost more than $25 to make, but exact cost
> information doesn't seem possible to get. Many people claim that
> phones really "cost" the $200-$500 that carriers charge, but I don't
> believe it. Why would phones be the only consumer electronics devices
> that don't have a huge markup?
>
NEW technology has high costs [especially phones with CDMA technology due to
Qualcomm licensing], but once it hits mass production, the price goes down.
Consider prescription drugs. Prilosec, when it was released, was very
expensive yet the same company now sells it over-the-counter quite cheaply.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.t-mobile Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> That's my point. A couple of $50 phones, and nowhere near the income
> stream Verizon planned for those puppies.
>
Nah ... you bought relatively old technology and high volume phones .. R&D was
long ago paid for and you are just getting a discount because they need to
reduce inventory to make room for the profitable newcomer.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think "pre-pay" is an invalid term for these customers, as even "post-pay"
>> customers pre-pay. They only post pay any monthly overage or feature changes
>
> Nope. Not with Cingular/AT&T, anyway. I paid AFTER the fact, for
> everything. I never paid anything up front. Two years ago I walked
> away with a couple of free phones and a contract that said I would pay
> so much for service, and my service was available immediately. The bill
> for that service was not generated until one month later.
I can't say with certainty that I wasn't charged for my first month of
service when I paid for the phones, now that I think about it.
--
"I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state
itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of
property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who
produce wealth. Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin, founder, ACLU
Uncle_vito wrote:
> When you sell the phone? Who wants a used cell phone with older
> technology when they can get a new phone subsidized by Verizon. BTW,
> if you are not going to change providers anyway, who cares about a
> contract?
Vito- you would be surprised at the number of people looking for a used cell
phone. There are probably several reasons for it, but one example is someone
who is under contract who has lost or damaged their phone (that contract
does lock them in folks).
I have four people in my family, each of whom gets a new phone every couple
of years. I have zero old cell phones hanging around the house. They ALL
have been sold on eBay, and I'm not talking about for insignificant prices
either. I wouldn't bother for a few bucks.
Of course "marketing" is part of the key to success in reselling your cell
phone, as it is in any other business deal. I keep the boxes, manuals, and
chargers to all my phones and I keep them in very good condition. They
sell.
Now I'll grant you that, as the technology advances ever more rapidly, and
prices drop, it may become harder to do this. I'll be testing this in a
short while. Wish me luck.
Bob Scheurle wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:11:19 -0500, "Carl"
> <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>> And, do remember that the phone has a resale value in some market,
>> somewhere.
>
> Anyone want to buy a non-GPS Kyocera 2235 from 2002? I've got a
> couple.
>
Ok, I'll admit you got me there (though there are a couple for sale on eBay
as we speak). I should have qualified that the phone had to have some value
when it was new. What was the old computer-related analogy: "junk in, junk
out"? There is the adage that you get what you pay for.
Let's use my last phone as an example, a Motorola V3c, awaiting being sold
as we speak. Here are some already sold ones:
At 08 Jan 2008 09:14:55 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Ummm...that was my point. Did you not get the whole thing? I am under
> no commitment to pay any usage charges at any level for these phones,
> therefore if the phones are subsidized based on Verizon expecting that
> I'm going to use them and Verizon will realize income from them, then
> Verizon is in for a surprise.
True- you're exploiting a loophole in the system- in return for making
sales of pre-paid phones "easier" for mass-market retailers, Verizon (et al)
take the activating hassles away from the store and let customers do it at
home via 800#. A few phones, like yours, "slip through the cracks" this way,
but that's a small number compared to the ton of phones and activations
WalMart generates for Verizon. A "calculated risk" as they say (similar to
risk AT&T and T-Mobile take when their prepaid phones fall into the hands
of existing customers buying no-contract handset upgrades/replacements.) >
> > I think "pre-pay" is an invalid term for these customers, as even "post-
pay"
> > customers pre-pay. They only post pay any monthly overage or feature
changes
>
> Nope. Not with Cingular/AT&T, anyway. I paid AFTER the fact, for
> everything. I never paid anything up front.
Sort of- what you're forgetting is that your first bill, when it finally
arrived, was for two months- "this" month and "next" month- so you were
really a "deferred" pre-paid customer- if you buy a phone today, Jan. 8th,
your bill might not arrive for a few weeks, but it'll be for the Jan. and
Feb. billing cycles. They stay ahead of you.
> You're wrong about the bills being pre-pay even for contract customers.
On 2008-01-08, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> When you initially contract with a provider, they usually provide a
>> phone at no or reduced cost. Similarly, if you renew your contract, you
>> can usually get a new phone at no or reduced cost.
>
> Sprint PCS and others, will not allow you to activate a phone [that you
> purchased elsewhere .. perhaps used] on a new account without a contract.
Then pick a provider that _does_ provide the services you want.
> THAT IS WRONG!
IMO it was a mistake that the FCC didn't require the carriers
to 1) allow customers to use outside phones 2) provide
month-to-month service for people with unsubsidized phones.
OTOH, it took 80 years to get wireline carriers to allow
outside phones on their network.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! A can of ASPARAGUS,
at 73 pigeons, some LIVE ammo,
visi.com and a FROZEN DAQUIRI!!
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-D6B31F.16051107012008@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> So explain why I picked up a couple Verizon InPulse Samsung A870 phones
> at Walmart for $50 each. I'm *sure* they're worth more than that.
The pay-as-you-go phones tend to make significantly more money on a "per
minute of usage" basis than "regular" (contract) phones, so the marketing idea
there is that it doesn't take nearly as long for the manufacturer to re-coop
the "discount" they gave you on the phone, so even if you lose or throw away
or otherwise stop using the phone (and go get another one for $50) there's a
decent chance they'll have already made some money off of you overall.
Also consider that those phones are usually a generation or so behind the
current "cutting edge" of technology, so they are cheaper to make in the first
place. That Samsung A870 might not cost more than $100 to make, for instance.
> Oh, but I do do business with PagePlus....at a rate of about
> $30/year.....so even if I do end up using the Verizon network, it's not
> for very much at all.
They're probably losing money on you. All carriers lose money on some
customers, but remember that their goal is to make the biggest return on
investments for their stockholders -- from that perspective it doesn't matter
if they lose money on you if they're making heaps and piles of money on enough
other people.
Smart consumers certainly can use knowledge to their advantage here...
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5uhcbgF1hup2eU1@mid.individual.net...
> Sprint PCS and others, will not allow you to activate a phone [that you
> purchased elsewhere .. perhaps used] on a new account without a contract.
Supposedly they will let you sign up for a month-to-month contract on a new
account without a contract... but only on some relatively crappy (poor value)
service plans. Realistically, then, it's not an option... and of course in
many stores you'd probably be hard-pressed to find someone who even knew how
to do it.
> THAT IS WRONG!
Yeah, it is Sprint just being a bit greedy there. I guess they can get away
with it because most? all? of the other carriers do it as well, and it's a
rare enough scenario that there isn't a huge outcry to get it changed.
At 08 Jan 2008 17:50:39 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > Sort of- what you're forgetting is that your first bill, when it finally
> > arrived, was for two months- "this" month and "next" month-
>
> Nope.
>
> I still have it.
>
> Want to see it?
I'll take your word for it. My first bill with Cingular was from 1994
(when they ere still SBMS) and my last was in 2003. My last bill was for
about $2, because they were always ahead of me and my last "month" was two
pro-rated days.
> It was for one month. The month that had just passed.
It may be different today as your experience seems to indicate. Currently
T-Mo bills me ahead- I get the bill during the current cycle (i.e. my bill
for Dec. 11th-Jan. 10 arrived a couple of weeks ago.)
Joel Koltner wrote:
> The pay-as-you-go phones tend to make significantly more money on a "per
> minute of usage" basis than "regular" (contract) phones, so the marketing idea
> there is that it doesn't take nearly as long for the manufacturer to re-coop
> the "discount" they gave you on the phone, so even if you lose or throw away
> or otherwise stop using the phone (and go get another one for $50) there's a
> decent chance they'll have already made some money off of you overall.
That's hard for me to see, considering T-Mobile wants $30 for 300 minutes
post-pay (use 'em or lose 'em in a month), vs. $100 for 1,000 minutes
pre-pay (use 'em any time in a year).
--
"I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state
itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of
property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who
produce wealth. Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin, founder, ACLU
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-8A455D.09220908012008@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> top posting corrected
>
> In article <NrWdnX1SnrSs4B7anZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@linkline.com>,
> "Uncle_vito" <uncle_vito2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>> news:elmop-ECB4D2.08225808012008@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>> > In article <KbCdnd6ZGu587R7anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@linkline.com>,
>> > "Uncle_vito" <uncle_vito2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Who wants a used cell phone with older technology
>> >> when they can get a new phone subsidized by Verizon.
>> >
>> > Because the subsidy from Verizon comes with strings attached, strings
>> > that the buyer doesn't want to be part of?
>> >
>> > Can you grasp the concept of all this?
>> >
>> > So the buyer can spend more money for a new phone without strings, or
>> > less money for an older phone without strings.
>> >
>> Sorry, but what are the strings? The $175 cancellation policy doesn't
>> really bother me if I was going to be with them already and they paid for
>> my
>> phone.
>
> It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers others--who don't want those
> strings.
>
> You were unable to grasp the concept of buying a phone with older
> technology. It seems the bigger picture is that you're unable to grasp
> the concept that others don't do things like you do them.
>
> What if you moved to where signal quality was crap? You'd be pissed.
> You would be singing a different tune. You'd be wanting OUT of your
> contract, without paying $175, but you wouldn't be able to do
> that--you'd be tied by the strings that others are trying to avoid.
>
> That's why others might want cheaper, older phones--to avoid such
> strings.
>
> Or maybe they just want A PHONE, not a jack of all trade/master of none
> piece of Japanese technological glory.
>
>
>>
>> Now if I was planning on leaving them that would be another story. Seems
>> the phone user needs to have a plan and stick with it.
>
> Right up to the point where the phone user's life changes.
>
> Deal with it. Shit happens. Smart people don't get locked into crappy
> deals if they don't have to. Smart people understand that shit happens
> and life changes.
>
>
>> If they are going to
>> stay with Verizon anyway over the 1-2 year period, the 'strings' are not
>> really strings.
>
> You sound like someone who trades freedom for security. "But if I'm not
> doing anything wrong, there's no problem with the police coming to my
> house unannounced and searching it."
>
>
You know, you are right. I forgot that my son took his phone swimming and
he was in the middle of a contract. Buying a phone from the cell company
would have been insanely expensive. He went to Craigs list and bought a
phone he liked for a reasonable price and he is happy. The phone on
Craigslist was essentially brand new.
So I stand corrected on this issue.
Vito
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4783591e$0$9143$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Uncle_vito wrote:
>> When you sell the phone? Who wants a used cell phone with older
>> technology when they can get a new phone subsidized by Verizon. BTW,
>> if you are not going to change providers anyway, who cares about a
>> contract?
> Vito- you would be surprised at the number of people looking for a used
> cell phone. There are probably several reasons for it, but one example is
> someone who is under contract who has lost or damaged their phone (that
> contract does lock them in folks).
>
> I have four people in my family, each of whom gets a new phone every
> couple of years. I have zero old cell phones hanging around the house.
> They ALL have been sold on eBay, and I'm not talking about for
> insignificant prices either. I wouldn't bother for a few bucks.
>
> Of course "marketing" is part of the key to success in reselling your cell
> phone, as it is in any other business deal. I keep the boxes, manuals,
> and chargers to all my phones and I keep them in very good condition.
> They sell.
>
> Now I'll grant you that, as the technology advances ever more rapidly, and
> prices drop, it may become harder to do this. I'll be testing this in a
> short while. Wish me luck.
>
>
At 08 Jan 2008 17:53:26 -0600 clifto wrote:
> Joel Koltner wrote:
> > The pay-as-you-go phones tend to make significantly more money on a
"per
> > minute of usage" basis than "regular" (contract) phones, so the
marketing idea
> > there is that it doesn't take nearly as long for the manufacturer to re-
coop
> > the "discount" they gave you on the phone, so even if you lose or throw
away
> > or otherwise stop using the phone (and go get another one for $50)
there's a
> > decent chance they'll have already made some money off of you overall.
>
> That's hard for me to see, considering T-Mobile wants $30 for 300 minutes
> post-pay (use 'em or lose 'em in a month), vs. $100 for 1,000 minutes
> pre-pay (use 'em any time in a year).
But you cherry-picked the most expensive (per minute) rate plan for your
comparison, not to mention the $30/300 minute plan includes free weekends.
T-Mo offers 1000 minutes for $40- a more attractive plan for heavy users- a
700 min./month postpaid user, for example, pays $40/month instead of $70 on
prepaid.
Having said that, unlike most carriers who seem to offer prepaid as a "last
resort" for credit-challenged consumers, and at a price designed not to
cannibalize their bread-n-butter postpaid biz, T-Mo aggressively pursues
the pre-paid market, seeming to assume that anyone their prepaid offering
lures from pstpaid is likely a high enough volume user that it'll be worth
it. That seems to work for them, considering that their prepaid ARPU is
(relatively) high, and their total ARPU is also relatively high considering
their high percentage of prepaid customers compared to other carriers.
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:hLXgj.50$R22.35@fe099.usenetserver.com:
> At 08 Jan 2008 17:53:26 -0600 clifto wrote:
>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>> > The pay-as-you-go phones tend to make significantly more money on a
> "per
>> > minute of usage" basis than "regular" (contract) phones, so the
> marketing idea
>> > there is that it doesn't take nearly as long for the manufacturer
>> > to re-
> coop
>> > the "discount" they gave you on the phone, so even if you lose or
>> > throw
> away
>> > or otherwise stop using the phone (and go get another one for $50)
> there's a
>> > decent chance they'll have already made some money off of you
>> > overall.
>>
>> That's hard for me to see, considering T-Mobile wants $30 for 300
>> minutes post-pay (use 'em or lose 'em in a month), vs. $100 for 1,000
>> minutes pre-pay (use 'em any time in a year).
>
>
> But you cherry-picked the most expensive (per minute) rate plan for
> your comparison, not to mention the $30/300 minute plan includes free
> weekends. T-Mo offers 1000 minutes for $40- a more attractive plan for
> heavy users- a 700 min./month postpaid user, for example, pays
> $40/month instead of $70 on prepaid.
>
> Having said that, unlike most carriers who seem to offer prepaid as a
> "last resort" for credit-challenged consumers, and at a price designed
> not to cannibalize their bread-n-butter postpaid biz, T-Mo
> aggressively pursues the pre-paid market, seeming to assume that
> anyone their prepaid offering lures from pstpaid is likely a high
> enough volume user that it'll be worth it. That seems to work for
> them, considering that their prepaid ARPU is (relatively) high, and
> their total ARPU is also relatively high considering their high
> percentage of prepaid customers compared to other carriers.
>
>
>
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't T-Mo prepaid only work on their
network, while postpaid does roam? That would seem to make the comparison
apples-to-oranges.
>In alt.cellular.t-mobile Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-07, LHA <nobody@nobody1.com1> wrote:
>>
>>> If the cellular companies provided the service and support
>>> that their customers desire and deserve, they would NOT need
>>> to lock us in with long, expensive contracts.
>>
>> As long as they're giving you a $200-$300 phone for free,
>> they're going to require that you guarantee future purchases in
>> order to cover the cost of that phone.
>>
>
>But they don't. They give you a $150 phone for free.
That's like saying "I charged it, so it was free." They have signed
to a contract that guarantees them a future revenue stream, and that
future revenue stream has a present value.
>They give you a $300
>phone for $150 ...
Assuming that it really cost them $300, which I doubt. Probably some
phones are sold for close to the carriers's retail price, but almost
certainly not all of them. If they weren't making money on the
process, they'd stop doing it.
Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote in
news:lrm8o3hge1tfcnvqjv4s8n33bigpbvsfqh@4ax.com:
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.cellular.t-mobile Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-07, LHA <nobody@nobody1.com1> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the cellular companies provided the service and support
>>>> that their customers desire and deserve, they would NOT need
>>>> to lock us in with long, expensive contracts.
>>>
>>> As long as they're giving you a $200-$300 phone for free,
>>> they're going to require that you guarantee future purchases in
>>> order to cover the cost of that phone.
>>>
>>
>>But they don't. They give you a $150 phone for free.
>
> That's like saying "I charged it, so it was free." They have signed
> to a contract that guarantees them a future revenue stream, and that
> future revenue stream has a present value.
>
>>They give you a $300
>>phone for $150 ...
>
> Assuming that it really cost them $300, which I doubt. Probably some
> phones are sold for close to the carriers's retail price, but almost
> certainly not all of them. If they weren't making money on the
> process, they'd stop doing it.
>
>
Except that it gives them a healthy loss to write off every quarter for
equipment subsudies.And I'll gurantee that neither the IRS or SEC woudl
allow them to either make up or artificially inflate that number.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 08 Jan 2008 17:53:26 -0600 clifto wrote:
>> That's hard for me to see, considering T-Mobile wants $30 for 300 minutes
>> post-pay (use 'em or lose 'em in a month), vs. $100 for 1,000 minutes
>> pre-pay (use 'em any time in a year).
>
> But you cherry-picked the most expensive (per minute) rate plan for your
> comparison, not to mention the $30/300 minute plan includes free weekends.
> T-Mo offers 1000 minutes for $40- a more attractive plan for heavy users- a
> 700 min./month postpaid user, for example, pays $40/month instead of $70 on
> prepaid.
The problem with that is that the user can't depend on the 700 minutes.
After he hits the limit, the plan has a price more like $280 per month
($0.40 per minute). So he's going to waste some finite number of minutes
every month to avoid hitting the limit. I suppose it's a matter of skill
or luck as to how few minutes get wasted.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
> > T-Mo offers 1000 minutes for $40- a more attractive plan for heavy
users- a
> > 700 min./month postpaid user, for example, pays $40/month instead of
$70 on
> > prepaid.
>
> The problem with that is that the user can't depend on the 700 minutes.
> After he hits the limit, the plan has a price more like $280 per month
> ($0.40 per minute).
Right- that's why I used 700 as my example- the plan actually includes
1000, but it's unrealistic to assume anyone would use all of their minutes
each month. My hypothetical customer leaves 300 minutes "on the table"
every month.
> So he's going to waste some finite number of minutes
> every month to avoid hitting the limit. I suppose it's a matter of skill
> or luck as to how few minutes get wasted.
Maybe- the point was that as long as his average minute cost is _less_ than
$0.10, it's a better deal (for him) than prepaid. That happens when he
hits 400 minutes on the $40 for 1000 minute plan.
At 08 Jan 2008 21:32:21 -0800 Jack Hamilton wrote:
> >But they don't. They give you a $150 phone for free.
>
> That's like saying "I charged it, so it was free." They have signed
> to a contract that guarantees them a future revenue stream, and that
> future revenue stream has a present value.
True, but the use of the phone requires service anyway. As long as the EFT
is equal or less than the subsidy, why not? You aren't really stuck with "
$1000" worth of service (2 years at $40/month), you're stuck with paying
the EFT to cancel- roughly the price of the discount.
> >They give you a $300
> >phone for $150 ...
>
> Assuming that it really cost them $300, which I doubt.
It doesn't matter what it costs to manufacture or procure- nothing else you
buy is sold for "cost" either. What matters is the difference between what
it will cost you to buy it with or without the contract. (And not
necessarily from the carrier- i.e. if you can get the same phone on eBay,
or a local dealer without contract cheaper.)
> Probably some
> phones are sold for close to the carriers's retail price, but almost
> certainly not all of them. If they weren't making money on the
> process, they'd stop doing it.
True- but they're making money either way; whether you pay the full
unsubsidized price, or re-up for two years. Again, the point is, if the
"Uberfone 5000", or whatever model you really want can be obtained $150-200
cheaper with a contract, why not? If circumstances change and you need to
break the contract, you pay the $150-200 EFT and no harm done- it was the
amount of the discount anyway.
Otherwise, two years later with the same carrier, that full price phone
without contract was $200 more, and you still spent two years with the
carrier- just without a contractual obligation.
In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that the cost to acquire a new customer
> included more than just the cost of the equipment subsidy.
>
Same goes for walmart ... you don't sign a contract with them when you walk in
the door saying that you will pay them $X every month or pay $XXX to quit
paying.
The ETF is connected to the reduction in phone price. Any other money spent,
whether it be advertising or paying for good reviews, is not money they have a
right to recoup via a contract.
As far as the cost of activation goes ... they already charge you activate an
account, so no contract needed for that.
> Just curious, does anyone know when they stopped calling themselves
> Sprint PCS? Was it around the time of the Nextel merger, or before
> that? It seems odd to refer to them as Sprint PCS this many years
> later.
>
Sprint split off Sprint PCS years ago so there was a tracking stock and the
main stock. Then, Sprint merged with Nextel and Sprint PCS was rolled back
into the fold leaving Sprint Nextel. As far as when, well, it should be
obvious from the name, eh? :-)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> If you want the ability to switch out phones as a fashion statement, and
> have several phones to choose from depending on what mood you're in,
> then realistically in the US your choice is GSM and the SIM
> card--excepting the iPhone, of course.
>
Actually, you can switch out your phones on Verizon all that you want too [but
currently, you are limitted to Verizon supported phones]. That doesn't
affect your ability to get a discount on a new phone in one or two years and
it doesn't affect your contract term.
With Sprint PCS, and perhaps only with Sprint PCS, if you change phones, your
discount on a new phone is reset to two years out. They trigger the discount
on two years from your last ESN switch. That is absolutely ridiculous and is
a sign of just how poor the programmers who set that system up were (or still
are!). In fact, it is this reason alone [and the customer service that
followed the flaw] that led me to leave Sprint PCS after about five years.
> What you give up, frankly, is network availability and call quality.
>
Verizon has a GREAT network and their plans have excellent coverage [including
roaming] for post pay customers. I won't go into the reasons why I think CDMA
is a better technology for voice than GSM (but let's say multipath is
particular beneficial in downtown areas) but I think there are many with
relatively fewer benefits going to GSM. I often hear my coworkers who use
T-Mobile and AT&T complain that the person on the other end can't hear them
.... or the other way around. I don't think that has ever happened to me on a
CDMA phone. Since I hate Sprint PCS now [for good reasons enumerated hear
more than a year ago], Verizon is my only real option here unless I decide to
tolerate AT&T and live with what AT&T offers, which is GSM and higher prices
:-(
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
> Except that it gives them a healthy loss to write off every quarter for
> equipment subsudies.And I'll gurantee that neither the IRS or SEC woudl
> allow them to either make up or artificially inflate that number.
>
They better not be writing it off as a loss ... it clearly is NOT. It is an
investment [I don't get to write off my investments ... in fact, I have to pay
taxes on the earnings when I get them]. They "invest" $150 in your phone so
that the phone is cheaper for you, and in return, they over charge you by a
certain amount for one or two years to make up that money ... and if you quit
early, they charge you more than the $150 the initially invested in you, so
they still get a profit.
That is why I say it shouldn't be legal. Plan prices should be lower if a
person is not on contract and they should be able to activate a non-subsidized
phone, whether new or used, without a contract and without paying the rates
created for "subsidy recovery". The best deal in the world for these
companies is somebody coming in with a used phone, activating it on a new plan
and charging them the same monthly rate that they charge others who are paying
off their subsidy AND creating a profit for the carrier. In short, these
people are probably the most profitable ... yet, they don't allow it in a lot
of cases ... or want to charge you MORE per month to start a phone on a new
plan without a contract [I think Sprint used to charge $10 / month for this].
Someday, it will be all wireless data, and you can pick your VoIP provider and
phone ... then we will be complaining about data contracts instead of these
blasted subsidy rip-offs.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon Todd Allcock <elecconnec@americaonline.com> wrote:
>
> True- but they're making money either way; whether you pay the full
> unsubsidized price, or re-up for two years. Again, the point is, if the
> "Uberfone 5000", or whatever model you really want can be obtained $150-200
> cheaper with a contract, why not? If circumstances change and you need to
> break the contract, you pay the $150-200 EFT and no harm done- it was the
> amount of the discount anyway.
>
This is precisely what I was trying to say, except that their EFT is usually
MORE than the subsidy, so the carrier comes out ahead ... and they don't lower
the price of your monthly plan when the subsidy is paid up ... which means you
should threaten churn to keep your money, as otherwise it is pure profit for
them ... a greedy model.
I would rather have the option to buy a phone that is not locked to any
carrier and buy that phone at full price. Then I should be able to activate
it with any carrier and not pay the plan price that subsidized buyers pay.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> My point was, Verizon can expect very little annuity stream from these
> phones. If they were sold at a "subsidized" price, with Verizon
> expecting a suitable amount of income from my using them in order to
> offset the cheap price they sold for, then Verizon is in for a surprise.
>
Obviously Verizon did not sell the phone with contractual commitment, you
would have heard from them by now. You bought their excess inventory and
they are probably very glad you paid retail price for it rather than them
having to write it off and give them to charity or sell them in bulk to Ebay
sellers ;-)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <5uhdtoF1hna38U2@mid.individual.net>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Oh, but I do do business with PagePlus....at a rate of about
>> > $30/year.....so even if I do end up using the Verizon network, it's not
>> > for very much at all.
>> >
>>
>> Ever notice that if you go to the Verizon or any traditional mobile phone
>> company that does both pre-pay and post-pay that the same phone is more
>> expensive for pre-pay customers? Well, you see why; they are under no
>> commitment.
>
> Ummm...that was my point. Did you not get the whole thing? I am under
> no commitment to pay any usage charges at any level for these phones,
> therefore if the phones are subsidized based on Verizon expecting that
> I'm going to use them and Verizon will realize income from them, then
> Verizon is in for a surprise.
>
>
>
>> I think "pre-pay" is an invalid term for these customers, as even "post-pay"
>> customers pre-pay. They only post pay any monthly overage or feature changes
>
> Nope. Not with Cingular/AT&T, anyway. I paid AFTER the fact, for
> everything. I never paid anything up front. Two years ago I walked
> away with a couple of free phones and a contract that said I would pay
> so much for service, and my service was available immediately. The bill
> for that service was not generated until one month later.
>
> You're wrong about the bills being pre-pay even for contract customers.
>
Prepaid phones are NOT subsidized. You bought a prepay phone, otherwise known
as commitment free. If you had bought it on a subsidized contract, the phone
would probably have been free. You just helped them unload excess inventory.
Feel good that you got what you consider a fair price. You won't be finding a
Motorola Q anytime soon at Walmart for a similar price without commitment ...
and you know why.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon Joel Koltner <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The pay-as-you-go phones tend to make significantly more money on a "per
> minute of usage" basis than "regular" (contract) phones, so the marketing idea
> there is that it doesn't take nearly as long for the manufacturer to re-coop
> the "discount" they gave you on the phone, so even if you lose or throw away
> or otherwise stop using the phone (and go get another one for $50) there's a
> decent chance they'll have already made some money off of you overall.
>
And what I have been saying is they don't really discount those prepaid phones
at all ... or very rarely. Most are phones that were high volume sellers and
became excess inventory, so they sell those as prepaid [or offer them as
"free" to subsidized customers]. Clearing excess inventory that they would
otherwise write off because they need room for newer more profitable models
makes a lot of sense ... and thus, the prepaid companies tend to be
subsideries or completely different companies altogether that got to buy these
phones on clearance. I bet buying one of those $30 prepaid phones provided
a net revenue of $15 for the carrier offering the pre-paid phone, even if it
is never activated ... because the phone is not worth $30 to them, but, in teh
case of my example, only $15.
BTW ... it is such inventory price depreciation that they write off, not the
subsidies ... just referencing another part of the thread.
They didn't lose money on that Sanyo phone the sold this guy because the phone
isn't worth to them as much as he paid for it in the first place [hence they
made a profit]. That is why the cheap comittment free pre-paid phones are
older models [or some current models where inventory is well in excess of what
it should be], the phone is now worth less to them, so they sell them for
less. The goal is to not have to write off any losses at all and that is what
these phones do for the carriers; they take a loss due to depreciation not due
to some pre-paid guy buying the phone and using it on another carrier ... the
goal was to get rid of the phone, not whether it was activated or not.
To the guy who bought the Samsung at Walmart ... did you ever price that phone
to what is available on Ebay as new for the same model? I bet the price was
similar or even higher at Walmart.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>> there is that it doesn't take nearly as long for the manufacturer to re-coop
>> the "discount" they gave you on the phone, so even if you lose or throw away
>> or otherwise stop using the phone (and go get another one for $50) there's a
>> decent chance they'll have already made some money off of you overall.
>
> That's hard for me to see, considering T-Mobile wants $30 for 300 minutes
> post-pay (use 'em or lose 'em in a month), vs. $100 for 1,000 minutes
> pre-pay (use 'em any time in a year).
>
You get roaming for free on the post-pay plan ... there is no roaming on
pre-pay plans. Thus, you get less coverage for the $1. You probably don't
get unlimitted nights and weekends either ... or free mobile to mobile, etc.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
In alt.cellular.verizon CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't T-Mo prepaid only work on their
> network, while postpaid does roam? That would seem to make the comparison
> apples-to-oranges.
you are absolutely correct. And there are mobile-mobile minutes, nights and
weekends, etc.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
At 09 Jan 2008 18:23:25 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
> Prepaid phones are NOT subsidized.
Sure they are. We're probably splitting hairs, but the carriers subsidize
prepaid handsets to spur signups in a sort of "giveaway the razor to sell
the blades" fashion. Tracfone offers handsets for $15 and Virgin for $20;
the included batteries and chargers cost more than that!
> You bought a prepay phone,
> otherwise known as commitment free.
"Committment" and "subsidy" aren't necessarily related...
Re: Contracts. Why? 
Linear Mode
