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. Why do we tolerate it?
nobody@nobody1.com1 (LHA) wrote in
news:zCsgj.3377$El5.2810@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t:
> 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. Why do we tolerate it?
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.
With no contract, you'd be expected to bring your own phone or pay the
retail price.
LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>
> Discuss...
>
Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
News wrote:
>
>
> LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>>
>> Discuss...
>>
>
>
> Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> News wrote:
>>
>>
>> LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>>>
>>> Discuss...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
>
> Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
>
Yep. But I bought mine rather than lock into a contract. It cost me a couple
of hundred dollars to be free of the yoke. I'll get much of it back if and
when I sell the phone. I learned that awhile ago. Meantime, technology
changes are happening too quickly these days for me to want to be locked in.
Carl wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>>News wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>>>>
>>>>Discuss...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
>>
>>Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
>>
>
> Yep. But I bought mine rather than lock into a contract. It cost me a couple
> of hundred dollars to be free of the yoke. I'll get much of it back if and
> when I sell the phone. I learned that awhile ago. Meantime, technology
> changes are happening too quickly these days for me to want to be locked in.
>
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:47826BC4.6030500@comcast.net...
> News wrote:
>>
>>
>> LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>>>
>>> Discuss...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
>
> Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
>
....and he'll jump on Ebay, pick up a nice used one (or buy 2 or 3 so he has
a backup) and he's good to go. Been doing that for years.....and saved a
ton.
> 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.
> Why do we tolerate it?
People tolerate it because they want a "free" phone.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! UH-OH!! We're out
at of AUTOMOBILE PARTS and
visi.com RUBBER GOODS!
On 2008-01-07, Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> News wrote:
>>
>>
>> LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>>>
>>> Discuss...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
>
> Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
So go buy one on eBay, newegg, or Craig's List for $30. Nobody
is forcing you to take a "free" phone and sign a contract.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! How's the wife?
at Is she at home enjoying
visi.com capitalism?
In message <47826BC4.6030500@comcast.net> "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
So buy one at full price if you prefer. As it turns out, with many
phones the discount is higher then the early termination penalty, so you
really can't lose.
In message <Xns9A1E6E232D4E8VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1> Bert Hyman
<bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>With no contract, you'd be expected to bring your own phone or pay the
>retail price.
Even then, it can be tough to find a contract-less post-paid plan.
Personally, I'm not stressing about the early termination penalty when
bringing my own phone, instead I am planning to just take the free
phone, sell it, and pocket the cash.
If I pay out the contract, I won't be as far behind. If not, I win.
"LHA" <nobody@nobody1.com1> wrote in message
news:zCsgj.3377$El5.2810@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...
> 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.
Not true. Historically contracts were used by carriers to recover the costs
of phones, which tended to cost much more than most people were willing to
"pony up" for. In other words, the marketing guys figured out it's easier to
sell a phone for $39 and then have them subscribe for, say, $40/mo than sell a
phone for $239 and subscribe for $30/mo.
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:05:11 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>And I don't do business with Verizon.
>
>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.
You are doing business with Verizon, but through a third-party
reseller. You are using their network that Page Plus is reselling.
I do recommend them if you want to go the pre-paid route. Very good
service.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <13o53o0omormhab@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Historically contracts were used by carriers to recover the costs
>> of phones, which tended to cost much more than most people were willing to
>> "pony up" for. In other words, the marketing guys figured out it's easier to
>> sell a phone for $39 and then have them subscribe for, say, $40/mo than sell
>> a
>> phone for $239 and subscribe for $30/mo.
>
>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.
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?
>>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.
>
> 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?
Of course they have a huge markup. Everything has a huge
markup. Just because it cost $50 to make that TV doesn't mean
you're going to be able to pay less than $250 for it. We
engineers who design stuff like that don't work for free.
Shipping from Asia isn't free. The cost to "make" something is
often trivial compared to the cost to develop it, package it,
ship it, and distribute it. Funny thing, but everywhere along
they way, everybody want's to eat. If you think you can make
and sell cellular phones for $50 and still make a profit
without any of the income stream from the service, then go
ahead and do it. You'll be rich and famous.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I appoint you
at ambassador to Fantasy
visi.com Island!!!
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <47826BC4.6030500@comcast.net> "Richard B. Gilbert"
> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
>
> So buy one at full price if you prefer. As it turns out, with many
> phones the discount is higher then the early termination penalty, so
> you really can't lose.
>
And, do remember that the phone has a resale value in some market,
somewhere. If you keep your phone in good condition, hold onto the box,
manual and accessories that came with it, you'll likely get more on the used
market than you paid for it. I have done this many times over the past
several years. They go fast too.
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.
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
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:47826ede$0$13819$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> News wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>>>>
>>>> Discuss...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
>>
>> Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
>>
> Yep. But I bought mine rather than lock into a contract. It cost me a
> couple
> of hundred dollars to be free of the yoke. I'll get much of it back if
> and
> when I sell the phone. I learned that awhile ago. Meantime, technology
> changes are happening too quickly these days for me to want to be locked
> in.
>
>
>
>
Buy 2 or 3 phones. Dang I hardly use 1. What do you need 2 or 3 phones
for. A backup? Geez. Being without a phone for a few hours must be like
death. Get a life.
Vito
"Fred C. Dobbs" <noone> wrote in message
news:ytmdnTql6Ndg7R_anZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:47826BC4.6030500@comcast.net...
>> News wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> LHA 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. Why do we tolerate it?
>>>>
>>>> Discuss...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
>>
>> Yeah, but sooner or later you need a new phone. . . .
>>
> ...and he'll jump on Ebay, pick up a nice used one (or buy 2 or 3 so he
> has a backup) and he's good to go. Been doing that for years.....and saved
> a ton.
>
>
"Bob Scheurle" <njtbob2@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:rul6o314j6pcciunr90ki2alphf0fl0crg@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
>
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.
THAT IS WRONG! They have no investment stake in you if you provide your own
phone. For instance, if you buy a "clear" Sprint PCS phone, used, off of Ebay
and create a new account with Sprint [you are a new customer], they FORCE you
into a one or two year contract in spite of the fact they put exactly zero
investment dollars into subsidation, which is what they claim these contracts
are required for.
> With no contract, you'd be expected to bring your own phone or pay the
> retail price.
>
Yes, that is the way it should be, but that is not the way it is with some
providers. I am not sure if T-Mobile does it this way or not, but I know
Sprint PCS will rope you in [with a noose] to their contract.
--
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 DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
> Personally, I'm not stressing about the early termination penalty when
> bringing my own phone, instead I am planning to just take the free
> phone, sell it, and pocket the cash.
>
> If I pay out the contract, I won't be as far behind. If not, I win.
The problem here is that their is a "glut" of these "free" phones on Ebay and
other sources, so their price is actually artificially deflated. I tend to
doubt you will get $150-$200 in return for the "free phone" to cover the cost
of the early termination fee.
--
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 News <News@group.name> wrote:
>
> Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
But ... you used to be under contract. If you go back far enough and have an
old enough plan, it is possible you bought an unsubsidized phone without
contract and still retain the plan, eh? Airtouch did this in the old Analog
brick and bag phone days ... but then Verizon bought them ;-)
--
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 Uncle_vito <uncle_vito2002@yahoo.com> 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?
>
The companies primary use for it beyond subsidizing the phones is to prevent
churn. That is why you often see "retail - $150" at Sprint PCS for instance as
the price for a new customer. They subsidize your phone by [at least] $150.
Of course, they make the early termination fee even higher and that difference
might be called a "churn inhibitor".
--
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.
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.
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. If they are going to
stay with Verizon anyway over the 1-2 year period, the 'strings' are not
really strings.
However, if you hate your cell phone company, then you will have a you go
your way and I will go my way attitude where your buy your phone off ebay
and you have no 'contract' with Verizon. I can relat to that also.
Seems like two ways to go.
Vito
"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.
>
>
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile News <News@group.name> wrote:
>
>>Huh? I've been month to month for more than eight years.
>
>
> But ... you used to be under contract. If you go back far enough and have an
> old enough plan, it is possible you bought an unsubsidized phone without
> contract and still retain the plan, eh? Airtouch did this in the old Analog
> brick and bag phone days ... but then Verizon bought them ;-)
>
Nope.
SIMs acquired directly from Omnipoint, Voicestream and T-Mobile.
Things change. Most often not coincident with contract expiration.
Uncle_vito wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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. If they are going to
> stay with Verizon anyway over the 1-2 year period, the 'strings' are not
> really strings.
>
> However, if you hate your cell phone company, then you will have a you go
> your way and I will go my way attitude where your buy your phone off ebay
> and you have no 'contract' with Verizon. I can relat to that also.
>
> Seems like two ways to go.
>
> Vito
>
>
> "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.
>>
In alt.cellular.t-mobile Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>
> So go buy one on eBay, newegg, or Craig's List for $30. Nobody
> is forcing you to take a "free" phone and sign a contract.
>
Sprint PCS does. Try activating a used [ESN clear] phone on a new account;
they won't do it without a contract. Hell, just swapping phones with Sprint
[even an insurance replacement ... any ESN change at all] resets the $150
credit you get towards a new phone every two years. They have the absolute
worst billing system and CRM that I have seen of any company!
--
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 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. They give you a $300
phone for $150 ... or sometimes if they have a sale on massive inventory or
vendor pricing discounts, they will give you the $300 for $99 or less ... but
the subsidy in this case is still $150 and the rest is money they discount
because of the manufacturer [i.e. Motorola pushing a KRZR] or to reduce
inventory on older models.
>> Why do we tolerate it?
>
> People tolerate it because they want a "free" phone.
>
Nothing is free in life and this especially applies to mobile phones.
I love Verizon, but if they don't implement the pro-rated early termination
fees as they promised to do 15+ months ago, then I may take my chances with
AT&T, because at least I can easily switch out phones via the card in the back
of the phone without risking contract changes, albeit, Verizon is pretty good
about not sneaking in contract renewals like Sprint PCS does.
--
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:
> In article <13o53o0omormhab@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Historically contracts were used by carriers to recover the costs
>> of phones, which tended to cost much more than most people were willing to
>> "pony up" for. In other words, the marketing guys figured out it's easier to
>> sell a phone for $39 and then have them subscribe for, say, $40/mo than sell
>> a
>> phone for $239 and subscribe for $30/mo.
>
> 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.
>
Simple ... it is old inventory that is becoming obsolete and they sell it at a
discount to move it. ALL businesses that cary inventory do this, and
especially businesses that deal with evolving and in-demand technology.
> And I don't do business with Verizon.
>
No, you do business with Walmart [or perhaps the Kiosk vendor as the case may
be].
> 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.
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.
> So much for the whole contract idea.
>
Never was a contract for pre-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.
Contracts. Why? 
Linear Mode
