"Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
world of cell phones. "
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500, "Bob G" <no> wrote:
>"Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>world of cell phones. "
>
>I found this sad, but true:
>
And if most consumers really felt that way, churn rates would be much
closer to 50% per year.
At 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500 Bob G wrote:
> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
> world of cell phones. "
It wouldn't be preposterous in grocery shopping either, if the store gave
you a couple of hundred bucks in free groceries upfront in return for your
"loyalty."
The saddest part was the number of inaccuracies and exaggerations in the
article, but that's typical of "journalism" that panders to consumers.
We are willing participants in this little game. We want the latest shiny
object for pennies on the dollar, and we're willing to sell our soul to get
it.
No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by paying
the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me $200
in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I decide
to bail out early?
He mentions how carriers will raise rates and unilaterally change the
contract giving consumers no choice but to accept it, yet in my experience
as a cellular user (and a dealer in the 90's) I've been offered the
opportunity to walk out of my contract several times because my carrier
added/raised fees, or changed terms, coverage areas, etc.
Of course, I can see the author's point- who wants to read a fair and
balanced article that explains why both the companies and customers share
the blame for contracts when we can read an article telling us how these
James-Bond-Villianesque companies are "locking us in cellular jail" in
their quest for world domination.
In alt.cellular.verizon, Bob G <no> wrote:
> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
> world of cell phones. "
The alternative is to pay full boat retail for the phone. With
ATT/Apple's new paradigm, that may start to be common.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> In alt.cellular.verizon, Bob G <no> wrote:
>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>> world of cell phones. "
>
>> I found this sad, but true:
>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>
> The alternative is to pay full boat retail for the phone. With
> ATT/Apple's new paradigm, that may start to be common.
>
>
>
I think it is beyond that. I thought you needed to pay full price for
the iphone but you still needed to buy a two year contract to have it
provisioned.
"Bob G" <no> wrote in message
news:7dadnWWFHIUTkyzanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@bright.net.. .
> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
> world of cell phones. "
>
> I found this sad, but true:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
From what I've seen from the responses thus far, I'd say you've all been
successfully brainwashed. What is even more sad, is that you don't even know
it.
Bob G wrote:
> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
> world of cell phones. "
>
> I found this sad, but true:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
Cute article but a lot of errors. When Verizon upped the text messaging
charge they did offer to let customers out of their contract.
If people are in cell phone jail, they choose to be there because they
want the subsidized handset. They could buy handsets at full retail
price (after the initial contract), or obtain them in other ways, and
get out of jail--but they don't want to do this.
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:31:50 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
> No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by paying
> the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
> when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me $200
> in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I decide
> to bail out early?
Why does VZW still go for the ETF when you provided your phone when the
contract was signed, and shouldn't the calling plans be less $$ when there
is no subsidy involved?
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:15 -0500, "Bob G" <no> wrote:
>"Bob G" <no> wrote in message
>news:7dadnWWFHIUTkyzanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@bright.net. ..
>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>> world of cell phones. "
>>
>> I found this sad, but true:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>
>From what I've seen from the responses thus far, I'd say you've all been
>successfully brainwashed. What is even more sad, is that you don't even know
>it.
From what I've seen posted thus far, you're an idiot. If all of these
people are in "cell phone jail", why do most stay with their carriers
when their contracts expires? Explain that one, Einstein.
Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by paying
> the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
> when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me $200
> in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I decide
> to bail out early?
>
That's fair and dandy when it comes to breaking the contract but why
should the carrier up the monthly charges on a contract that was agreed
upon when the end user signed the agreement?
> > No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by
paying
> > the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
> > when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me
$200
> > in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I
decide
> > to bail out early?
>
> Why does VZW still go for the ETF when you provided your phone when the
> contract was signed, and shouldn't the calling plans be less $$ when there
> is no subsidy involved?
I agree that carriers shouldn't invoke contracts when no equipment subsidy
is involved. If Verizon does, vote with your wallet and pick a carrier
that doesn't.
As far as reduced rate plans, I'm not convinced that's subsidy related-
competitive market forces have more to do with rates than the actual costs
(including subsidies) of providing service. One could argue that a
comittment deserves a better rate, just like the "comittment" of a
newspaper or magazine subscription gives a better per issue price than a
single-copy rate.
> > I found this sad, but true:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>
> From what I've seen from the responses thus far, I'd say you've all
> been successfully brainwashed. What is even more sad, is that you
> don't even know it.
I've been a cellular customer for nearly two decades with various
companies. I've been under various contracts for maybe half of that time,
when it suited ME (meaning I felt I received some equivalent value in
discounts, subsidies, or reduced rate plans in exchange for my comittment.)
At 12 Feb 2008 11:53:01 -0600 § wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> >
> > No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by
paying
> > the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
> > when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me
$200
> > in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I
decide
> > to bail out early?
> >
>
> That's fair and dandy when it comes to breaking the contract but why
> should the carrier up the monthly charges on a contract that was
> agreed upon when the end user signed the agreement?
They shouldn't. Anytime it's happened to me (i.e. text-message increases
or the addition of "regulatory fees") I've always received a notice from
the company allowing me to reject the new terms by ending my service
without an ETF. (I've never actually left, however, since it's never been
enough of an increase to justify leaving a carrier I was happy with.)
"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:15 -0500, "Bob G" <no> wrote:
>
>>"Bob G" <no> wrote in message
>>news:7dadnWWFHIUTkyzanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@bright.net ...
>>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>>> world of cell phones. "
>>>
>>> I found this sad, but true:
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>>
>>From what I've seen from the responses thus far, I'd say you've all been
>>successfully brainwashed. What is even more sad, is that you don't even
>>know
>>it.
>
> From what I've seen posted thus far, you're an idiot. If all of these
> people are in "cell phone jail", why do most stay with their carriers
> when their contracts expires? Explain that one, Einstein.
Ahhh... because they are brainwashed??? People like being lied to by their
Verizon reps..??? They love paying fees for everything under the sun??? How
about for all the reasons people post in this newsgroup...??? No?
Is it possible that some stay because they like the quality of service, but
happen to hate their greed driven deceptive business tactics? Like the guy
who wrote the article? Or is he an idiot too?
So, do you work for the company, or just a stockholder?
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message:
> Bob G wrote:
>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>> world of cell phones. "
>>
>> I found this sad, but true:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>
> Cute article but a lot of errors. When Verizon upped the text messaging
> charge they did offer to let customers out of their contract.
>
> If people are in cell phone jail, they choose to be there because they
> want the subsidized handset. They could buy handsets at full retail price
> (after the initial contract), or obtain them in other ways, and get out of
> jail--but they don't want to do this.
Contracts only work for Verizon...NOT for you and me. They have their own
best interests in mind, not yours or mine. With a contract, they don't have
to be competitive like most other businesses do. So ultimately the customer
looses...caught in the same trap...year after year. But you're right, we do
have a "choice." Pay up front (and unfortunately many can't), or wear the
handcuffs. But then it's not really a choice if you can't afford a phone, is
it???
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:34:02 -0500, "Bob G" <no> wrote:
>
>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:18:15 -0500, "Bob G" <no> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob G" <no> wrote in message
>>>news:7dadnWWFHIUTkyzanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@bright.ne t...
>>>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>>>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>>>> world of cell phones. "
>>>>
>>>> I found this sad, but true:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>>>
>>>From what I've seen from the responses thus far, I'd say you've all been
>>>successfully brainwashed. What is even more sad, is that you don't even
>>>know
>>>it.
>>
>> From what I've seen posted thus far, you're an idiot. If all of these
>> people are in "cell phone jail", why do most stay with their carriers
>> when their contracts expires? Explain that one, Einstein.
>
>Ahhh... because they are brainwashed???
You might want to actually learn the definition of a word before
trying to use it in public.
>People like being lied to by their
>Verizon reps..??? They love paying fees for everything under the sun??? How
>about for all the reasons people post in this newsgroup...??? No?
Yeah, I guess that's why VZW has more cellular customers than most
other US providers.
>Is it possible that some stay because they like the quality of service, but
>happen to hate their greed driven deceptive business tactics?
Then they are making a conscious decision based on their personal
circumstances.
>Like the guy
>who wrote the article? Or is he an idiot too?
Most certainly.
>
>So, do you work for the company, or just a stockholder?
Typical troll tactic. Instead of addressing the points raised, accuse
others of being shills. Here's a clue, dumbass, I'm no longer a VZW
customer. I've been with Alltel for over 2 years, and left solely
because of VZW's sorry selection of non-flip phones. I'd consider
returning to VZW, but Alltel has given me no compelling reason to
leave.
> People like being lied to by their Verizon reps..??? They love paying fees
> for everything under the sun??? How about for all the reasons people
> post in this newsgroup...??? No?
Again, unless a Verizon rep held a gun to your head and made you sign, you
seem to share some of the blame/responsibility.
> Is it possible that some stay because they like the quality of service,
> but happen to hate their greed driven deceptive business tactics?
Sure. Again, you make the choice. There are plenty of other ways to spend
your money.
> Like the guy who wrote the article? Or is he an idiot too?
He's either an idiot, misinformed, or, as I already said, was pandering to
readers lke you that buy into the "those wily corporations are taking
advantage of us poor ignorant consumers" bull.
> So, do you work for the company, or just a stockholder?
Personally, I'm neither. I choose NOT to use Verizon because I don't
particularly care for their business practices (I think they're overpriced
and sell crippled equipment.)
But rather than whine about them, I choose to use their competitors. I
"vote with my wallet."
Having said that, in the interests of full disclosure, I _AM_ a stockholder
of other telecoms, namely AT&T and Deutshe Telekom (the owners of T-Mobile.)
I also owned a Cingular dealership in the late 90's/early aughts and
activated a very good number of no-contract phones. I even sold cheap used
and refurbished handsets for customers who wanted a no-contract option.
(Keep in mind, a decade ago, many more customers were first-time cellphone
users than today, so fewer folks had their own equipment to bring to the
table.)
Despite that, the VAST majority of my customers chose a contract and "free"
phone over any no-contract option. (Except the elderly, as a general rule,
who were far less blinded by "status" and were far more receptive to lower-
cost options and less fascinated by "shiny objects.")
> > Cute article but a lot of errors. When Verizon upped the text
> > messaging charge they did offer to let customers out of their contract.
> > If people are in cell phone jail, they choose to be there because
> > they want the subsidized handset. They could buy handsets at
> > full retail price (after the initial contract), or obtain them in other
> > ways, and get out of jail--but they don't want to do this.
>
> Contracts only work for Verizon...NOT for you and me.
Funny how no one complains about contracts when they get five cellphones
for a penny, or a $500 smartphone for $199. The contracts are ok then,
aren't they?
> They have their own best interests in mind, not yours or mine.
Correct. They're a for-profit business- not a charity or a philanthropic
organization.
> With a contract, they don't have to be competitive like most other
> businesses do.
Sure they do- they have to be cometitive with the other 4 or 5 wireless
phone operators in your area. Many of whom offer no-contract options, by
the way.
> So ultimately the customer looses...caught in the same trap...year after
> year.
The contracts don't auto-renew. After you've "done your time" you go month-
to-month UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO RENEW IT. It takes two to make a bad
marriage!
> But you're right, we do have a "choice."
You actually have several...
> Pay up front (and unfortunately many can't), or wear the handcuffs.
> But then it's not really a choice if you can't afford a phone, is it???
Oh, please. My 3 year-old whines less that you do, for chrissakes.
If you "can't afford a phone" perhaps you should look at the alternatives
like prepaid or monthly hybrid plans.
In the case of Verizon service, the industry's best-kept secret is a Mom-n-
Pop MVNO (Mobile Virtual-Network Operator) called Page Plus
(http://pagepluscellular.com) that resells Verizon service on a prepaid
basis. They have prepaid plans as low as $2.50/month, an unlimited plan
for $90/month, all using Verizon's network. They'll activate any Verizon
phone, or sell a few under-$50 refurbs if you need one. Same Verizon
service, with no contracts.
Or, perhaps you should try getting 4-6 years out of a handset (they DO last
that long, you know) instead of reupping your contract every 12 or 24
months because, "Hey, look! They make the RAZR in CHARTREUSE now!"
Maybe you could use a carrier (T-Mo, AT&T) that doesn't REQUIRE a contract
if you bring your own phone.
Maybe you could replace your old broken phone with an ugly but functioning
piece you can buy from eBay or Craigslist for a few bucks rather than reup
for another two years.
See? There's a handful of options for you. Or you could just whine about
it. Whatever works for you...
Take some personal responsibility- there is NO reason you HAVE to be a cell
contract unless you CHOOSE to be. And, if you are in one, it's only a
"jail" if you choose not to buy your way out of it.
It's not childish to WANT something for nothing- we all do. It's only
childish when we think we DESERVE it.
"Bob G" <no> wrote in news:SJ6dnczXH9KjbizanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@bright.net:
> Pay up front (and unfortunately many can't), or wear the
> handcuffs.
Even if you give them full retail for the phone, you're STILL in jail
because the phone only works on CDMA system, limiting it to 3, and has
Verizon Hobbleware in it that ONLY connects to Verizon's equipment for
other than basic service, so you must jailbreak the phone with some other
jailer's firmware to become some other slaver's slave in the process.
This was all facilitated by the CTIA bribed government bureaucrats and
politicians who run the FCC as an arm of the telecom and media monsters,
not in the interest of the people paying their salaries.
They have nothing to fear of you at the ballot box, any more so don't give
a shit how screwed you feel.... http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJfj9ySYg0Q
Corporations are now counting your vote, not election officials. UPS
delivers them like any other parcel. Some security, huh?
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500, "Bob G" <no> wrote:
>"Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>world of cell phones. "
Use Page Plus if you don't want a contract. All the benefits of the
Verizon network (though you pay through the nose when you roam) but no
contracts and pretty darn good per minute pricing!
Use Ugly Eric, a reseller for Page Plus. (No, I don't work for them,
just a satisfied customer)
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Feb 2008 11:53:01 -0600 § wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by
> paying
>>> the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
>>> when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me
> $200
>>> in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I
> decide
>>> to bail out early?
>>>
>> That's fair and dandy when it comes to breaking the contract but why
>> should the carrier up the monthly charges on a contract that was
>> agreed upon when the end user signed the agreement?
>
> They shouldn't. Anytime it's happened to me (i.e. text-message increases
> or the addition of "regulatory fees") I've always received a notice from
> the company allowing me to reject the new terms by ending my service
> without an ETF.
I've been tempted to leave and then come back when I've gotten those
offers, to get a new subsidized phone, but there are drawbacks to doing
this. First, you lose your number (though technically you could port it
to a prepaid account somewhere, then port it back later). Second, you
lose any grandfathered rate plans that aren't being offered any longer.
If I left and came back, I'd lose 8:01 p.m. off-peak, I'd lose the rate
plan I'm on which is about $30/month, I'd lose coverage because the
current America's Choice II plan is worse than the original America's
Choice plan.
If you know you're going to stay with your carrier, you lose out by not
taking the subsidized phone every two years. You can always sell it if
you don't want it.
> Is it possible that some stay because they like the quality of service,
> but happen to hate their greed driven deceptive business tactics? Like
> the guy who wrote the article? Or is he an idiot too?
Not an idiot. He wrote that story to make money, but he has a lot of
inaccuracies in the story that unfortunately many people that lack
critical thinking skills will fall for.
He left out the part about how the carriers are exchanging the low price
of the subsidized handset for a commitment by the customer to stay with
them for a certain period of time.
He also lied about the unilateral changes to the contract. It's true
that they can make changes to the contract, but it's also true that if
they do this then they have to offer the customer the option to leave
with no ETF. This was a brazen lie, because Verizon did offer to let
subscribers out of their contracts when they raised the text messaging fee.
Another inaccuracy in the story was the part about forcing subscribers
to stay in a higher price plan against their will. At least with Verizon
you can change to a lower priced plan, but it does reset the clock.
Personally I don't think the unilateral changes should be allowed, even
with the waiving of the ETF because the subscriber has often still paid
something for the equipment, especially if it's a high end handset.
In short, it was an article directed at the naive consumer, and it did a
disservice by making the naive consumer believe things that are simply
untrue.
Diamond Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500, "Bob G" <no> wrote:
>
>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>> world of cell phones. "
>
> Use Page Plus if you don't want a contract. All the benefits of the
> Verizon network (though you pay through the nose when you roam) but no
> contracts and pretty darn good per minute pricing!
>
> Use Ugly Eric, a reseller for Page Plus. (No, I don't work for them,
> just a satisfied customer)
>
> http://www.uglyeric.com
I used them for a handset change and activation, but for refills, use
"http://www.callingmart.com/products/wireless/ProductDetail.aspx?ID=30"
with the "ca3p-1207" coupon code, as it's a bit cheaper.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:fori1i$q9l$1@aioe.org...
> At 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500 Bob G wrote:
>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>> world of cell phones. "
>
>
> It wouldn't be preposterous in grocery shopping either, if the store gave
> you a couple of hundred bucks in free groceries upfront in return for your
> "loyalty."
>
>
>> I found this sad, but true:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>>
>
> The saddest part was the number of inaccuracies and exaggerations in the
> article, but that's typical of "journalism" that panders to consumers.
>
> We are willing participants in this little game. We want the latest shiny
> object for pennies on the dollar, and we're willing to sell our soul to
> get
> it.
>
> No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by paying
> the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
> when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me $200
> in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I decide
> to bail out early?
>
> He mentions how carriers will raise rates and unilaterally change the
> contract giving consumers no choice but to accept it, yet in my experience
> as a cellular user (and a dealer in the 90's) I've been offered the
> opportunity to walk out of my contract several times because my carrier
> added/raised fees, or changed terms, coverage areas, etc.
> Of course, I can see the author's point- who wants to read a fair and
> balanced article that explains why both the companies and customers share
> the blame for contracts when we can read an article telling us how these
> James-Bond-Villianesque companies are "locking us in cellular jail" in
> their quest for world domination.
While I agree completely with you, I did feel like a hostage in September
when I changed the minutes of my family share from 700 to 1400. I was
unaware that all 5 of my phones would be locked into new two year contracts.
They're not subsidizing me. Each phone has it's own two year contract, which
expire at different times, but this plan change superceeds all of them. One
of the phones was past it's two year contract, and I wanted to discontinue
it, and was told I'd have to pay the ETF
>
>
>
RBM wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:fori1i$q9l$1@aioe.org...
>
>>At 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500 Bob G wrote:
>>
>>>"Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>>>paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>>>world of cell phones. "
>>
>>
>>It wouldn't be preposterous in grocery shopping either, if the store gave
>>you a couple of hundred bucks in free groceries upfront in return for your
>>"loyalty."
>>
>>
>>
>>>I found this sad, but true:
>>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>>>
>>
>>The saddest part was the number of inaccuracies and exaggerations in the
>>article, but that's typical of "journalism" that panders to consumers.
>>
>>We are willing participants in this little game. We want the latest shiny
>>object for pennies on the dollar, and we're willing to sell our soul to
>>get
>>it.
>>
>>No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by paying
>>the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
>>when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me $200
>>in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I decide
>>to bail out early?
>>
>>He mentions how carriers will raise rates and unilaterally change the
>>contract giving consumers no choice but to accept it, yet in my experience
>>as a cellular user (and a dealer in the 90's) I've been offered the
>>opportunity to walk out of my contract several times because my carrier
>>added/raised fees, or changed terms, coverage areas, etc.
>>Of course, I can see the author's point- who wants to read a fair and
>>balanced article that explains why both the companies and customers share
>>the blame for contracts when we can read an article telling us how these
>>James-Bond-Villianesque companies are "locking us in cellular jail" in
>>their quest for world domination.
>
>
> While I agree completely with you, I did feel like a hostage in September
> when I changed the minutes of my family share from 700 to 1400. I was
> unaware that all 5 of my phones would be locked into new two year contracts.
> They're not subsidizing me. Each phone has it's own two year contract, which
> expire at different times, but this plan change superceeds all of them. One
> of the phones was past it's two year contract, and I wanted to discontinue
> it, and was told I'd have to pay the ETF
>
>>
>>
>
>
> > No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by
paying
> > the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
> > when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me
$200
> > in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I
decide
> > to bail out early?
> >
> While I agree completely with you, I did feel like a hostage in September
> when I changed the minutes of my family share from 700 to 1400. I was
> unaware that all 5 of my phones would be locked into new two year
contracts.
> They're not subsidizing me. Each phone has it's own two year contract,
which
> expire at different times, but this plan change superceeds all of them.
One
> of the phones was past it's two year contract, and I wanted to
discontinue
> it, and was told I'd have to pay the ETF
That stinks-while I stand behind what I wrote, there are certainly
situations where a carrier (or, more likely it's rep desparate to hit a
quota or make a commission) will extend a contract without properly
informing the consumer. IMO, this whole "verbal" contract extension over
the phone idea is just wrong.
A gazillion years ago, when I was a Cingular dealer, Cingular wouldn't
extend a contract without your actual signature on an actual contract!
Even if you upgraded phones by calling customer service, they mailed you a
contract extension with the phone, with yellow highlighter sloppily smeared
along along all the places you had to intial or sign, and a pre-addressed
reply envelope to mail it back in (along with the threat that if the phone
and/or contract wasn't returned in x# days, the "full retail price" of the
phone would charged to your account.
Back to your situation- if I were you, I think I'd call Sprint back, get a
supervisor on the line, and demand that the contract expiry dates be
changed back to whatever they were, explaining you weren't informed that
your contracts were being extended, and if they refuse, demand proof that
they were extended- make them provide whatever document you signed (you
didn't), or a recording of whatever statement you agreed to (I assume there
isn't one).
When T-Mobile, my current carrier, extends my contract over the phone, they
have this robotic script like "you agree by accepting this offer, your
servive agreement will be extended a year and will now expire February
13th, 2009, blah blah" that you have to verbally agree to (and I assume is
recorded for "posterity.")
Being that it's only one phone you're wanting to cancel, it might not be
worth the effort (for a $10/month reduction) but I'll wager you could
convince them to let it out if you rattle the right cages.
>> While I agree completely with you, I did feel like a hostage in
>> September when I changed the minutes of my family share from 700 to
>> 1400. I was unaware that all 5 of my phones would be locked into new
>> two year contracts. They're not subsidizing me. Each phone has it's
>> own two year contract, which expire at different times, but this plan
>> change superceeds all of them. One of the phones was past it's two
>> year contract, and I wanted to discontinue it, and was told I'd have
>> to pay the ETF
>>
> It pays to READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING!!!!
Well when I signed my contract, you could go up or down in peak minutes
without any contract extension. In fact I received a letter from Verizon
proclaiming "your plan is too big for you" advising that I would be
better off with the next tier down, and I called to change my plan down
to 300 peak minutes, with no contract extension.
However when they added MTM, and I asked for it, they gave it to me free
(normally $5 at the time) but they restarted the contract (which I was
only a few months into so I didn't mind).
What they want to avoid is subscribers changing their plans often, i.e.
when they expect to use a lot of minutes one month to up their plan,
then reduce it the next month, etc. Maybe they should allow one change
per contract term with no contract extension.
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:47B302D5.9000202@comcast.net...
> RBM wrote:
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
>> news:fori1i$q9l$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>>At 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500 Bob G wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>>>>paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>>>>world of cell phones. "
>>>
>>>
>>>It wouldn't be preposterous in grocery shopping either, if the store gave
>>>you a couple of hundred bucks in free groceries upfront in return for
>>>your
>>>"loyalty."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I found this sad, but true:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>>>>
>>>
>>>The saddest part was the number of inaccuracies and exaggerations in the
>>>article, but that's typical of "journalism" that panders to consumers.
>>>
>>>We are willing participants in this little game. We want the latest
>>>shiny
>>>object for pennies on the dollar, and we're willing to sell our soul to
>>>get
>>>it.
>>>
>>>No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by
>>>paying
>>>the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
>>>when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me $200
>>>in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I
>>>decide
>>>to bail out early?
>>>
>>>He mentions how carriers will raise rates and unilaterally change the
>>>contract giving consumers no choice but to accept it, yet in my
>>>experience
>>>as a cellular user (and a dealer in the 90's) I've been offered the
>>>opportunity to walk out of my contract several times because my carrier
>>>added/raised fees, or changed terms, coverage areas, etc.
>>>Of course, I can see the author's point- who wants to read a fair and
>>>balanced article that explains why both the companies and customers share
>>>the blame for contracts when we can read an article telling us how these
>>>James-Bond-Villianesque companies are "locking us in cellular jail" in
>>>their quest for world domination.
>>
>>
>> While I agree completely with you, I did feel like a hostage in September
>> when I changed the minutes of my family share from 700 to 1400. I was
>> unaware that all 5 of my phones would be locked into new two year
>> contracts. They're not subsidizing me. Each phone has it's own two year
>> contract, which expire at different times, but this plan change
>> superceeds all of them. One of the phones was past it's two year
>> contract, and I wanted to discontinue it, and was told I'd have to pay
>> the ETF
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> It pays to READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING!!!!
I would have signed it anyway. For me, they have the best service, so it's
not like I have anywhere else to go. I just feel that it's a foolish
practice on their part. Why unnecessarily piss me off
>
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:fov10u$8ki$1@aioe.org...
> At 13 Feb 2008 07:41:55 -0500 RBM wrote:
>
>> > No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by
> paying
>> > the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we
>> > received
>> > when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me
> $200
>> > in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I
> decide
>> > to bail out early?
>> >
>
>> While I agree completely with you, I did feel like a hostage in September
>> when I changed the minutes of my family share from 700 to 1400. I was
>> unaware that all 5 of my phones would be locked into new two year
> contracts.
>> They're not subsidizing me. Each phone has it's own two year contract,
> which
>> expire at different times, but this plan change superceeds all of them.
> One
>> of the phones was past it's two year contract, and I wanted to
> discontinue
>> it, and was told I'd have to pay the ETF
>
>
> That stinks-while I stand behind what I wrote, there are certainly
> situations where a carrier (or, more likely it's rep desparate to hit a
> quota or make a commission) will extend a contract without properly
> informing the consumer. IMO, this whole "verbal" contract extension over
> the phone idea is just wrong.
>
> A gazillion years ago, when I was a Cingular dealer, Cingular wouldn't
> extend a contract without your actual signature on an actual contract!
> Even if you upgraded phones by calling customer service, they mailed you a
> contract extension with the phone, with yellow highlighter sloppily
> smeared
> along along all the places you had to intial or sign, and a pre-addressed
> reply envelope to mail it back in (along with the threat that if the phone
> and/or contract wasn't returned in x# days, the "full retail price" of the
> phone would charged to your account.
>
> Back to your situation- if I were you, I think I'd call Sprint back, get a
> supervisor on the line, and demand that the contract expiry dates be
> changed back to whatever they were, explaining you weren't informed that
> your contracts were being extended, and if they refuse, demand proof that
> they were extended- make them provide whatever document you signed (you
> didn't), or a recording of whatever statement you agreed to (I assume
> there
> isn't one).
>
> When T-Mobile, my current carrier, extends my contract over the phone,
> they
> have this robotic script like "you agree by accepting this offer, your
> servive agreement will be extended a year and will now expire February
> 13th, 2009, blah blah" that you have to verbally agree to (and I assume is
> recorded for "posterity.")
>
> Being that it's only one phone you're wanting to cancel, it might not be
> worth the effort (for a $10/month reduction) but I'll wager you could
> convince them to let it out if you rattle the right cages.
My understanding is that in October VZW stopped this practice. The phone I
wanted to cancel was being used by an elderly friend and no longer needed
it. My plan was to give it to my youngest kid this comming September, when I
felt it would be appropriate, so for eight months I had no need for the
phone. It's not a big deal, and not worth fighting over. Just seems like a
bad customer relations tactic. It certainly puts me on the defensive and
causes me to distrust them
>
>
RBM explained on 2/13/2008 :
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:fori1i$q9l$1@aioe.org...
>> At 11 Feb 2008 22:12:22 -0500 Bob G wrote:
>>> "Imagine if you couldn't switch coffee shops or grocery stores without
>>> paying hundreds of dollars in penalties. Preposterous? No - not in the
>>> world of cell phones. "
>>
>>
>> It wouldn't be preposterous in grocery shopping either, if the store gave
>> you a couple of hundred bucks in free groceries upfront in return for your
>> "loyalty."
>>
>>
>>> I found this sad, but true:
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342054/
>>>
>>
>> The saddest part was the number of inaccuracies and exaggerations in the
>> article, but that's typical of "journalism" that panders to consumers.
>>
>> We are willing participants in this little game. We want the latest shiny
>> object for pennies on the dollar, and we're willing to sell our soul to
>> get
>> it.
>>
>> No one is "stuck" in a contract. You can buy yourself out of it by paying
>> the ETF, which is roughly equivalent to the upfront discount we received
>> when we accquired our phone. Fair is fair- if my carrier "gives" me $200
>> in return for a two-year contract, why should I get to keep it if I decide
>> to bail out early?
>>
>> He mentions how carriers will raise rates and unilaterally change the
>> contract giving consumers no choice but to accept it, yet in my experience
>> as a cellular user (and a dealer in the 90's) I've been offered the
>> opportunity to walk out of my contract several times because my carrier
>> added/raised fees, or changed terms, coverage areas, etc.
>> Of course, I can see the author's point- who wants to read a fair and
>> balanced article that explains why both the companies and customers share
>> the blame for contracts when we can read an article telling us how these
>> James-Bond-Villianesque companies are "locking us in cellular jail" in
>> their quest for world domination.
>
> While I agree completely with you, I did feel like a hostage in September
> when I changed the minutes of my family share from 700 to 1400. I was
> unaware that all 5 of my phones would be locked into new two year contracts.
> They're not subsidizing me. Each phone has it's own two year contract, which
> expire at different times, but this plan change superceeds all of them. One
> of the phones was past it's two year contract, and I wanted to discontinue
> it, and was told I'd have to pay the ETF
>>
>>
>>
Are you sure about that? Verizon recently went back to it's old policy
where you could change the minutes but not renew the contract. I
believe there is a limit on the number of times you can do this
though.I did this last April and neither my contract nor my phone
upgrade dates were changed in any way.
Did you do it by phone or at a store? The sales person might have
renewed your contract to receive a commission. I did the change by
phone.
Most Americans are in cell phone jail 