Contracts. Why?

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.

Phones directly from Ericsson and HP.

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.

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.

In article <5uhe54F1hna38U4@mid.individual.net>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.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.

Could be. But the a870 seems like solid technology, and a step above
much of the other stuff.

In article <5uhdtoF1hna38U2@mid.individual.net>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > And I don't do business with Verizon.
> >
>
> No, you do business with Walmart [or perhaps the Kiosk vendor as the case may
> be].

No, I do business with PagePlus.

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.

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.

In article <5uhdliF1hna38U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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,

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.

What you give up, frankly, is network availability and call quality.