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
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.
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
On 8 Jan 2008 13:32:32 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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.
I was under the impression that the cost to acquire a new customer
included more than just the cost of the equipment subsidy.
>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
The last time I was comparing pre-paid plans that was indeed
the case.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! By MEER biz doo
at SCHOIN...
visi.com
>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.
Contracts. Why?
Linear Mode
