Contracts. Why?

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.

At 09 Jan 2008 05:52:31 -0600 clifto 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.
>
> Whose other networks do they roam on?

Small regional carriers, mostly- Unicell in parts of New England, Iowa
Wireless, Viero in Colorado and Nebraska, Western Wireless (now owned by
Alltel, IIRC, who left up some GSM capacity for the roaming revenue.)

In VERY limited areas, T-Mo customers can roam on AT&T- I'm not sure if
it's a leftover part of the old West Coast/NY T-Mo/Cingular sharing
agreement or legacy agreements AT&T got stuck with when they acquired other
carriers.

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.

On 9 Jan 2008 18:04:27 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>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.

As a handset tester from 2000-2006, I switched my handset many dozens
of times during that period and never once did they reset my discount
date, contract date, or any other date. Perhaps there's another aspect
to it, besides a simple ESN swap on an existing account, that triggers
what you were seeing?

--
Paul Miner

In article <5ukglbF1gqpq4U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > What you give up, frankly, is network availability and call quality.
> >
>
> Verizon has a GREAT network

Did you read what I said? That was my point. GSM and SIM card
switching is nice; you can change phones as often as you change your
underwear (or more) if you like. What you give up, frankly, is network
availability and call quality. Neither of the US GSM operators is very
good in those respects.

At least T-Mo admits it on their extensive coverage map.

On 9 Jan 2008 17:48:17 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> 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? :-)

Ok, so mid-2005. Then why do you still call them Sprint PCS?

--
Paul Miner

In article <5ukhk0F1gqpq4U4@mid.individual.net>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>
> -

You mean, there are people who have to have the latest 'n' greatest
RIGHT NOW, and there are people who just want a phone that works and
doesn't care if AG Bell himself built it?

I don't go to movies, either. I wait the 6 months for it to hit DVD,
then I borrow it from my local public library.