NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

Bill Marriott wrote:
> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
> I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
> for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
> the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
> Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
>

Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Bill Marriott wrote:
>> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
>> I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
>> for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
>> the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
>> Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
>>
>
>Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
>it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.

That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
their device outright and then use it without a contract. I'm in favor
of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
latest model, so perhaps it wouldn't affect me.

--
Paul Miner

In article <i8sh93la44aog3pirs80mcicmujd89632d@4ax.com>,
Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

> >Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
> >iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
> >it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>
> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
> them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
> their device outright and then use it without a contract.

The Sprint guy may just be hedging his bets; the FCC is making noises
about moving that direction with the new spectrum that's coming up in
February 2009 when they shut down analog TV transmission.

"Paul Miner" wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>>Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>>iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
>>it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>
> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business

That's very different than the iPhone model in which there is no subsidy
*and* a requirement for a 2 year contract. I don't like that kind of
precedent one bit. Actually, considering how much of the device's
non-telephonic feature-set is locked down, without activation/contract, I
almost wonder why the FTC isn't up in arms over it (hacks duly noted).


--
Mike

At 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400 George wrote:

> Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
> iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to
> use it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.

That's a pretty unsustainable precedent, however. Apple and AT&T were
able to leverage a "perfect storm" of silence, mystery, and media
coverage to make the whole "experience" unprecedented. The at-home
activation was simply adding to the "this is like no other phone" hype-
kind of like why Toyota put push-button starters on the Prius- to hit you
over the head with the "this isn't a regular car" message.

We don't know how subsidized or unsubsidized the iPhone is, since there's
no "no-contact" price to compare it to.

Even buy-off-the-shelf prepaid phones are subsidized these days- desite
advances in technology and manufacturing, you still can't assemble,
package and sell a Nokia 6030, for example, for the $29 I can buy one for
at Walmart. The phone is sold pre-subsidized on the assumption it'll be
activated, with reasonable safeguards to protect the carrier and
"encourage" the buyer to use it only as intended (i.e. it comes locked,
includes free airtime, etc.)

Perhaps iPhone is sold the same way as a GoPhone: $499/$599 IS the
"subsidized price" and reasonable safeguards insure it's activation: it's
locked, and it's useless as a phone, iPod or web tablet until activated.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:07:09 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:

>"Paul Miner" wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>>>iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
>>>it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>>
>> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
>> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business
>
>That's very different than the iPhone model in which there is no subsidy
>*and* a requirement for a 2 year contract. I don't like that kind of
>precedent one bit. Actually, considering how much of the device's
>non-telephonic feature-set is locked down, without activation/contract, I
>almost wonder why the FTC isn't up in arms over it (hacks duly noted).

I'm glad you said 'hacks duly noted', but yeah, you have a point
there, for sure. When I said "goes along with" I didn't mean exactly
the same. The difference you pointed out is substantial.

--
Paul Miner

At 14 Jul 2007 09:07:09 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> Actually, considering how much of the device's
> non-telephonic feature-set is locked down, without activation/contract,
I
> almost wonder why the FTC isn't up in arms over it (hacks duly noted).

Because it's a PROPRIETARY phone designed for use with a single provider?
(AT&T.) It's not sold as an iPod, or Wi-Fi web tablet.

It's sold as a phone, with the magic words "two-year contract REQUIRED"
in all the ads.
What possible reason, prey tell, could the FTC have to complain? Should
they complain that a DirecTV satellite receiver can't receive free over-
the-air broadcast TV? That a Sirius radio receiver lacks AM reception?

The iPhone is a proprietary locked-down AT&T device- no more no less, and
it's not sold under the pretense thatany features will function without
an AT&T subscription.

Like you, I don't like the way they're doing it either, but it's their
decision to without stupid government interference!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 14 Jul 2007 15:54:51 +0000 Paul Miner wrote:

> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
> them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
> their device outright and then use it without a contract.

Oddly enough, that the business model Sprint used when they launched
nationwide. Of course, at the time, no one else had gone digital, so
there was no one else to take your $200 Sprint handset to- they were
essentially "locked" by incompatibility.

> I'm in favor
> of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
> latest model, so perhaps it wouldn't affect me.

I think the model should change to a monthly discount for contract, sort
of like a magazine subscription- Reader's Digest is $4 if I pick it up
from the newsstand, but $2/issue if I commit to a year's subscription.

So, that $40 500-minute plan could be $50 with no contract, $40 with one-
year or $30 with two. And/or they could "perk" contract plans- free night
calls start at 7PM instead of 9PM for two-year contracts, etc.

This would also allow everyone to use the same plans and activate at
home. You call to activate your unsubsidized (or lightly-subsidized
phone) and choose from contract, no-contract, pre-paid, hybrid, or
balance-controlled plans depending on your needs (or credit score!)

This would also protect carriers from the "Amazon effect" where people
continually jump ship from a carrier they are happy with because a "new
customer deal" (like "free phone and $200 cash back") with an independent
dealer like Amazon is better than any handset upgrade discount any
carrier is willing to give.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <183846932620070714163128elecconnec@AmericaOnLine. com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> > I'm in favor
> > of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
> > latest model, so perhaps it wouldn't affect me.
>
> I think the model should change to a monthly discount for contract, sort
> of like a magazine subscription- Reader's Digest is $4 if I pick it up
> from the newsstand, but $2/issue if I commit to a year's subscription.
>
> So, that $40 500-minute plan could be $50 with no contract, $40 with one-
> year or $30 with two. And/or they could "perk" contract plans- free night
> calls start at 7PM instead of 9PM for two-year contracts, etc.

No, no contract at all--but rebates if you stay a year, two years, etc.

Pay the monthly fee. Feel free to jump around--but if you do, you won't
get the end of year or end of two years rebate, which could be
substantial.

Or with Cingular, maybe we'll give you the rollover minutes after you
stay with us a year.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-07-14, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> I think the model should change to a monthly discount for contract, sort
> of like a magazine subscription- Reader's Digest is $4 if I pick it up
> from the newsstand, but $2/issue if I commit to a year's subscription.

That's also something Sprint used to do. I initially signed up with Sprint
in Mentor, Ohio, in 2000, and paid $10/month extra for the privilege of not
having a contract. Once we determined that the phone worked everywhere we
needed, I locked myself into a contract and lost the $10/month surcharge.