Nov 24: Cell phone # portability

On 5 Nov 2003 10:38:45 -0800, [email protected] (Todd Allcock) wrote:

>Steve Vai <****[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >No, without a contract, phones start around $200.
>>
>> ok, fair.
>>
>> >> plus the plans are outrageously high if your not in a contract...
>> >
>> >No, they're the same plans!
>>
>> then how in the **** do they recoup the cost of the "free phone" if
>> they charge the same amount of money for the same plan if you bring in
>> your own phone? they get their money back through the plan, and if you
>> have your own phone and they are charging you the same as someone else
>> they are recouping the cost of a phone from how good of a plan is it
>> REALLY ? nice.
>
>
>Oh, I finally get where you're coming from- you mean the non-contract
>folks should pay less since there's no subsidy involved.

cool, usually im not too good at expressing my point...

>
>I agree- to a point. While there is no subsidy involved, there is
>also no guarantee the customer will stick around. Think of the
>subsidy as a "perk" for committed customers, much like a magazine
>subscription costs less per issue than buying it on a newsstand.

so a wholesale price basically for buying in bulk so to speak right?


>
>I guess my point is that at least Cingular allows customers to signup
>month-to-month without any penalty, unlike for example, Sprint PCS,
>who allowed month-to-month customers but charged them an EXTRA
>$10/month for the "no-contract" plan. (I don't know if they still do
>this, but they did at one time.)
>
>> >> i'm talking about month to month paying whatever u are paying now...u
>> >> have a $45 a month plan with a 2 year contract? they should make it
>> >> the same, drop the contract.
>> >
>> >THEY DO!
>>
>> refer to above.
>
>If I understand what you wrote- "month to month paying whatever u
>(sic) are paying now" then I stand by my statement. Cingular doesn't
>penalize MTM customers with HIGHER rates. They also don't reward them
>with lower rates.
>
>> >The contract is a two-way street- they get you to stay for 1 or 2
>> >years in return for a generous discount on a phone.
>>
>> not true, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone through the plan,
>> SINgular told me this on the phone with that whole upgrade fiasco.
>
>Of course, where'd you THINK they money came from?


then it isnt really free now is it? false advertising? when it gets
down to it the phone isnt free.... for arguements sake if the phone
really WAS free and you wanted to upgrade next week to a newer phone
that just came out and is advertised as free then they should let u
with no problem, cause its free...im just sayin...

>
>> there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it
>> little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can
>> recoup the cost of the phone obviously.
>
>Right, a little bit at a time through your monthly service fees.

yeah, so advertising the phones as free isnt really true, its free on
a payment plan that they dont tell u about.


>
>My God, Steve, I think you finally figured out how cellular works!

not really, too much stuff about it i dont know, and asking about it
usually doesnt work but if you come off as all pissed off about it and
uneducated then people are more than happy to set u straight on it ;-)

>
>> >No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for
>> >committing to a year or two of service.
>>
>> once again it is NOT FREE, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone
>> through the plan, it IS INDEED a one sided agreement.
>
>NOTHING is really "free"! When Dominos pizza gives you a free small
>pizza with your full-priced large pizza because you used a coupon, who
>paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the
>large!

yeah, they just jack the price up on the large pizza.


>They just made less profit on the coupon customer, but they'll
>make it up on volume, if you buy pizza twice a week using the coupons.
> Similarly, the cellphone provider is willing to make less profit on
>the contract customer because he's guaranteed to buy at least 12 or 24
>months of service. The non-contract customer might buy only one or
>two months!

yeah but it still goes back to the whole thing about charging the same
monthly rate for someone who owns their own phone as someone who makes
payments on their phone through their plan, in effect the person who
owns their phone is making payments on something they dont have if u
want to look at it like that.

>
>Competition in the marketplace dictates the monthly service fees
>("what the market will bear"), not the amount of subsidy. It actually
>works backwards from what you think- it's not like a carrier says "we
>COULD sell 200 anytime minutes for $19.99 a month, plus $10.00 for the
>monthly subsidy= a $29.99 rate plan." In reality, it's more like
>"crap- T-Mobile is giving 300 minutes for $29.99. We need to match
>it, despite the fact that only leaves us $10 profit per month. Since
>we subsidize a phone $200, our break-even point will now be 20-months
>instead of 16. Maybe we need THREE-year contracts..."
>
>> >Cingular uses the contract for the purpose cellphone contracts were
>> >originally intended for- a quid pro quo- you get a discount on a phone
>> >in return for a service committment. No more, no less.
>>
>> there is no discount to be had if your paying full price for it over
>> time now is there? maybe the "little by little" is the
>> discount....not having to pay for it up front....yeah thats it.
>
>Well, if those who DON'T get a subsidy (a month-to-month customer) pay
>the same rate, then it IS a discount for contract customers isn't it?

for the contract customer, but then the contract customer is still
paying for their phone through the plan and joe month-by-month is
paying the same price but without the phone, so what just consider
that a penalty for not being a contract customer? so it works both
ways, its a good deal for mr month by month and a good deal for mr
contract? maybe im just trying to expose the ripping off of customers
and it aint working lol

>
>Here's some "duh" math:
>
>Contract customer pays $0 for phone, and $40/month for service for two
>years: total is ($40x24) or $960.
>
>Non-contract customer pays $200 for phone, and $40/month for the same
>rate plan and ALSO sticks around two years, because he likes the
>service: total is($200+$40x24) or $1160.

im not talking about buying the phone from the same carrier, im saying
if u had your phone for a while/got it elsewhere/swap
meet/ebay/whatever and u signed up for a month to month deal, your
still paying $40x24=960 as the guy who is paying fopr the phone
through the contract

>
>Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it?

yeah if u paid $200 for your phone, but if u got it for free from a
friend, or for $10 off ebay your kinda getting the shaft i would
think... maybe im just talking **** but it doesnt seem too fair.

i kinda think of it as buying a new car, lets say the car is
$20k...you put down $10k and your monthly payments/interest incured
will be much less than the guy who put $0 down, the guy who put $0
down will pay more a month and incur more interest... same as the guy
who puts $0 down on the cell phone, he should pay more through the
plan to pay for the phone little by little, the guy who has his own
phone shouldnt have to pay the same... maybe $5 less or something,
whatever they are adding in for the phone...i think its around $6 to
$8 depending on the phone u get, for a $200 phone on a 24 month plan
its $8.33 a month to equal $200. im probably thinking too much or not
enough....blah

---

› See More: Nov 24: Cell phone # portability

Steve Vai wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2003 10:38:45 -0800, [email protected] (Todd Allcock) wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Vai <****[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>>No, without a contract, phones start around $200.
>>>
>>>ok, fair.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>plus the plans are outrageously high if your not in a contract...
>>>>
>>>>No, they're the same plans!
>>>
>>>then how in the **** do they recoup the cost of the "free phone" if
>>>they charge the same amount of money for the same plan if you bring in
>>>your own phone? they get their money back through the plan, and if you
>>>have your own phone and they are charging you the same as someone else
>>>they are recouping the cost of a phone from how good of a plan is it
>>>REALLY ? nice.
>>
>>
>>Oh, I finally get where you're coming from- you mean the non-contract
>>folks should pay less since there's no subsidy involved.
>
>
> cool, usually im not too good at expressing my point...
>
>
>>I agree- to a point. While there is no subsidy involved, there is
>>also no guarantee the customer will stick around. Think of the
>>subsidy as a "perk" for committed customers, much like a magazine
>>subscription costs less per issue than buying it on a newsstand.
>
>
> so a wholesale price basically for buying in bulk so to speak right?

He uses the analogy of a magazine and month of wireless service.
However, because you need eyes to read the magazine (which you have and
you are not required to purchase), you need not buy any further
equipment. But because your brain cannot communicate directly with the
wireless towers, you need to buy a wireless handset to use your monthly
service. If you commit to a period of service, for example 12, 18, or
24 months, you will receive the phone at a discount. There is also a
higher chance that will want to terminate your contract early, thus
giving them either an early termination fee, or your credit a bad rating.

If you meant a wholesale price for buying in bulk (in terms on months of
service), then yes, it is similar. When you are contracted, you
purchase a group of months, usually 24 now, and each month is slightly
cheaper because you bought all 24 months at one time. You will only be
billed for one month at a time, and you must pay a hefty fee to
terminate service. Since you are getting the month cheaper, the extra
money you pay each month is your discount on the wireless handset.
Since you entered into a contract, you get the handset much cheaper than
if you purchased it without a contract (i.e. My Motorola C331t cost me
4.99 with a 1 year contract with Cingular. If I opted to not get the
contract, the same phone would have cost me [at the time] 249.99).




>>I guess my point is that at least Cingular allows customers to signup
>>month-to-month without any penalty, unlike for example, Sprint PCS,
>>who allowed month-to-month customers but charged them an EXTRA
>>$10/month for the "no-contract" plan. (I don't know if they still do
>>this, but they did at one time.)
>>
>>
>>>>>i'm talking about month to month paying whatever u are paying now...u
>>>>>have a $45 a month plan with a 2 year contract? they should make it
>>>>>the same, drop the contract.
>>>>
>>>>THEY DO!
>>>
>>>refer to above.
>>
>>If I understand what you wrote- "month to month paying whatever u
>>(sic) are paying now" then I stand by my statement. Cingular doesn't
>>penalize MTM customers with HIGHER rates. They also don't reward them
>>with lower rates.
>>
>>
>>>>The contract is a two-way street- they get you to stay for 1 or 2
>>>>years in return for a generous discount on a phone.
>>>
>>>not true, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone through the plan,
>>>SINgular told me this on the phone with that whole upgrade fiasco.
>>
>>Of course, where'd you THINK they money came from?
>
> then it isnt really free now is it? false advertising? when it gets
> down to it the phone isnt free.... for arguements sake if the phone
> really WAS free and you wanted to upgrade next week to a newer phone
> that just came out and is advertised as free then they should let u
> with no problem, cause its free...im just sayin...

No, it's not false advertising. It's free with the purchase of 24
months of service. If you don't buy the 24 months of service, they
aren't required to give you the free phone (hence early termination fees).

>
>>>there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it
>>>little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can
>>>recoup the cost of the phone obviously.
>>
>>Right, a little bit at a time through your monthly service fees.
>
> yeah, so advertising the phones as free isnt really true, its free on
> a payment plan that they dont tell u about.

See above.

>
>>My God, Steve, I think you finally figured out how cellular works!
>
>
> not really, too much stuff about it i dont know, and asking about it
> usually doesnt work but if you come off as all pissed off about it and
> uneducated then people are more than happy to set u straight on it ;-)
>

If you really want to argue about it, you should call up Verizon
Wireless, Sprint PCS, US Cellular, Cingular, T-Mobile, Nextel, AT&T
Wireless Services, Criket, et al and argue the sales pitch with them.
You could also try and argue with the Attorney General of your state.
We as consumers didn't invent the system.

>>>>No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for
>>>>committing to a year or two of service.
>>>
>>>once again it is NOT FREE, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone
>>>through the plan, it IS INDEED a one sided agreement.
>>
>>NOTHING is really "free"! When Dominos pizza gives you a free small
>>pizza with your full-priced large pizza because you used a coupon, who
>>paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the
>>large!

> yeah, they just jack the price up on the large pizza.

Of course it's not actually free. If it was, I could walk up to any
Verizon Wireless store and take a phone. No need to get service because
it's free. I just want the phone because it can take pictures and I can
put them on my computer with a cheap data cable. Plus, it's a camera
that can call 911 if I'm in trouble. And it's free. It would be nice,
wouldn't it?

>>They just made less profit on the coupon customer, but they'll
>>make it up on volume, if you buy pizza twice a week using the coupons.
>>Similarly, the cellphone provider is willing to make less profit on
>>the contract customer because he's guaranteed to buy at least 12 or 24
>>months of service. The non-contract customer might buy only one or
>>two months!
>
>
> yeah but it still goes back to the whole thing about charging the same
> monthly rate for someone who owns their own phone as someone who makes
> payments on their phone through their plan, in effect the person who
> owns their phone is making payments on something they dont have if u
> want to look at it like that.

But again, the freedom to quit without penalty.

>>Competition in the marketplace dictates the monthly service fees
>>("what the market will bear"), not the amount of subsidy. It actually
>>works backwards from what you think- it's not like a carrier says "we
>>COULD sell 200 anytime minutes for $19.99 a month, plus $10.00 for the
>>monthly subsidy= a $29.99 rate plan." In reality, it's more like
>>"crap- T-Mobile is giving 300 minutes for $29.99. We need to match
>>it, despite the fact that only leaves us $10 profit per month. Since
>>we subsidize a phone $200, our break-even point will now be 20-months
>>instead of 16. Maybe we need THREE-year contracts..."
>>
>>
>>>>Cingular uses the contract for the purpose cellphone contracts were
>>>>originally intended for- a quid pro quo- you get a discount on a phone
>>>>in return for a service committment. No more, no less.
>>>
>>>there is no discount to be had if your paying full price for it over
>>>time now is there? maybe the "little by little" is the
>>>discount....not having to pay for it up front....yeah thats it.
>>
>>Well, if those who DON'T get a subsidy (a month-to-month customer) pay
>>the same rate, then it IS a discount for contract customers isn't it?
>
>
> for the contract customer, but then the contract customer is still
> paying for their phone through the plan and joe month-by-month is
> paying the same price but without the phone, so what just consider
> that a penalty for not being a contract customer? so it works both
> ways, its a good deal for mr month by month and a good deal for mr
> contract? maybe im just trying to expose the ripping off of customers
> and it aint working lol
>

Again, no commitment.

>>Here's some "duh" math:
>>
>>Contract customer pays $0 for phone, and $40/month for service for two
>>years: total is ($40x24) or $960.
>>
>>Non-contract customer pays $200 for phone, and $40/month for the same
>>rate plan and ALSO sticks around two years, because he likes the
>>service: total is($200+$40x24) or $1160.
>
>
> im not talking about buying the phone from the same carrier, im saying
> if u had your phone for a while/got it elsewhere/swap
> meet/ebay/whatever and u signed up for a month to month deal, your
> still paying $40x24=960 as the guy who is paying fopr the phone
> through the contract

But the idea is that you can cancel at any time without the hefty early
termination fee.

>>Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it?
>
>
> yeah if u paid $200 for your phone, but if u got it for free from a
> friend, or for $10 off ebay your kinda getting the shaft i would
> think... maybe im just talking **** but it doesnt seem too fair.
>
> i kinda think of it as buying a new car, lets say the car is
> $20k...you put down $10k and your monthly payments/interest incured
> will be much less than the guy who put $0 down, the guy who put $0
> down will pay more a month and incur more interest... same as the guy
> who puts $0 down on the cell phone, he should pay more through the
> plan to pay for the phone little by little, the guy who has his own
> phone shouldnt have to pay the same... maybe $5 less or something,
> whatever they are adding in for the phone...i think its around $6 to
> $8 depending on the phone u get, for a $200 phone on a 24 month plan
> its $8.33 a month to equal $200. im probably thinking too much or not
> enough....blah

Yeah, but if you get that phone of Ebay(R) for 10.00, you can activate
it with Cingular, and after two months, if for example you get
transferred to North Dakota with your job, you can terminate your
service without the hefty early termination fee. Get it?

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:12:29 -0600, About Dakota
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Steve Vai wrote:
>> On 5 Nov 2003 10:38:45 -0800, [email protected] (Todd Allcock) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Vai <****[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>>
>>>>>No, without a contract, phones start around $200.
>>>>
>>>>ok, fair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>plus the plans are outrageously high if your not in a contract...
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they're the same plans!
>>>>
>>>>then how in the **** do they recoup the cost of the "free phone" if
>>>>they charge the same amount of money for the same plan if you bring in
>>>>your own phone? they get their money back through the plan, and if you
>>>>have your own phone and they are charging you the same as someone else
>>>>they are recouping the cost of a phone from how good of a plan is it
>>>>REALLY ? nice.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, I finally get where you're coming from- you mean the non-contract
>>>folks should pay less since there's no subsidy involved.
>>
>>
>> cool, usually im not too good at expressing my point...
>>
>>
>>>I agree- to a point. While there is no subsidy involved, there is
>>>also no guarantee the customer will stick around. Think of the
>>>subsidy as a "perk" for committed customers, much like a magazine
>>>subscription costs less per issue than buying it on a newsstand.
>>
>>
>> so a wholesale price basically for buying in bulk so to speak right?
>
>He uses the analogy of a magazine and month of wireless service.
>However, because you need eyes to read the magazine (which you have and
>you are not required to purchase), you need not buy any further
>equipment. But because your brain cannot communicate directly with the
>wireless towers, you need to buy a wireless handset to use your monthly
>service. If you commit to a period of service, for example 12, 18, or
>24 months, you will receive the phone at a discount. There is also a
>higher chance that will want to terminate your contract early, thus
>giving them either an early termination fee, or your credit a bad rating.
>
>If you meant a wholesale price for buying in bulk (in terms on months of
>service), then yes, it is similar. When you are contracted, you
>purchase a group of months, usually 24 now, and each month is slightly
>cheaper because you bought all 24 months at one time. You will only be
>billed for one month at a time, and you must pay a hefty fee to
>terminate service. Since you are getting the month cheaper, the extra
>money you pay each month is your discount on the wireless handset.
>Since you entered into a contract, you get the handset much cheaper than
>if you purchased it without a contract (i.e. My Motorola C331t cost me
>4.99 with a 1 year contract with Cingular. If I opted to not get the
>contract, the same phone would have cost me [at the time] 249.99).
>
>
>
>
>>>I guess my point is that at least Cingular allows customers to signup
>>>month-to-month without any penalty, unlike for example, Sprint PCS,
>>>who allowed month-to-month customers but charged them an EXTRA
>>>$10/month for the "no-contract" plan. (I don't know if they still do
>>>this, but they did at one time.)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>i'm talking about month to month paying whatever u are paying now...u
>>>>>>have a $45 a month plan with a 2 year contract? they should make it
>>>>>>the same, drop the contract.
>>>>>
>>>>>THEY DO!
>>>>
>>>>refer to above.
>>>
>>>If I understand what you wrote- "month to month paying whatever u
>>>(sic) are paying now" then I stand by my statement. Cingular doesn't
>>>penalize MTM customers with HIGHER rates. They also don't reward them
>>>with lower rates.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The contract is a two-way street- they get you to stay for 1 or 2
>>>>>years in return for a generous discount on a phone.
>>>>
>>>>not true, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone through the plan,
>>>>SINgular told me this on the phone with that whole upgrade fiasco.
>>>
>>>Of course, where'd you THINK they money came from?
>>
>> then it isnt really free now is it? false advertising? when it gets
>> down to it the phone isnt free.... for arguements sake if the phone
>> really WAS free and you wanted to upgrade next week to a newer phone
>> that just came out and is advertised as free then they should let u
>> with no problem, cause its free...im just sayin...
>
>No, it's not false advertising. It's free with the purchase of 24
>months of service. If you don't buy the 24 months of service, they
>aren't required to give you the free phone (hence early termination fees).
>

its not free with the purchase of 24 months, they add the cost of the
phone in with the bill little by little every month, this is what
cingular told me.


>>
>>>>there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it
>>>>little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can
>>>>recoup the cost of the phone obviously.
>>>
>>>Right, a little bit at a time through your monthly service fees.
>>
>> yeah, so advertising the phones as free isnt really true, its free on
>> a payment plan that they dont tell u about.
>
>See above.
>
>>
>>>My God, Steve, I think you finally figured out how cellular works!
>>
>>
>> not really, too much stuff about it i dont know, and asking about it
>> usually doesnt work but if you come off as all pissed off about it and
>> uneducated then people are more than happy to set u straight on it ;-)
>>
>
>If you really want to argue about it, you should call up Verizon
>Wireless, Sprint PCS, US Cellular, Cingular, T-Mobile, Nextel, AT&T
>Wireless Services, Criket, et al and argue the sales pitch with them.
>You could also try and argue with the Attorney General of your state.
>We as consumers didn't invent the system.

theres no point in arguing it with them, why do they care wtf i think?
it makes them billions so one guy having a problem with it isnt gonna
do anything, no one else sees the ripoff scheme so why do anything
about it if its working for them? nothing the attorney general
can/will do about it either...


>
>>>>>No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for
>>>>>committing to a year or two of service.
>>>>
>>>>once again it is NOT FREE, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone
>>>>through the plan, it IS INDEED a one sided agreement.
>>>
>>>NOTHING is really "free"! When Dominos pizza gives you a free small
>>>pizza with your full-priced large pizza because you used a coupon, who
>>>paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the
>>>large!
>
>> yeah, they just jack the price up on the large pizza.
>
>Of course it's not actually free. If it was, I could walk up to any
>Verizon Wireless store and take a phone. No need to get service because
>it's free. I just want the phone because it can take pictures and I can
>put them on my computer with a cheap data cable. Plus, it's a camera
>that can call 911 if I'm in trouble. And it's free. It would be nice,
>wouldn't it?
>
>>>They just made less profit on the coupon customer, but they'll
>>>make it up on volume, if you buy pizza twice a week using the coupons.
>>>Similarly, the cellphone provider is willing to make less profit on
>>>the contract customer because he's guaranteed to buy at least 12 or 24
>>>months of service. The non-contract customer might buy only one or
>>>two months!
>>
>>
>> yeah but it still goes back to the whole thing about charging the same
>> monthly rate for someone who owns their own phone as someone who makes
>> payments on their phone through their plan, in effect the person who
>> owns their phone is making payments on something they dont have if u
>> want to look at it like that.
>
>But again, the freedom to quit without penalty.
>
>>>Competition in the marketplace dictates the monthly service fees
>>>("what the market will bear"), not the amount of subsidy. It actually
>>>works backwards from what you think- it's not like a carrier says "we
>>>COULD sell 200 anytime minutes for $19.99 a month, plus $10.00 for the
>>>monthly subsidy= a $29.99 rate plan." In reality, it's more like
>>>"crap- T-Mobile is giving 300 minutes for $29.99. We need to match
>>>it, despite the fact that only leaves us $10 profit per month. Since
>>>we subsidize a phone $200, our break-even point will now be 20-months
>>>instead of 16. Maybe we need THREE-year contracts..."
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Cingular uses the contract for the purpose cellphone contracts were
>>>>>originally intended for- a quid pro quo- you get a discount on a phone
>>>>>in return for a service committment. No more, no less.
>>>>
>>>>there is no discount to be had if your paying full price for it over
>>>>time now is there? maybe the "little by little" is the
>>>>discount....not having to pay for it up front....yeah thats it.
>>>
>>>Well, if those who DON'T get a subsidy (a month-to-month customer) pay
>>>the same rate, then it IS a discount for contract customers isn't it?
>>
>>
>> for the contract customer, but then the contract customer is still
>> paying for their phone through the plan and joe month-by-month is
>> paying the same price but without the phone, so what just consider
>> that a penalty for not being a contract customer? so it works both
>> ways, its a good deal for mr month by month and a good deal for mr
>> contract? maybe im just trying to expose the ripping off of customers
>> and it aint working lol
>>
>
>Again, no commitment.
>
>>>Here's some "duh" math:
>>>
>>>Contract customer pays $0 for phone, and $40/month for service for two
>>>years: total is ($40x24) or $960.
>>>
>>>Non-contract customer pays $200 for phone, and $40/month for the same
>>>rate plan and ALSO sticks around two years, because he likes the
>>>service: total is($200+$40x24) or $1160.
>>
>>
>> im not talking about buying the phone from the same carrier, im saying
>> if u had your phone for a while/got it elsewhere/swap
>> meet/ebay/whatever and u signed up for a month to month deal, your
>> still paying $40x24=960 as the guy who is paying fopr the phone
>> through the contract
>
>But the idea is that you can cancel at any time without the hefty early
>termination fee.
>
>>>Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it?
>>
>>
>> yeah if u paid $200 for your phone, but if u got it for free from a
>> friend, or for $10 off ebay your kinda getting the shaft i would
>> think... maybe im just talking **** but it doesnt seem too fair.
>>
>> i kinda think of it as buying a new car, lets say the car is
>> $20k...you put down $10k and your monthly payments/interest incured
>> will be much less than the guy who put $0 down, the guy who put $0
>> down will pay more a month and incur more interest... same as the guy
>> who puts $0 down on the cell phone, he should pay more through the
>> plan to pay for the phone little by little, the guy who has his own
>> phone shouldnt have to pay the same... maybe $5 less or something,
>> whatever they are adding in for the phone...i think its around $6 to
>> $8 depending on the phone u get, for a $200 phone on a 24 month plan
>> its $8.33 a month to equal $200. im probably thinking too much or not
>> enough....blah
>
>Yeah, but if you get that phone of Ebay(R) for 10.00, you can activate
>it with Cingular, and after two months, if for example you get
>transferred to North Dakota with your job, you can terminate your
>service without the hefty early termination fee. Get it?

what does transfering jobs to north dakota have to do with the fact
that cingular charges the same plan price for guy a - who owns his
phone and guy B - who is paying monthly for his phone. i'd rather pay
a termination fee than move to north dakota bro.

the fact remains -

bob - got his phone "free" but pays for it little by little through
his plan - monthly plan? 400 minutes for $39.99

joe - owns his phone, got it for $10 from ebay - monthly plan? 400
minutes for $39.99

Steve Vai <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> so a wholesale price basically for buying in bulk so to speak right?

You could look at it that way- maybe it's a "loyalty award" even
though the "loyalty" is forced by the gunpoint of a contract!

> then it isnt really free now is it? false advertising?

That's pretty harsh.

> when it gets
> down to it the phone isnt free.... for arguements sake if the phone
> really WAS free and you wanted to upgrade next week to a newer phone
> that just came out and is advertised as free then they should let u
> with no problem, cause its free...im just sayin...

It's free ...with strings attached. I bought a car a few months back
from a dealer who promises a "free full tank of gas" in every car.
(No, that's not why I chose that dealer!)
Should I expect to get my car filled there for free indefinitely? Of
course not. Nor does the bank give me a free toaster EVERY month-
just when I opened my account. Similarly, the cell company gives ONE
free phone with EACH contract.

> >Right, a little bit at a time through your monthly service fees.
>
> yeah, so advertising the phones as free isnt really true, its free on
> a payment plan that they dont tell u about.

What do you mean "they don't tell you about"? Are you suggesting that
people get a free phone and don't know they have to pay monthly
service fees?

> >NOTHING is really "free"! When Dominos pizza gives you a free small
> >pizza with your full-priced large pizza because you used a coupon, who
> >paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the
> >large!
>
> yeah, they just jack the price up on the large pizza.

Right. That's marketing, and is perfectly legit.

> yeah but it still goes back to the whole thing about charging the same
> monthly rate for someone who owns their own phone as someone who makes
> payments on their phone through their plan, in effect the person who
> owns their phone is making payments on something they dont have if u
> want to look at it like that.

You could look at it like that I guess, but it's not entirely correct-
the cell company wants to give an incentive for contracts, so the
contract customers get a better deal.

> for the contract customer, but then the contract customer is still
> paying for their phone through the plan and joe month-by-month is
> paying the same price but without the phone, so what just consider
> that a penalty for not being a contract customer? so it works both
> ways, its a good deal for mr month by month and a good deal for mr
> contract? maybe im just trying to expose the ripping off of customers
> and it aint working lol

Maybe I'm just jaded from 10 years in the biz. I remember the days
before contracts: $1200 phones and $19.99 for ten minutes a month!

I even remember my first contract: 90 days! (You saved $5/month if
you signed for a year.)

> im not talking about buying the phone from the same carrier, im saying
> if u had your phone for a while/got it elsewhere/swap
> meet/ebay/whatever and u signed up for a month to month deal, your
> still paying $40x24=960 as the guy who is paying fopr the phone
> through the contract

Right, but you have an old used eBay phone vs. a new one. More
importantly, you had the ability to walk away at anytime without a
$200 EFT penalty!

> >Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it?
>
> yeah if u paid $200 for your phone, but if u got it for free from a
> friend, or for $10 off ebay your kinda getting the shaft i would
> think... maybe im just talking **** but it doesnt seem too fair.

It would seem very fair if your job forced you to move six months
after starting service and you could kiss thearrier goodbye without
writing a big fat check!

> i kinda think of it as buying a new car, lets say the car is
> $20k...you put down $10k and your monthly payments/interest incured
> will be much less than the guy who put $0 down, the guy who put $0
> down will pay more a month and incur more interest... same as the guy
> who puts $0 down on the cell phone, he should pay more through the
> plan to pay for the phone little by little, the guy who has his own
> phone shouldnt have to pay the same...

That just illustrates my point- the contract guy isn't really buying a
phone in installments, he's getting a "free toaster" for opening his
cellular account.

> maybe $5 less or something,
> whatever they are adding in for the phone...i think its around $6 to
> $8 depending on the phone u get, for a $200 phone on a 24 month plan
> its $8.33 a month to equal $200. im probably thinking too much or not
> enough....blah

I'll agree with you IF the discount guy also signs a contract, to make
the accounts truly even.

Steve Vai <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> what does transfering jobs to north dakota have to do with the fact
> that cingular charges the same plan price for guy a - who owns his
> phone and guy B - who is paying monthly for his phone. i'd rather pay
> a termination fee than move to north dakota bro.
>
> the fact remains -
>
> bob - got his phone "free" but pays for it little by little through
> his plan - monthly plan? 400 minutes for $39.99
>
> joe - owns his phone, got it for $10 from ebay - monthly plan? 400
> minutes for $39.99

Bob and Joe both cancel service tomorrow- Bob owes Cingular $200, Joe owes nothing.

Joe is paying "extra" for his freedom... pure and simple.

Steve Vai wrote:


>
> the fact remains -
>
> bob - got his phone "free" but pays for it little by little through
> his plan - monthly plan? 400 minutes for $39.99
>
> joe - owns his phone, got it for $10 from ebay - monthly plan? 400
> minutes for $39.99


So, over let's say two years, Bob pays 959.76 to Cingular for service. Joe
pays 959.76 to Cingular for service. Both get 400 minutes a month, but Bob
gets a phone without paying additional. That would make it 'free' to Bob.
And the one thing to remember- Bob's money will get allocated by Cingular
just the same as Joe's will- some for network, marketing, sales, support,
advertising, and to subsidize all of the free and discounted phones
Cingular sells, among other things.

WHat I find amazing about this thread is that this is being pointed out as
though it is uniques in the Corporate world. Every instance of a 'free'
offer is ALWAYS absorbed through the sale of goods- it is a part of the
entire pricing structure. And the more 'free' offers a company has, the
higher the cost of paid services and goods are going to be to cover the
expense of the 'free' item.

Bob does get a 'free' phone, due to the fact that he pays no more than
regualr service price to receive it. But in the end, every subscriber on
the network helps Cingular recover the cost of that phone.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:00:06 GMT, Scott Stephenson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Steve Vai wrote:
>
>
>>
>> the fact remains -
>>
>> bob - got his phone "free" but pays for it little by little through
>> his plan - monthly plan? 400 minutes for $39.99
>>
>> joe - owns his phone, got it for $10 from ebay - monthly plan? 400
>> minutes for $39.99
>
>
>So, over let's say two years, Bob pays 959.76 to Cingular for service. Joe
>pays 959.76 to Cingular for service. Both get 400 minutes a month, but Bob
>gets a phone without paying additional. That would make it 'free' to Bob.

your looking at it backwards, or the other way around either one...
you re saying that because they are the same price bob gets the better
deal cause he gets a phone too, i'm saying its a bad deal for joe
because he pays the same as bob who is paying monthly payments for the
phone he got. what you are saying is like saying "oh it's not so bad,
that guy didn't get a phone and he has to pay the same so i'll
consider it a good deal" what kind of justification is that? the fact
remains that cingular charges monthly for the phone they give u
"free", but charge u the same if you didnt get a phone from them... so
if you want to look at it the way u are then hell yeah its a good deal
for the guy who got the "free" phone, cingular charges the guy who
didnt get a phone the same price so the "well its gonna cost the same,
might as well get a phone" mentality comes into play...and because it
costs the same cingular can recoup even more cost because they are
overcharging the guy who has his own phone.


>And the one thing to remember- Bob's money will get allocated by Cingular
>just the same as Joe's will- some for network, marketing, sales, support,
>advertising, and to subsidize all of the free and discounted phones
>Cingular sells, among other things.

so it's ok to overcharge joe because its going towards expanding the
ever growing empire? just like bobs money is? huh?


>
>WHat I find amazing about this thread is that this is being pointed out as
>though it is uniques in the Corporate world. Every instance of a 'free'
>offer is ALWAYS absorbed through the sale of goods- it is a part of the
>entire pricing structure. And the more 'free' offers a company has, the
>higher the cost of paid services and goods are going to be to cover the
>expense of the 'free' item.

yeah... thats what i was trying to say, but instead of applying those
higher costs to the person who took the offer they apply it to
EVERYONE, its like car insurance...your neighbor is a retard and
smashes into a schoolbus, not only does his insurance go up but so
does yours...you only drive on sundays u say? too bad you have to pay
for his ****up too. i guess i think of it differently, everyone has to
carry their own weight u know, i think the same on taxes too which
puts me in a minority... everyone pays taxes on things even though
certain people do not buy/use them but everyone has to pay for it,
only those who use/buy such things should be taxed for them...THEY ARE
THE ONES USING IT right? i think its called tarrifs or something... so
just because cingular has to recoup the cost of the "free" phone they
should be able to charge a guy who didnt takr the "free" phone the
same price thus making it look like it was free because they are
charging both guys the same even though theyb recoup the cost through
the plan? wtf is that? nice marketing i agree but fair? not so. they
can call it both free and recoup the cost, genius no doubt.


>
>Bob does get a 'free' phone, due to the fact that he pays no more than
>regualr service price to receive it.

but in truth he is, it's just that they charge everyone else the same
price as well to make it so he pays the same. its like saying "free
chrome wheels with ferrari purchase" then someone comes in and says "i
dont want chrome wheels, just the regular ones" and charging them the
same even though they knowingly jacked up the price to cover the
wheels, but apply the same jacked up price to the guy who didnt get
the wheels, shouldnt you only apply the jacked up price to the guy who
got the wheels? seems fair no? maybe im trippin.



>But in the end, every subscriber on
>the network helps Cingular recover the cost of that phone.

so true...oh so true. thats what im trying to get at, i think only the
guy who got the phone should be penalized with higher fees, but
because the people with their own phones didn't pay cingular up front
for a phone (thus making a profit for cingular) they must be penalized
too.

what the wireless carriers did with this free phone **** is really
clever i must hand it to them but i see through it and unfortunately
others fail to do so, i mean to be able to say "free phone" then raise
the price to cover the cost and do it to even those who own their
phone and call it "even" is indeed clever, even you think its fair
because they are paying the same price... it can be seen like that,
but thats just justifying the "free" phone, u do see that the price is
unfairly applied to the guy with his own phone right?