WHY Does it Cost $18 just to upgrade to a new phone on AT&T

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2007-11-01, Dick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, if your local Costco carries AT&T. Ours doesn't. I know some
>> do as I have seen them when traveling around the country. Interesting
>> how major U.S. stores like Costco and Walmart are not consistent in
>> which carriers they represent around the country. I can understand
>> when carriers are localized to a community, but when there is more
>> than one store in the same town you would think they would carry the
>> same lines.
>
>I've always assumed that's due to differing coverage. Offering Verizon Wireless
>in Oklahoma City, or Little Rock, for example, would not work as VZW does not
>have a network in either of those markets.

Yes, I would assume that too, but when the same stores are only a
couple of miles apart in the same town it must be some other reason in
those cases.

Dick

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

---

› See More: WHY Does it Cost $18 just to upgrade to a new phone on AT&T

[email protected] schrieb:
> If I go into a Cingular/ATT store, or go on line and buy a phone, ATT
> wants to charge me $18.
Whow. Just for buying? Buy elsewhere.
>
> Can some one REALLY explain what that $18 is for?? Are they going to
> upgrade my service, need to change over my switching apparatus, maybe
> someone heeds to come out and configure the cel equipment?
If it is a mobile analog or cdma phone without SIM it may be for that.
Then they really have to do a little configuration change to map the
internal code of your new phone to your phone number.

If you have a GSM phone (with SIM) the phone number is bound to the SIM
card and you can freely put it into any other (free) phone without cost.

Wolfgang

On 2007-11-02, Wolfgang Barth <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you have a GSM phone (with SIM) the phone number is bound to the SIM
> card and you can freely put it into any other (free) phone without cost.

It wouldn't be CDMA, Cingular's GSM.



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news @the L.A. Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/
Local wildfire coverage, KFMB-TV San Diego: http://cbs8.com/

>
> I don't understand why, if I change my cel phone, I have to pay ATT
> $18
>
Because so many people will pay it.

If you buy a unlocked phone you only have to switch the sim card, no $18
fee, of course you will pay premium price for the phone that will be far
more than $18.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I go into a Cingular/ATT store, or go on line and buy a phone, ATT
> wants to charge me $18.
>
> Can some one REALLY explain what that $18 is for?? Are they going to
> upgrade my service, need to change over my switching apparatus, maybe
> someone heeds to come out and configure the cel equipment?
>
> I don't understand why, if I change my cel phone, I have to pay ATT
> $18
>


Because they can..... I just bought new phones from Walmart online, and
the activation fees are $26! OUCH


--
JK Sinrod
www.SinrodStudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:11:18 -0400, "glassman" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> If I go into a Cingular/ATT store, or go on line and buy a phone, ATT
>> wants to charge me $18.
>>
>> Can some one REALLY explain what that $18 is for?? Are they going to
>> upgrade my service, need to change over my switching apparatus, maybe
>> someone heeds to come out and configure the cel equipment?
>>
>> I don't understand why, if I change my cel phone, I have to pay ATT
>> $18
>>
>
>
> Because they can..... I just bought new phones from Walmart online, and
>the activation fees are $26! OUCH

The last new AT&T phone I bought from Walmart was supposed to have the
$18 fee too. I called and objected and they (AT&T) took the fee off.
Pays to ask. Of course I have been a Cingular customer for several
years. That may have been why they were willing to delete the fee.


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

Steve Sobol schrieb:
>
>> If you have a GSM phone (with SIM) the phone number is bound to the SIM
>> card and you can freely put it into any other (free) phone without cost.
>
> It wouldn't be CDMA, Cingular's GSM.

Then I do not understand the charge of 18$.
Maybe its for Packing and Posting?

Or they want to enter a SIMLOCK for the number into the phone.
That would be audacious.
To charge for something which is making the phone LESS valuable.

But maybe this happens during the contract time and the subsidized phone
is not "paid back" in that time. Then they want to bind the new
subsidized phone to the same number.

Here in Europe even subsidized contract phones are regularly open.
Only subsidized phones which come with prepaid SIM's are normally bound
to exactly this card or this network for two years.

Wolfgang

Dick wrote:
> Of course I have been a Cingular customer for several
> years. That may have been why they were willing to delete the fee.

Why was this necessary? If it is a GSM phone just put the SIM into the
new phone and it is done. The "identity" goes with the SIM not the phone.

Wolfgang

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:44:17 +0100, Wolfgang Barth
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>> Of course I have been a Cingular customer for several
>> years. That may have been why they were willing to delete the fee.
>
>Why was this necessary? If it is a GSM phone just put the SIM into the
>new phone and it is done. The "identity" goes with the SIM not the phone.
>
>Wolfgang

That's true. However, if you just buy the phone outright, it's like
$300. With a new AT&T contract it's about $47. Depends upon how much
you want to part with $300 for a phone.

Dick

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

Dick wrote:
>>> Of course I have been a Cingular customer for several
>>> years. That may have been why they were willing to delete the fee.
>> Why was this necessary? If it is a GSM phone just put the SIM into the
>> new phone and it is done. The "identity" goes with the SIM not the phone.
>
> That's true. However, if you just buy the phone outright, it's like
> $300. With a new AT&T contract it's about $47. Depends upon how much
> you want to part with $300 for a phone.

Yeah, thats the subsidy for the new contract. Understandable.
But the original poster has spoken of a 18$ fee just for changing
the phone. He did not speak about the price of the phone itself.

I do not like these subsidies. Without them the use of mobile phones can
be made much cheaper. In Germany we now have tariffs of 10c/min without
long binding contract, just pay what you have used (incoming free like
anywhere outside the US). I Austria then went down to even 3c/min.

Wolfgang

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:32:51 +0100, Wolfgang Barth
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>>>> Of course I have been a Cingular customer for several
>>>> years. That may have been why they were willing to delete the fee.
>>> Why was this necessary? If it is a GSM phone just put the SIM into the
>>> new phone and it is done. The "identity" goes with the SIM not the phone.
>>
>> That's true. However, if you just buy the phone outright, it's like
>> $300. With a new AT&T contract it's about $47. Depends upon how much
>> you want to part with $300 for a phone.
>
>Yeah, thats the subsidy for the new contract. Understandable.
>But the original poster has spoken of a 18$ fee just for changing
>the phone. He did not speak about the price of the phone itself.
>
>I do not like these subsidies. Without them the use of mobile phones can
>be made much cheaper. In Germany we now have tariffs of 10c/min without
>long binding contract, just pay what you have used (incoming free like
>anywhere outside the US). I Austria then went down to even 3c/min.
>
>Wolfgang

My son, who live in Stuttgart, came over here with his family last
month for a couple of weeks. He did something like what you were
suggesting with the SIM. He bought a cheap pay-as-you-go phone in the
U.S., took the SIM out of it and used it in his German phone while he
was here. Sure beats roaming charges.

Dick

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

Dick wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:32:51 +0100, Wolfgang Barth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dick wrote:
>>>>> Of course I have been a Cingular customer for several
>>>>> years. That may have been why they were willing to delete the fee.
>>>> Why was this necessary? If it is a GSM phone just put the SIM into the
>>>> new phone and it is done. The "identity" goes with the SIM not the phone.
>>> That's true. However, if you just buy the phone outright, it's like
>>> $300. With a new AT&T contract it's about $47. Depends upon how much
>>> you want to part with $300 for a phone.
>> Yeah, thats the subsidy for the new contract. Understandable.
>> But the original poster has spoken of a 18$ fee just for changing
>> the phone. He did not speak about the price of the phone itself.
>>
>> I do not like these subsidies. Without them the use of mobile phones can
>> be made much cheaper. In Germany we now have tariffs of 10c/min without
>> long binding contract, just pay what you have used (incoming free like
>> anywhere outside the US). I Austria then went down to even 3c/min.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>
> My son, who live in Stuttgart, came over here with his family last
> month for a couple of weeks. He did something like what you were
> suggesting with the SIM. He bought a cheap pay-as-you-go phone in the
> U.S., took the SIM out of it and used it in his German phone while he
> was here. Sure beats roaming charges.
>
> Dick
>


Good thing that German phone didn't have a SIM lock.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer schrieb:
>>
>> My son, who live in Stuttgart, came over here with his family last
>> month for a couple of weeks. He did something like what you were
>> suggesting with the SIM. He bought a cheap pay-as-you-go phone in the
>> U.S., took the SIM out of it and used it in his German phone while he
>> was here. Sure beats roaming charges.

> Good thing that German phone didn't have a SIM lock.

As I wrote before: In Germany and most european countries even
subsidized phones coming with a 2 year contract do NOT have locks.

The first company trying to establish this is Apple with the
I-Phone and they will NOT succeed, their tariff is EXPENSIVE.
Just minute packets. But there are flat rates to all fixed line
phones for just 10 Euro/month and data flat rates at 25 Euro.
They want to charge Minimum 49 Euro/month. I bet they do not
succeed. Sales will start next week. They will be weak.

There are very attractive tariffs now, which only go without
subsidized phone.

Just subsidized pay-as-you-go phones have locks which can be opened
after using them for 2 years.
But even here the more interesting pay-as-you-go tariffs are the
cheapest tarifs of all and come WITHOUT phones.

And the pay-as-you-go here is working for at least ONE YEAR with
an investment of 20 euro. Not just 4 weeks and then you need
to buy another 30. Paying 30 euro will give you another 2 YEARS of
incoming calls without cost (caller pays a premium of 10c or so).

I do not understand why US carriers do not make the same.
Here these tariffs BOOSTED the acceptance of mobile phones.

Wolfgang

On 2007-11-04, Wolfgang Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jer schrieb:
>>>
>>> My son, who live in Stuttgart, came over here with his family last
>>> month for a couple of weeks. He did something like what you were
>>> suggesting with the SIM. He bought a cheap pay-as-you-go phone in the
>>> U.S., took the SIM out of it and used it in his German phone while he
>>> was here. Sure beats roaming charges.
>
>> Good thing that German phone didn't have a SIM lock.
>
> As I wrote before: In Germany and most european countries even
> subsidized phones coming with a 2 year contract do NOT have locks.

The US GSM carriers are not entirely dissimilar these days. While
subsidized phones often come locked when you buy them the carriers
(the big ones, AT&T and T-Mobile, at least) will unlock them at no
charge if you ask. I've been buying GSM phones from US carriers
since 1999, and I've not yet had a contract phone that the carrier
refused to unlock for me.

> The first company trying to establish this is Apple with the
> I-Phone and they will NOT succeed, their tariff is EXPENSIVE.

Actually the business model that causes Apple to want to keep
the iPhone locked under all circumstances (i.e. the phone manufacturer
taking a portion of the carrier's subscription revenue) is as
unique in the US as it is in Europe.

> And the pay-as-you-go here is working for at least ONE YEAR with
> an investment of 20 euro. Not just 4 weeks and then you need
> to buy another 30. Paying 30 euro will give you another 2 YEARS of
> incoming calls without cost (caller pays a premium of 10c or so).
>
> I do not understand why US carriers do not make the same.
> Here these tariffs BOOSTED the acceptance of mobile phones.

I'm not sure which US tariffs you are comparing this to. The
GSM carriers in the US also sell SIM-only prepaid service and
with T-Mobile prepaid (which has the best nationwide coverage of
any GSM prepaid plan), while it costs $100 up front, the expiry
is also one year and can be extended out with a yearly $10 top
up. Incoming and outgoing calls cost US$0.10 per minute. While
you do pay a bit to receive a call, the caller pays no premium at
all to call you so this balances out.

I maintain prepaid service in the UK, with T-Mobile, and don't
find it better than the US offer. The service terminates after 6
months of non-use, it costs the equivalent of US$0.20/minute to make
a call from the phone, and while incoming calls are free they
are usually quite expensive for overseas callers who call me
(and who don't have a cheaper way to call a European mobile,
unlike UK residents might). Only the data service is cheap
compared to the US.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2007-11-05, Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:

> The US GSM carriers are not entirely dissimilar these days. While
> subsidized phones often come locked when you buy them the carriers
> (the big ones, AT&T and T-Mobile, at least) will unlock them at no
> charge if you ask. I've been buying GSM phones from US carriers
> since 1999, and I've not yet had a contract phone that the carrier
> refused to unlock for me.

I'm a T-Mo customer, and I understand there is no problem as long as you've
been a customer for 90 days. Now whether that's 90 days period, or 90 days
on your current phone... that I'm not sure.

> unlike UK residents might). Only the data service is cheap
> compared to the US.

And that's only because T-Mobile's US data packages suck ass. If you want
data, you're much better off with AT&T, Sprint or maybe Verizon because T-Mo
USA has only just rolled out EDGE this past year, and the 3G rollout is
just starting. The service isn't worth paying for yet, in my opinion.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com