Contracts. Why?

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> 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

---

› See More: Contracts. Why?

Uncle_vito wrote:
> When you sell the phone? Who wants a used cell phone with older
> technology when they can get a new phone subsidized by Verizon. BTW,
> if you are not going to change providers anyway, who cares about a
> contract?
Vito- you would be surprised at the number of people looking for a used cell
phone. There are probably several reasons for it, but one example is someone
who is under contract who has lost or damaged their phone (that contract
does lock them in folks).

I have four people in my family, each of whom gets a new phone every couple
of years. I have zero old cell phones hanging around the house. They ALL
have been sold on eBay, and I'm not talking about for insignificant prices
either. I wouldn't bother for a few bucks.

Of course "marketing" is part of the key to success in reselling your cell
phone, as it is in any other business deal. I keep the boxes, manuals, and
chargers to all my phones and I keep them in very good condition. They
sell.

Now I'll grant you that, as the technology advances ever more rapidly, and
prices drop, it may become harder to do this. I'll be testing this in a
short while. Wish me luck.

Bob Scheurle wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:11:19 -0500, "Carl"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> And, do remember that the phone has a resale value in some market,
>> somewhere.
>
> Anyone want to buy a non-GPS Kyocera 2235 from 2002? I've got a
> couple.
>
Ok, I'll admit you got me there (though there are a couple for sale on eBay
as we speak). I should have qualified that the phone had to have some value
when it was new. What was the old computer-related analogy: "junk in, junk
out"? There is the adage that you get what you pay for.

Let's use my last phone as an example, a Motorola V3c, awaiting being sold
as we speak. Here are some already sold ones:

A Telus Motorola V3c. It sold for $167.50. (you have to log in to see
completed items)
http://cgi.ebay.com/Motorola-RAZR-V3...QQcmdZViewItem

Here's a Verizon V3c, recently sold for $94.
http://cgi.ebay.com/MOTOROLA-V3C-RAZ...QQcmdZViewItem

These represent my personal experiences, both past and present.

At 08 Jan 2008 09:14:55 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> 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.


True- you're exploiting a loophole in the system- in return for making
sales of pre-paid phones "easier" for mass-market retailers, Verizon (et al)
take the activating hassles away from the store and let customers do it at
home via 800#. A few phones, like yours, "slip through the cracks" this way,

but that's a small number compared to the ton of phones and activations
WalMart generates for Verizon. A "calculated risk" as they say (similar to
risk AT&T and T-Mobile take when their prepaid phones fall into the hands
of existing customers buying no-contract handset upgrades/replacements.) >


> > 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.

Sort of- what you're forgetting is that your first bill, when it finally
arrived, was for two months- "this" month and "next" month- so you were
really a "deferred" pre-paid customer- if you buy a phone today, Jan. 8th,
your bill might not arrive for a few weeks, but it'll be for the Jan. and
Feb. billing cycles. They stay ahead of you.

> You're wrong about the bills being pre-pay even for contract customers.

Depends on your POV, I guess.

On 2008-01-08, Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.t-mobile Bert Hyman <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

At 08 Jan 2008 17:50:39 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> > Sort of- what you're forgetting is that your first bill, when it finally
> > arrived, was for two months- "this" month and "next" month-
>
> Nope.
>
> I still have it.
>
> Want to see it?

I'll take your word for it. My first bill with Cingular was from 1994
(when they ere still SBMS) and my last was in 2003. My last bill was for
about $2, because they were always ahead of me and my last "month" was two
pro-rated days.

> It was for one month. The month that had just passed.


It may be different today as your experience seems to indicate. Currently
T-Mo bills me ahead- I get the bill during the current cycle (i.e. my bill
for Dec. 11th-Jan. 10 arrived a couple of weeks ago.)

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

My GAWD it is only a CELL PHONE for Pete's sake.


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> top posting corrected
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Uncle_vito" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Uncle_vito" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Who wants a used cell phone with older technology
>> >> when they can get a new phone subsidized by Verizon.
>> >
>> > Because the subsidy from Verizon comes with strings attached, strings
>> > that the buyer doesn't want to be part of?
>> >
>> > Can you grasp the concept of all this?
>> >
>> > So the buyer can spend more money for a new phone without strings, or
>> > less money for an older phone without strings.
>> >
>> Sorry, but what are the strings? The $175 cancellation policy doesn't
>> really bother me if I was going to be with them already and they paid for
>> my
>> phone.
>
> It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers others--who don't want those
> strings.
>
> You were unable to grasp the concept of buying a phone with older
> technology. It seems the bigger picture is that you're unable to grasp
> the concept that others don't do things like you do them.
>
> What if you moved to where signal quality was crap? You'd be pissed.
> You would be singing a different tune. You'd be wanting OUT of your
> contract, without paying $175, but you wouldn't be able to do
> that--you'd be tied by the strings that others are trying to avoid.
>
> That's why others might want cheaper, older phones--to avoid such
> strings.
>
> Or maybe they just want A PHONE, not a jack of all trade/master of none
> piece of Japanese technological glory.
>
>
>>
>> Now if I was planning on leaving them that would be another story. Seems
>> the phone user needs to have a plan and stick with it.
>
> Right up to the point where the phone user's life changes.
>
> Deal with it. **** happens. Smart people don't get locked into crappy
> deals if they don't have to. Smart people understand that **** happens
> and life changes.
>
>
>> If they are going to
>> stay with Verizon anyway over the 1-2 year period, the 'strings' are not
>> really strings.
>
> You sound like someone who trades freedom for security. "But if I'm not
> doing anything wrong, there's no problem with the police coming to my
> house unannounced and searching it."
>
>

You know, you are right. I forgot that my son took his phone swimming and
he was in the middle of a contract. Buying a phone from the cell company
would have been insanely expensive. He went to Craigs list and bought a
phone he liked for a reasonable price and he is happy. The phone on
Craigslist was essentially brand new.

So I stand corrected on this issue.

Vito


"Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Uncle_vito wrote:
>> When you sell the phone? Who wants a used cell phone with older
>> technology when they can get a new phone subsidized by Verizon. BTW,
>> if you are not going to change providers anyway, who cares about a
>> contract?
> Vito- you would be surprised at the number of people looking for a used
> cell phone. There are probably several reasons for it, but one example is
> someone who is under contract who has lost or damaged their phone (that
> contract does lock them in folks).
>
> I have four people in my family, each of whom gets a new phone every
> couple of years. I have zero old cell phones hanging around the house.
> They ALL have been sold on eBay, and I'm not talking about for
> insignificant prices either. I wouldn't bother for a few bucks.
>
> Of course "marketing" is part of the key to success in reselling your cell
> phone, as it is in any other business deal. I keep the boxes, manuals,
> and chargers to all my phones and I keep them in very good condition.
> They sell.
>
> Now I'll grant you that, as the technology advances ever more rapidly, and
> prices drop, it may become harder to do this. I'll be testing this in a
> short while. Wish me luck.
>
>

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 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In alt.cellular.t-mobile Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-07, LHA <[email protected]> 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.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 08 Jan 2008 17:53:26 -0600 clifto wrote:
>> 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.

The problem with that is that the user can't depend on the 700 minutes.
After he hits the limit, the plan has a price more like $280 per month
($0.40 per minute). So he's going to waste some finite number of minutes
every month to avoid hitting the limit. I suppose it's a matter of skill
or luck as to how few minutes get wasted.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.