Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers change companies

Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask
the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers
change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push
last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless
industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies

www.EscapeCellHell.org

---

› See More: Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers change companies

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:57:49 GMT, "Topguy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
>www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask
>the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers
>change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push
>last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless
>industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies

Just as long as consumers get the message that all handsets don't work
on all services. You *know* that there will be people that should a
measure such as this is proposed will *insist* that a new carrier
allow their phone on the network even if it's not compatible such as
trying to put a GSM phone on a CDMA network. It's probably not
someone who frequents cellular/mobile related groups, but I guarantee
that they're probably out there waiting for their opportunity.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

In article <[email protected]>,
Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:57:49 GMT, "Topguy" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service,
> >www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask
> >the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers
> >change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push
> >last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless
> >industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies
>
> Just as long as consumers get the message that all handsets don't work
> on all services. You *know* that there will be people that should a
> measure such as this is proposed will *insist* that a new carrier
> allow their phone on the network even if it's not compatible such as
> trying to put a GSM phone on a CDMA network. It's probably not
> someone who frequents cellular/mobile related groups, but I guarantee
> that they're probably out there waiting for their opportunity.

Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a
Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a
> Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc.


Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why?

If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their
marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you are
buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business but
theirs to decide?

Now, if the government wants to butt in (and when don't they!) a fair rule
could be that a service provider must allow you to use any phone compatible
with their network, so if you have an "unlocked" phone you obtained yourself
they can't force you to buy one of theirs instead as a condition of
obtaining service, any more than a gas station could make you buy a car from
them to be allowed to fill up. But frankly, if AT&T (or whoever)'s business
plan is to sell $400 phones for $1 knowing that even if you leave them, you
can't let their competitors like T-Mobile "benefit" from not having to
subsididize a phone for you when you sign up, that's their right, IMHO. If
we don't like it, we don't have to buy it from them.

The "deeper" a provider can lock a phone, the cheaper they can sell them-
look at TracFone- they were really the first company to sell affordable
prepaid handsets because they knew that those handsets would ALWAYS stay
with TracFone, even if second, third or fourth-hand. They certainly
wouldn't have sold a $250 MSRP (at the time) Nokia 51xx for $50 if they knew
you could just buy it and rather than activate it with TracFone, easily
switch it to Cingular or Verizon to replace a lost or broken handset cheap
if you were still under a contract.

The marketplace has already solved this issue without government "help" (at
least in GSM)- unlocked phones are available at higher prices if "handset
portability" is a priority for you, and locked phones, in most cases, can be
unlocked relatively cheaply or freely. If the government butt in, we'll
likely see higher handset prices or higher EFTs, since a current-day $150
EFT won't deter somebody who's getting a $300 for a $1- paying the EFT would
be a bargain, leaving the carrier hundreds in the hole with no choice but to
pass the losses onto us!

So, as always, "be careful what you wish for, because you might get it!"
;-)

I'm personally still p-o'd about the $25/year I'm paying in "regulatory
compliance fees" for the WNP "right" bestowed upon me that I'm not using.

(Anybody else notice that post WNP we aren't seeing any asoundingly better
"deals" than we did prior?)

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> (Anybody else notice that post WNP we aren't seeing any asoundingly better
> "deals" than we did prior?)
>
>

Yep- I think everybody waited for the other guy to flinch. One of the big
reasons might be the huge bounty everyone else is seeing in the mass
revolution from AT&T. Why lower your prices when you have hundreds of
thousands of willing customers available to you.

Of course, the whole portability hype has been reminiscent of the whole Y2K
scare- much ado about nothing. All of the outside analysts predicted
millions of ports in the first few months, only to be proven terribly wrong.
And those same analysts were the ones raving about the deals that would have
to come, in an attempt to retain customers- again, wrong.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why?
>
> If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their
> marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you are
> buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business but
> theirs to decide?

Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any
subsidy.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm personally still p-o'd about the $25/year I'm paying in "regulatory
> compliance fees" for the WNP "right" bestowed upon me that I'm not using.

Thats because you're being overcharged.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why?
> >
> > If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their
> > marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you
are
> > buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business
but
> > theirs to decide?
>
> Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any
> subsidy.

No they haven't- you've paid exactly as much for service as the guy who paid
full price for the phone. There is no "Subsidy Recovery Charge" on your
bill.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yep- I think everybody waited for the other guy to flinch. One of the big
> reasons might be the huge bounty everyone else is seeing in the mass
> revolution from AT&T. Why lower your prices when you have hundreds of
> thousands of willing customers available to you.
>
> Of course, the whole portability hype has been reminiscent of the whole
Y2K
> scare- much ado about nothing. All of the outside analysts predicted
> millions of ports in the first few months, only to be proven terribly
wrong.
> And those same analysts were the ones raving about the deals that would
have
> to come, in an attempt to retain customers- again, wrong.
>

Sorry, but you haven't waited long enough to even see if number portability
will have any significant effect. The vast majority of the nation doesn't go
portable until May 24th. Mind you, I don't expect it to have nearly the
effect that people were touting in October, but I think we'll see more after
May 24th than we did in November.

-Jeff

"jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
> Sorry, but you haven't waited long enough to even see if number
portability
> will have any significant effect. The vast majority of the nation doesn't
go
> portable until May 24th. Mind you, I don't expect it to have nearly the
> effect that people were touting in October, but I think we'll see more
after
> May 24th than we did in November.
>

Actually, from a population perspective, the markets that already have
portability represent more than half the population. From a geographic
perspective, it is much smaller. And as far as waiting, we are now almost 5
months into portability. My point was that it is not the panic causing
situation the analysts were predicting it to be. Remember- they were
touting the realistic potential for millions of ports within the first
couple of weeks. That did not occur.

One other thing to keep in mind- as the markets get smaller, the number of
options drop dramatically. There aren't nearly the number of options
available in Bennington, VT that there are in NYC.

I agree with Todd Allcock,

So, as always, "be careful what you wish for, because you might get it!"
;-)

Most consumer don`t understand the wireless carriers subsidy on equipment. Also the reason why companies like Best Buy and ect can sell the same phone as the carriers on the carriers service at a cheaper cost. These stores and dealers get a kick back based on the Plan and Term of Contract that can equal upto 350-400.00 dollars. Since they do not have a need to warranty replace or manage the customers service. They take a portion of that kick back and thow it on top of the phone to make it more attractive. They buy the equipment from the carrier for about the same price as a consumer does on a 1 year agreement and still make a $300.00 profit thanks to the kick back. As long as the consumers union understands that the customer will take the hit somewhere. If phones are unlock, the cost of the phones from the carriers will triple. That means that they days of everyone having a new sexy phone every couple of years will be gone because of the cost. To keep equipment pricing low I could see carriers requesting 3-4 year contract to get the phone at an affordable pricing. Some carriers like Verizon will not let you have service with them period without signing a contract even if you buy the phone on ebay and want to get service for it. To keep phone pricing down carriers could raise the monthly service cost for all their plans to recover lost equipment cost. There may also be 2 types of phone. A couple of cheap no frills phones that you can buy and take from carrier to carrier. The others are sexy gotta have phones that will be designed for that carrrier only and you the consumer in order to purchse it will have to sign a waiver of understanding that it can not be used on another carriers network. We could see some or a mixture of all of these things happening if this passes. law makers might let it happen and wash their hands of it since the consumers wanted it, got it, and now have to live with the fallout from it.

"Wireless Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> I agree with Todd Allcock,
>
> So, as always, "be careful what you wish for, because you might get
> it!"
> ;-)
>
> Most consumer don`t understand the wireless carriers subsidy on
> equipment. Also the reason why companies like Best Buy and ect can sell
> the same phone as the carriers on the carriers service at a cheaper
> cost. These stores and dealers get a kick back based on the Plan and
> Term of Contract that can equal upto 350-400.00 dollars. Since they do
> not have a need to warranty replace or manage the customers service.
> They take a portion of that kick back and thow it on top of the phone
> to make it more attractive. They buy the equipment from the carrier for
> about the same price as a consumer does on a 1 year agreement and still
> make a $300.00 profit thanks to the kick back. As long as the consumers
> union understands that the customer will take the hit somewhere. If
> phones are unlock, the cost of the phones from the carriers will
> triple. That means that they days of everyone having a new sexy phone
> every couple of years will be gone because of the cost. To keep
> equipment pricing low I could see carriers requesting 3-4 year contract
> to get the phone at an affordable pricing. Some carriers like Verizon
> will not let you have service with them period without signing a
> contract even if you buy the phone on ebay and want to get service for
> it. To keep phone pricing down carriers could raise the monthly service
> cost for all their plans to recover lost equipment cost. There may also
> be 2 types of phone. A couple of cheap no frills phones that you can
> buy and take from carrier to carrier. The others are sexy gotta have
> phones that will be designed for that carrrier only and you the
> consumer in order to purchse it will have to sign a waiver of
> understanding that it can not be used on another carriers network. We
> could see some or a mixture of all of these things happening if this
> passes. law makers might let it happen and wash their hands of it
> since the consumers wanted it, got it, and now have to live with the
> fallout from it.
>

Well put. One other thing- the average consumer, if told that their phone
can be used on other carriers, will have the expectation that all phone
functionality will work with the new carrier. This won't be the case-
Verizon PTT phones won't have PTT capability on the Sprint network, as an
example.

>> union understands that the customer will take the hit somewhere. If
>> phones are unlock, the cost of the phones from the carriers will
>> triple. That means that they days of everyone having a new sexy phone
>> every couple of years will be gone because of the cost. To keep

I don't understand. Today Cingular et al are in two businesses: cell
phone service, and cell phone leasing. If they give consumers a choice
(buy vs lease the instrument) that is obviously good (as is any choice
opportunity) for consumers (though a lower turnover rate might hurt Nokia
et al.) Even if Cingular et al were forced to leave the leasing business,
others (Nokia?) could certainly enter it for the market of rapid-changers.
Look at car buying vs leasing. The example of the Bell system, which used
to insist that customers lease their instruments, suggests there might be
*more*, not less, variety and development in phone instruments when there
is more available choice.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any
> subsidy.

Back when I was a Cingular agent, the majority of Cingular contracts
were 1 year, and dealers were paid about $250 for that contract, even
on a $30/month plan. That left Cingular about $110 in total revenue
from the customer for the entire first year. (Less when you factored
in that in those days they paid the selling agent up to 8% of the
customer's month fee as an ongoing residual.)

The phone wasn't nearly paid for at that point. Back then Cingular
claimed (internally) that it took 18-24 to recapture phone subsidies
depending if it was sold by them directly or by an independent agent.

These days AT&T, in particular, tends to subsidize handsets far more
aggressively than most wireless companies. Perhaps it's no
coincidence they've relied on locking longer than most carriers (going
back to the SOC locks on TDMA handsets preventing them from roaming
properly if activated on competitor's systems.)

The only Leasing program that I am aware of is The lockline Leasing program that is only avialable for Cingular Business Customers. Most of the Day To Day cingular employee dont even know about it. Only The Business Rep and some of us in the industry know about it. So I`m not sure about the leasing program you are talking about. So even at that point Lockline the same company that does phone insurance for Cingular also offers a business leasing program. Cingular does not want the burden of leasing to consumers. That can lead to to much bad debt with inventor cost.