Results 16 to 21 of 21
- 09-08-2006, 09:01 PM #16Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Plan pricing
At 08 Sep 2006 13:06:57 -0700 [email protected] wrote:
>
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> > Unlocked phones can be used with
> > Cingular and T-Mobile, and are readily availble if you look for them.
> >
>
> I think that last statement is contradictory... "readily available...
> if you look for them". Where are these phones? You certainly won't find
> them at your local T-Mobile, Cingular, Sprint, Verizon retail
> outlet.... You won't find them at Walmart, BestBuy, etc... The only
> chain retailers that I know of in the US that sells unlocked phones are
> Frys and CompUSA and they both only have a handful.
Again, they are plentiful online (you can even buy some models direct
from Nokia's website) and the fact that only a small number retailers
like CompUSA carry them show there is only a little interest.
>
> The reality is unlocked phones are not readily available. You can go to
> some mom & pop cell phone outlet and find them in any major city...
Again, if there was widespread interest, major retailers would get into
the biz. A water pump for a 1975 Ford Mustang is only available in a few
specialty shops because demand is low.
> ...you
> can also go to such places and have your phone unlocked for a fee
> ($20-$60). I believe it's considered grey area and shouldn't be... The
> phones should be unlocked when purchased. You sign a two year contract,
> and in exchange for that comitment you get a discounted phone.... that
> shouldn't mean the service provider has a right to control that device
> as if they own it.
You have no argument from me there! Personally I think it should be
illegal for a wireless provider to alter any feature of a phone UNLESS
they give it a new model name or number. If Nokia's website, for
example, says model 1001 can do this or that, I expect the version
Cingular (or whoever) sells me to do what the manufacturer says it can do.
> In cases where you have the manufactuer also selling
> direct to the public, you'll find these prices are not subsidized as
> you claim.
No, I said prepaid phone prices are subsidized- i.e. a Nokia 6030 GoPhone
with no contract is sold by Cingular for less than the same phone sold
with no contract to a post-paid customer. I didn't mean to imply that
all sales are subsidized.
> This also explains why they perform credit checks on
> customers who they give the incentives to. There are more ethical ways
> of doing business.
Actually they run credit checks on all post-paid customers regardless of
whether they subsidize a phone. The bigger liability the company takes on,
even beyond the subsidy, it the possibily you'll rack up hundreds of
dolloars in overages, data, and int'l LD charges.
>
> This whole "sign a contract, get a phone" system was built at time when
> people only made phone calls from their cell phones and could care less
> what model they had. Today people are starting to want specific models,
> or at least specific features out of their handsets (e.g. look at the
> success of the Motorola RAZR and Motorola's advertising around that
> phone).
Sure, but cellular customers couldn't afford to replace their phones as
often as their underwear without subsidies and contracts. It's a
parasitic relationship. Customers aren't happy unless they have the
latest razor thin chocolate colored phone, and carriers like customers
under contract- it's a "win-win", sadly.
> You can look at the SmartPhones today and that represents the
> future of functionality that will be standard for everyone in a few
> years. People will expect more out of their phones and as they begin to
> realize how much control the providers are enforceing on the handsets
> they will demand and hopefully the providers will respond.
Providers will respond IF customers demand it. I suspect they won't.
RCN (one of the industry trade papers) reported a few months ago that
something like less than 25% of US wireless customers ever used any
wireless internet. Cellphones to this day are primarily voice devices,
despite geeks like me trying to show friends and family otherwise!
> > What's stopping them? (Except no one would actually buy one, making
it a
> > failure for both manufacturer and retailer.)
>
> There are four companies stopping them: Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint,
> Verizon. As I detailed in one of my post to this thread, cell service
> providers have extreemly tight relationships with the cell phone
> divisions at: Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc... These companies are
> taloring phones for the cell service providers because they are the
> distribution chain in the US. There would likely be repercusions for
> Samsung selling direct to Target, Walmart, etc... The cell service
> providers could easily boycott a brand and they could do it covertly
> and legally. So it would be risky and the vendors can't afford to take
> those risk.
Nokia and Motorola have enough clout to bypass the providers, and their
phones are in-demand enough that carriers would still buy the hot models.
Besides, this would be a golden opportunity for lesser known brands
(here) to gain a foothold- like Panasonic, who for years sold the
smallest GSM phonse in the world, but couldn't entice a single US carrier
to offer them. (My wife uses a G51 I bought on eBay for $80 and people
still marvel at it's size even though it was discontinued two years ago!)
> One company (HTC) is doing just that, but they are in a
> unique position being the sole manufacturer of Microsoft SmartPhone
> devices, they have some leverge, in that they offer a unique product
> that Cingular, Verizon, etc.. can't easily go to another vendor an
> obtain for the same price. but HTC hasn't found wide distrubtion yet. I
> believe their model represents the future.
Perhaps- Nokia is finally building retail outlets here in the US and
selling unlocked phones. I think it will have very limited appeal- geeks
like me will like it, but most consumers will stay with the status quo-
contracts and "new every two" phones.
> > You're probably too young to remember, but originally cellular phones
> > were sold unsubsidized and without contract here in the US. The cell
> > companies came up with the subsidy idea to reduce the cost to the
> > customer and make cellular a mass-market item. Getting a $700 phone
for
> > $400 or eventually a $400 phone for $99 allowed cellular to take off,
> > rather than be a business-only or the rich person's purchase.
> >
>
> Yeah, but you have to account for this being 2006, phones don't cost
> $700 anymore.
Some high-end phones like the HTC PPCs do. I chose to resign a contract
with T-Mo recently to get an MDA (HTC Wizard) for $249 rather than pay
$499 for it. A $200 discount was certainly worth a 1-year renewal with a
service I've had for 5 years and am happy with. Win-win.
> Asian factories outside the reach of OSHA and other US
> regulations have really brought the cost down on consumer electronics.
> A moden phone today can be had unsubsidized for around $200 that will:
> act a digital camera, a mp3 player, allow browsing of the internet, and
> run mobile software applications built with Java2. We've seen a
> transition in the last three years especially from handheld phone to
> handheld computer with phone capabilities, again SmartPhones represent
> the future and the dynamics change.
Yes and no. Some people just won't care. In a year with her G51 my wife
has never even fired up the browser to check the weather. For her, it
doesn't matter how "smart" phones get- they'll still be voice devices.
>
> > When Sprint launched their PCS service they did it without contracts,
and
> > were selling $200 phones while the analog guys were giving free phones
> > with contract. It didn't take Sprint long to adjust their business
model
> > to "free phone with contract" like everyone else, because enough
people
> > didn't see the value of paying $200 for an item that was "supposed"
to be
> > "free".
>
>
> That is the current system, still doesn't give cell providers the right
> to treat the handsets as if they own them or lock them to their
> service.
No, the law allows that! It's the definition of the free market- they're
free to stack the deck against you, and you're free to go elsewhere for
products or services.
> Skim the terms of the contract, the cell provider acknowledges
> the handsets belong to the consumer. They don't want them back, they
> put in a clause wher if the contract is broken they can charge you the
> full price of the handsets (this is always generic and always more than
> the incentive price, comes in the form of a fixed amount, I believe
> Cingular charges a flat $250.. which is about 150% more than the
> measily $100 instant rebate they give you for the phone on contract
> signing, but who cares about ehtics, let's make some money).
But in fairness to Cingular, they are still the only major service
provider that offers no-contract post-paid plans (AFAIK- this was two
years ago when I last inquired.) So arguably, anyone entering into a
contract with Cingular does it by choice.
>
> > Most people, however, aren't willing to
> > pay $200-400 for a phone when their service provider offers 10
different
> > models for "free".
> >
>
> No one forces you, however the existing system is built around getting
> the phones exclusivley from the cell service providers. I would bet
> more than 95% of the billions of cell users in the US obtain their
> phones through the service providers. I would also bet over 80% of
> those are locked in a contract of some kind.
>
I'd guess it's even higher if you discount prepaid. The real question,
however, is how many of those people would be willing to pay more for an
unsubsidized phone and have no contract? My guess is that would be a
very low number. You need to have service to use a phone, and a year
isn't that big a commitment (although, IMHO, two years is something to
avoid. I've never signed a two year commitment nor do I intend to.)>
>
> > The
> > free market, like nature, abhors a vaccum. If no-
contract/unsubsidized
> > wireless was a compelling need, a major retailer (like Wal-mart) would
> > make it happen by partnering with an MVNO or becoming one. It still
> > hasn't happened. (Hell, if Sprint couldn't make it work a decade
ago, no
> > one is likely to!)
> >
>
> I disagree, only because I think the dynamics are changing. Utimately
> it's going the consumers desire for choice and freedom that will push
> people away from the current model.
If the dynamics are changing (which I doubt), your model will co-exist
with the current one, not replace it. Most consumers like and expect
"free" phones. Some will embrace a no-contract model, but I wonder if
the increasing value of prepaid offerings will take care of that. If I
could get reasonably priced "unlimited" data from T-Mo prepaid, I'd
probably switch my postpaid plan over. $0.10/min for voice on T-Mo PPD
is reasonable.
> The cell providers will have a
> window of opportunity to adjust their practices, They really gain
> nothing from locking the devices to their service and putting
> application locks in place (the later being there to help filter
> ringtone and game purchases exclusively through their on-line stores).
Right there is what they have to gain. Every dollar spend on MMS'ing a
camera picture or ringtone to/from the phone is extra revenue from the
carrier. I simply avoid crippled handsets. My last three phones, Nokias
3650 and 3620, and my MDA, aren't crippled in function. I, as a
consumer, made my decisions and have been relatively happy with them.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
› See More: Plan pricing
- 09-12-2006, 10:03 AM #17Guest
Re: Plan pricing
On 8 Sep 2006 09:41:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>- On Nokia phones developed for Verizon, ability to transfer sounds,
>imagines and applications through the optional data cable were blocked
>"by provider".
And Verizon disabled the transflash slot on those Motorola phones so
you would have to pay them to get the pictures out of your phone.
Big bad companies, like I said. Outrageous.
- 09-12-2006, 10:21 AM #18Guest
Re: Plan pricing
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:57:47 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:
>At 08 Sep 2006 15:29:04 +0000 [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:56:49 -0600, Todd Allcock
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >It's a two-way street. We, as customers "demand" things like free
>phones
>> >every few years.
>>
>> No, that's not the problem.
>>
>> The problem is the carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment,
>> keeping competition away completely.
>
>Not really- especially with GSM. Unlocked phones can be used with
>Cingular and T-Mobile, and are readily availble if you look for them.
Hardly true. There are very few places you can buy a non "fake
subsidized" unlocked phone. Ebay is one of them, but there is hardly
competition. The unlocked ones are usually lots more than the carrier
locked ones. That's the carriers keeping a stranglehold on the
equipment again.
>
>> If Walmart had a wall full of multi carrier Nokia, LG, Motorola and
>> Samsung phones at competitive prices that had no connection to any
>> carrier except being compatible technology this would not be
>> occurring.
>
>Sure it would- those "competitive prices" would be $100 and up. Most
>people would still take a free phone (and contract).
Maybe, but if you break or lose your phone lots of people would find
it better to buy one off the wall a Walmart. I wouldn't sign a
contract in order to get a phone except as a last resort.
Unfortunately that's how it's been.
Ya know, I asked Cingular if I could activate a phone on one of their
plans without a contract, without them giving me or even selling me a
discounted phone. There was no way to get that. I couldn't bring my
own. I argued that the only reason I would get a "contract" is in
order to get a phone from them, and I ought not have to have one if I
am not getting a phone. Nope. Impossible.
At the local store and by email and by chat on their site and on the
phone with their phone reps. Same story. NOPE.
Hardly sounds like an open competitive market to me.
>> They would be competing on equipment with Target, Sears,
>> online sellers, etc. Prices would decline and more reflect the value
>> of those products. How much do you think it really costs Motorola to
>> make a phone at a plant in Mexico? China? $4? $6?
>
>Wholesale costs of cellphones are much higher than you seem to think.
>Even "cheap" low-end phones wholesale for $40-50. If Walmart was content
>to have a 2% margin (and they aren't!) that would be a $41 phone with no
>frills.
Those are fake wholesale costs. If there was competition between
manufacturers without the carriers involved at all those prices would
decline due to competition.
>> And before
>> anyone brings up the CDMA/GSM compatibility argument remember the ATT
>> quad band phones? They can do it, if they wanted but they have no
>> incentive.
>
>Correct- because so few people would want or need one, that no one could
>afford to build one, especially given the short product curve of today's
>wireless market- models are replaced every six months or so.
>
>> Motorola would be selling CDMA/GSM phones on the wall at
>> Walmart if they could.
>
>What's stopping them? (Except no one would actually buy one, making it a
>failure for both manufacturer and retailer.)
As things are you are right, there is no need. Just try to get a CDMA
phone activated on Sprint or Verizon that they didn't sell. NOPE.
>> Equipment would be *much* cheaper, and you wouldn't have to sign a new
>> contract to get a new phone.
>Then why aren't phones dirt cheap in Asia or Europe? Because phones
>aren't as cheap as you seem to think.
>
>> The only purpose of the *free* phones is
>> to keep you signed up to long contracts all the time.
>
>You're probably too young to remember, but originally cellular phones
>were sold unsubsidized and without contract here in the US. The cell
>companies came up with the subsidy idea to reduce the cost to the
>customer and make cellular a mass-market item. Getting a $700 phone for
>$400 or eventually a $400 phone for $99 allowed cellular to take off,
>rather than be a business-only or the rich person's purchase.
Hardly. My first cellular phone was an AT&T speakerphone on PacTel
Cellular in LA. It was about 25# and screwed in my car. It was
expensive too. $45 a month plus 45 cents/minute for all calls.
I paid $700 for it. I had one of the first portable phones too. A
Samsonite briefcase with a phone and lead acid battery. Weighed about
45#. Man, you would be sitting in a restaurant and the phone would
ring, you would open your briefcase and take out the handset, with
it's cord. Was that FUN. People thought I was a really big wheel.
>When Sprint launched their PCS service they did it without contracts, and
>were selling $200 phones while the analog guys were giving free phones
>with contract. It didn't take Sprint long to adjust their business model
>to "free phone with contract" like everyone else, because enough people
>didn't see the value of paying $200 for an item that was "supposed" to be
>"free".
And Sprint never ever advertised that. They should have promoted the
no contract idea. "you'll love us or you'll dump us, so we will make
you happy"
I was one of their first customers, the service and coverage sucked.
Maybe they knew they needed to lock users in to keep them around.
>> The phones
>> aren't *free*, they are part of the marketing.
>>
>> >Think about it- your cable company doesn't give you a new TV every two
>> >years, or the gas Company doesn't buy you a new stove.
>> If you could only buy a tv from your cable company and nowhere else
>> this would be a valid argument. Glad that's not true.
>
>Again, with GSM providers no one forces you to get your phone from the
>company. Online vendors and even mainstream retailers like CompUSA sell
>unlocked unsubsidized phones. Most people, however, aren't willing to
>pay $200-400 for a phone when their service provider offers 10 different
>models for "free".
Times have changed, manufacturing volumes are very high now. Costs
should be declining on equipment but the market is being distorted by
the carrier's involvement.
- 09-12-2006, 10:59 AM #19Grant EdwardsGuest
Re: Plan pricing
On 2006-09-12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ya know, I asked Cingular if I could activate a phone on one
> of their plans without a contract, without them giving me or
> even selling me a discounted phone. There was no way to get
> that.
I did.
> I couldn't bring my own.
I did.
> At the local store and by email and by chat on their site and on the
> phone with their phone reps. Same story. NOPE.
You can on the prepaid plans.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Thousands of days of
at civilians... have produced
visi.com a... feeling for the
aesthetic modules --
- 09-12-2006, 12:41 PM #20Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Plan pricing
At 12 Sep 2006 16:21:15 +0000 [email protected] wrote:
> Hardly true. There are very few places you can buy a non "fake
> subsidized" unlocked phone. Ebay is one of them, but there is hardly
> competition.
CompUSA, Fry's, some independent phone dealers, several online web
Vendors (non-eBay) like TigerDirect, Geeks.com, etc.
> The unlocked ones are usually lots more than the carrier
> locked ones. That's the carriers keeping a stranglehold on the
> equipment again.
No, that's the carrier offering a discount in return for a comittment.
While I'm not a big fan of contracts, I recently signed a one-year w/T-Mo
to get my MDA for $250. I could've bought it w/out contract for $450, or
bought an unlocked version for about $500-600. Since I didn't intend to
leave T-Mo, I figured why not take the subsidy? I've been with T-Mo for
5 or 6 years and had no plans to leave. Worst case scenario I eat a $200
ETF, which makes the phone "regular price" again.
>
> Maybe, but if you break or lose your phone lots of people would find
> it better to buy one off the wall a Walmart. I wouldn't sign a
> contract in order to get a phone except as a last resort.
In most cases you could use a Wal-Mart prepaid phone as a replacement for
far less than an unsubsidized phone from the carrier. For example, a low-
end T-Mobile Nokia 6010 is a $30 pre-paid phone or $100 from T-Mo w/o
contract. You could buy the $30 version, throw away the SIM and use it
as a replacement on your contract.
> Ya know, I asked Cingular if I could activate a phone on one of their
> plans without a contract, without them giving me or even selling me a
> discounted phone. There was no way to get that. I couldn't bring my
> own. I argued that the only reason I would get a "contract" is in
> order to get a phone from them, and I ought not have to have one if I
> am not getting a phone. Nope. Impossible.
>
> At the local store and by email and by chat on their site and on the
> phone with their phone reps. Same story. NOPE.
Thanks for clearing that up. I have done a couuple of years ago when I
needed temporary service with fax capability for a business, but that was
in 2003 or 2004, IIRC.
>
> Hardly sounds like an open competitive market to me.
Sure it is- the free market is also (sadly) a two-way street. Companies
can market their service in anyway they see fit legally, and we're free
to buy or not to buy
Again, if you want no contract Cingular service, use a reseller like
Consumer Cellular (savecell.com).>
> >Wholesale costs of cellphones are much higher than you seem to think.
> >Even "cheap" low-end phones wholesale for $40-50. If Walmart was
content
> >to have a 2% margin (and they aren't!) that would be a $41 phone with
no
> >frills.
> Those are fake wholesale costs. If there was competition between
> manufacturers without the carriers involved at all those prices would
> decline due to competition.
What do you mean by "fake wholesale" price. I'm talking about the price
a carrier pays for their phones in high-volume orders. That's a "true" a
wholesale price as you can get.
>
> >What's stopping them? (Except no one would actually buy one, making
it a
> >failure for both manufacturer and retailer.)
> As things are you are right, there is no need. Just try to get a CDMA
> phone activated on Sprint or Verizon that they didn't sell. NOPE.
Correct- again, that's the "free market" at work. No service provider is
forced to let you use any equipment you'd like, and you're not forced to
use them.
You don't really want a free market (which is fine), you want a
government regulated market with consumer protections mandated. Again,
there's nothing wrong with wanting that- just don't pretend that's what a
free market is.
> Hardly. My first cellular phone was an AT&T speakerphone on PacTel
> Cellular in LA. It was about 25# and screwed in my car. It was
> expensive too. $45 a month plus 45 cents/minute for all calls.
>
> I paid $700 for it. I had one of the first portable phones too. A
> Samsonite briefcase with a phone and lead acid battery. Weighed about
> 45#. Man, you would be sitting in a restaurant and the phone would
> ring, you would open your briefcase and take out the handset, with
> it's cord. Was that FUN. People thought I was a really big wheel.
So how is today's market worse? If you assume the EFT reflects a fair
discount off of a phone price (which it is on high-end phones- certainly
not on a low-end freebie) you can accept the EFT as an upfront rebate
that you repay if you cancel early.
I'd like the freedom to purchase any company's service without a
contract, but I'd like it as an option in addition to the current system,
not instead of it. The discount-for-contract game has it's advantages,
particularly as new services are rolled out. My MDA will be a dog when T-
Mo rolls out 3G next year, and I might be in the market for it's
replacement. Why wouldn't I want to spend $300 for it instead of $500 or
more if I intend to stay with T-Mobile?
> >When Sprint launched their PCS service they did it without contracts,
and
> >were selling $200 phones while the analog guys were giving free phones
> >with contract. It didn't take Sprint long to adjust their business
model
> >to "free phone with contract" like everyone else, because enough people
> >didn't see the value of paying $200 for an item that was "supposed" to
be
> >"free".
> And Sprint never ever advertised that. They should have promoted the
> no contract idea. "you'll love us or you'll dump us, so we will make
> you happy"
>
> I was one of their first customers, the service and coverage sucked.
> Maybe they knew they needed to lock users in to keep them around.
They offere contractless service for at least a year before changing the
business model (IIRC, the words "no contracts!" were prominently printed
directly on the box of that original handset they offered for $199.)
> >Again, with GSM providers no one forces you to get your phone from the
> >company. Online vendors and even mainstream retailers like CompUSA
sell
> >unlocked unsubsidized phones. Most people, however, aren't willing to
> >pay $200-400 for a phone when their service provider offers 10
different
> >models for "free".
>
> Times have changed, manufacturing volumes are very high now. Costs
> should be declining on equipment but the market is being distorted by
> the carrier's involvement.
No, it's being distorted by increased feature sets. RCN (a wireless
industry trade paper) recently ran an article about how companies like
Motorola and Nokia were racing to develop a $10-15 wholesale phone for
use in India, since the income level there prohibits selling even what
we'd call a low-end phone. These $10 phones were single-band GSM with
b&w low-res displays, and no data services (except SMS). Essentially the
equivalent of, say, a Nokia 5190 except a bit smaller. Most US consumers
wouldn't accept a phone like that without cameras, MP3 players,
bluetooth, MMS, etc.
So costs aren't really distorted by carrier involvement, they've
essentially "bottomed out" like, for example, the laptop market has- you
really can't build a laptop with color screen and a few hours of battery
life to sell for less than $300-400, so future models at that price get
more RAM, a bigger HD, etc. as time goes by. Similarly, the wholesale
cost of a color-screen phone won't drop much below $30 for awhile, but
they'll get more advanced features as time goes on, until even a "low-
end" phone will have bluetooth, a sh*tty camera, and stereo MP3 playback.
Then, perhaps, competition will drive down ETFs, like Verizon did
recently with their new (and fairer) "pro-rated" ETF, which other
companies will eventually adopt if they feel not having it i driving
customers away.
That's the great thing about a free market- it eventually corrects
itself, even if it takes a long time to do it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
- 09-13-2006, 10:29 AM #21Guest
Re: Plan pricing
Why the hell would you want her to upgrade from a Nokia to a Samsung.
Nokias are well known for having the best reception and battery life in
the industry. The CS rep wasn't lying, that plan is surely no longer
available. Maybe shes not on the phone enough to use a plan, maybe
prepay is the way to go. I don't know why you would want her to update
her hardware so often. As long as shes using GSM shes going to have the
same reception as anyone else on the network. Plus if you're worried
about her having a phone for safety I would recommend against getting
her a new phone unless ABSOLUTELY necessary, she needs to be familiar
with her handset to be able to use it in an emergency
Ann wrote:
> The price of cell phone plans seems to be going up-up-and away. I wonder if
> the cell phone providers are connected with the petroleum industry ... as
> they continue to shake down their customers.
>
> A few years ago I wanted my mom to upgrade her phone (she had a blue nokia
> candybar phone that weighed 5 lbs.) to a flip style. At the time she had a
> $19.99 plan and only used the phone for emergency calls. The CS rep
> convinced her that the $19.99 plan no longer existed and she would have to
> bump it up to the $29.99 plan. She complained so much about the price
> difference that I gave her $240 to cover the difference for the term of the
> new contract. She is still using the Samsung phone she got and I think she
> should upgrade again ... but I don't dare mention it because now the lowest
> priced plan is $39.99.
>
> It would be great if they still had no-frills plans available for those who
> don't live on the phone (like the retired / elderly) but still need to
> communicate while away from home.
writing essentials
in Chit Chat