NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

At 14 Jul 2007 18:13:48 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> The idea of extending or starting a contract when you paid full price
> for the phone is insane.

I agree to a point. If other consideration is given (better rate plan,
plan discounts, etc.) in lieu of a discount on the phone itself, that's
fine too.

In the case of the iPhone, again, there's no "no-contract" price to
compare. If AT&T, for whatever reason, declared the lowly Nokia 6030 was
now only available with two year conteacts, and would henceforth sell for
$1, we'd understand that price was already discounted. Perhaps $799
would be the no-contract price for an "unlocked" iPhone? Perhaps the $20
unlimited data add-on is AT&T's consideration- who knows. In a free
market, the value of something is what a willing buyer will pay a willing
seller. A half-million folks were willing to pay $599 w/2-year
commitment andApple and/or AT&T was willing to take their money- who are
we to argue? ;-)




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

---

› See More: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

Steve Sobol wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
> On 2007-07-14, Elmo P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Sprint guy may just be hedging his bets; the FCC is making noises
>> about moving that direction with the new spectrum that's coming up in
>> February 2009 when they shut down analog TV transmission.
>
> Specifically, you won't be able to force people to use locked phones on 700
> MHz, the band in question; I've never heard anything said about contracts.
>
> Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a given
> phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL reasons
> why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel, SPrint)
> carrier?
>
>

Not likely, some friends work in positions that involve them. They say
the FCC has little involvement in technical stuff and is simply the
rubber stamp for special interests.

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Marriott wrote:
>>> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
>>> I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
>>> for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
>>> the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
>>> Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
>>>
>> Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>> iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
>> it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>
> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
> them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
> their device outright and then use it without a contract. I'm in favor
> of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
> latest model, so perhaps it wouldn't affect me.
>
Not really, it is a step in the opposite direction. You are required to
purchase the iphone outright and it requires a mandatory two year
contract with all of the normal provisions.

On 2007-07-14, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 14 Jul 2007 18:11:04 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>> Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a
> given
>> phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL
> reasons
>> why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel,
> SPrint)
>> carrier?
>
> Who knows- they weren't intelligent enough to mandate a single US digital
> standard when they should've- why care about interoperability now? You
> reap what you sow...

Of course if they'd done that they almost certainly have picked (for
good reasons) the only digital standard which, under the anything-goes
regulations, was eventually found (for good reasons) to be not worth
keeping, and we'd all stll be wondering whether it was even possible
to build a mobile phone network on CDMA technology rather than having
all 3G networks based on that now-proven technology. I suspect their
view is that not mandating a single digital standard is one of their
great successes.

Then again, the "open access" they are talking about is not the ability
to use any phone on any network, but rather the ability for manufacturers
to be able to design devices for whatever networks are built, to
design applications for those devices, and to sell the devices directly
to consumers for use on those networks without needing the approval of
the network operators. It isn't surprising that Verizon seems to be
leading the opposition to this.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2007-07-14, Elmo P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:
> advertise specifically when they say the iPhone is $499.
>
> The iPhone costs, at minimum, $499 plus the $175 ETF.
>
> What you're saying is that people are insane to pay that high a price
> for it. And the price they have to pay isn't really related to the
> price that's advertised.

People ARE insane to pay that, but the pricing is insane too. If I wanted
the phone badly enough I'd consider it, except that the contract would move
it into the "no way in hell, ever" category.

"Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously
> trying to game the system. Let's be real.

Yes, lets. The biggest "gamers" are the cellphone companies,
themselves....That's reality.

Larry
--
While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
It just isn't fair.

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4697f5c3$0$4710
[email protected]:

> A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
> only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
> Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
> unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.
>

When one party writes the contract and shoves it up the ass of the other
party for service, that one party can write anything it wants, and does,
into the contract, if it thinks it can get away with it. Any landlord is
playing the same game with his lease.

Verizon, or any of the other carriers, simply states that they can change
the contract at any time for any reason or can simply cancel it without
cause. The only requirement would be to state this up front and make the
customer agree to it....which, in cooperation with the US Government,
they've now got down to a science. You simply turn it on and you've
already agreed to everything.

I read the contracts to see if they've added anything about delivering
your first born child, attaching a lien to your house until the contract
is over, etc. They could do that at any time, with the full cooperation
of the government bureaucrats to enforce it.

Larry
--
While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
It just isn't fair.

Larry wrote:
> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4697f5c3$0$4710
> [email protected]:
>
>> A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
>> only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
>> Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
>> unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.
>>
>
> When one party writes the contract and shoves it up the ass of the
> other party for service, that one party can write anything it wants,
> and does, into the contract, if it thinks it can get away with it.
> Any landlord is playing the same game with his lease.
>
> Verizon, or any of the other carriers, simply states that they can
> change the contract at any time for any reason or can simply cancel
> it without cause. The only requirement would be to state this up
> front and make the customer agree to it....which, in cooperation with
> the US Government, they've now got down to a science. You simply
> turn it on and you've already agreed to everything.
>
> I read the contracts to see if they've added anything about delivering
> your first born child, attaching a lien to your house until the
> contract is over, etc. They could do that at any time, with the full
> cooperation of the government bureaucrats to enforce it.
>
> Larry

Again, that's what courts are for. If a judge thinks a particular clause
or even the whole contract is "against public policy" or just thinks
it's wrong or unfair, he/she can nullify all or part of the contract.
Carriers, landlords or just about anyone who has the upper hand can and
will write whatever they want into a contract. Then they can point to
the egregious clause and say "Hey, you signed it!" Some (actually most)
will say, "OK, I guess I'm stuck," and pay up. Others will say "take me
to court!" If the clause really is egregious, you won't get taken to
court because they don't want to risk having to remove the "bully"
clause.

Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
>On 2007-07-14, Elmo P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Sprint guy may just be hedging his bets; the FCC is making noises
>> about moving that direction with the new spectrum that's coming up in
>> February 2009 when they shut down analog TV transmission.
>
>Specifically, you won't be able to force people to use locked phones on 700
>MHz, the band in question; I've never heard anything said about contracts.
>
>Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a given
>phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL reasons
>why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel, SPrint)
>carrier?

Steve,

It is interesting that the FCC is headed back in that direction,
since one of the original rules with AMPS analog cellular back in 1983
was that any manufacturer's phone could be used on any carrier's
system. When the transistion to digital cellular started, the FCC
revoked that rule, which I said at the time I thought was a BIG
mistake (wonder how many $$ changed hands for that decision?).

As you've noted, there are issues of GSM vs CDMA, but if a market
develops for a universal phone, the handset mfrs. will respond.

Regards,
Bill Bowen
Sacramento, CA

"prc2u1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I work in cellular sales and it is amazing the lies people tell to get what
> they want. My boss told me when I started....80% of customers are liar's! I
> thought he was crazy. Now I know he is right.

I very much doubt it's 80%. I submit to you that what your boss told you is
an example of a businessman lying.

:-)

Of course, there are plenty of customers who lie, just are there are plenty of
salesmen that do. Customers are usually motivated by wanting to converve
their money, whereas salesmen are motivated by wanting more money. Really the
same thing...

Regarding the original topic... I'd be quite surprised if any court found that
cancellation fees in the "generic" case of the customer just deciding they
wanted to switch carriers were illegal. Companies have had similar contracts
for many decades (probably centuries), and it's a pretty reasonable setup --
in exchange for a significant up-front discount on, e.g., a phone, you
guarantee me that you'll keep subscribing for a certain period of time. If
such contracts are deemed illegal, it'll just make even the cheapest cell
phone $100 and high-end PDA phones more like $500... and I guarantee you'll
hear plenty of people then whining about _that_.

---Joel