On Cell Phone Forums
Like Tree52Likes
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 165
  1. #101
    GreatWhitesSAs
    GreatWhitesSAs is offline
    Junior Member

    Posts
    8 - liked 3 times

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    On top of all this, Verizon, and other companies, want to get the gov. to allow them to increase their early termination fees, they claim it is to address customers that want upgrade their cellphones, imply that all those customers that want to upgrades to better phones and only have one or two-versions away from the latest-upgraded phones or even just latest phones. That is BLANK!! The early termination fees is prevent us from getting better deals and phones! For which we have already mentioned is kept away from us, unless we pay a keep from becoming out of date cellphone or crapping out cellphone fee to the companies they only allow to insure their phones (wonder, if they are working together to even greater degree, like I*) Go to yahoo and check their Tech blog about this.

    *- Current transparent cooperation is illegal, just government lets it happen. Think The NFL and MLB, allowed to walk all over current weak antitrust laws (compared to pre-1980s Antitrust Laws).



    See More: Asurion cell phone insurance review!
    Last edited by GreatWhitesSAs; 11-04-2009 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Forgot to mention the government determines if they will allowed to do this.
    realitybites44 likes this.




  2. #102
    nicknrm
    nicknrm is offline
    Super Moderator
    nicknrm's Avatar

    Cell Phone
    Samsung LTE MiFi
    Carrier
    Verizon Wireless
    Location
    Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,884 - liked 297 times
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    I highly doubt Verizon or T-Mobile (which wasn't mentioned) would EVER ask the government to allow them to increase the Early Termination Fees.

    Verizon Wireless was the first provider to prorate the ETF, meaning you only paid a fair amount to terminate. The ETF amount starts at $175 and is reduced by $5 each month you maintain service. T-Mobile was the second provider to start something similar and then Sprint and AT&T were both court ordered to start this.

    The Early Termination Fees have nothing to do with allowing you to get a better phone or deal. You agreed to Verizon (or whoever the carrier may be) to their Terms of Service and that you will maintain either a one or two year agreement and keep service for that duration. Verizon Wireless allows you to upgrade at the one year mark to a new phone at the 2-year pricing without paying an early termination fee if you're a myVerizon online member and on a select calling plan (most, if not all are in this select group). AT&T also lets you upgrade without a lot of penalties at one year.

    Think of it this way, if you agree to a particular deal when buying a house and you back out, you may lose your escrow money! Same idea.


    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhitesSAs View Post
    On top of all this, Verizon, and other companies, want to get the gov. to allow them to increase their early termination fees, they claim it is to address customers that want upgrade their cellphones, imply that all those customers that want to upgrades to better phones and only have one or two-versions away from the latest-upgraded phones or even just latest phones. That is BLANK!! The early termination fees is prevent us from getting better deals and phones! For which we have already mentioned is kept away from us, unless we pay a keep from becoming out of date cellphone or crapping out cellphone fee to the companies they only allow to insure their phones (wonder, if they are working together to even greater degree, like I*) Go to yahoo and check their Tech blog about this.

    *- Current transparent cooperation is illegal, just government lets it happen. Think The NFL and MLB, allowed to walk all over current weak antitrust laws (compared to pre-1980s Antitrust Laws).
    realitybites44 likes this.
    Send Nick a PM

    I hope you found this post helpful. Choose Like/Thanks, if you did




  3. #103
    GreatWhitesSAs
    GreatWhitesSAs is offline
    Junior Member

    Posts
    8 - liked 3 times

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    Quote Originally Posted by nicknrm View Post
    I highly doubt Verizon or T-Mobile (which wasn't mentioned) would EVER ask the government to allow them to increase the Early Termination Fees.

    Verizon Wireless was the first provider to prorate the ETF, meaning you only paid a fair amount to terminate. The ETF amount starts at $175 and is reduced by $5 each month you maintain service. T-Mobile was the second provider to start something similar and then Sprint and AT&T were both court ordered to start this.

    The Early Termination Fees have nothing to do with allowing you to get a better phone or deal. You agreed to Verizon (or whoever the carrier may be) to their Terms of Service and that you will maintain either a one or two year agreement and keep service for that duration. Verizon Wireless allows you to upgrade at the one year mark to a new phone at the 2-year pricing without paying an early termination fee if you're a myVerizon online member and on a select calling plan (most, if not all are in this select group). AT&T also lets you upgrade without a lot of penalties at one year.

    Think of it this way, if you agree to a particular deal when buying a house and you back out, you may lose your escrow money! Same idea.
    Comparing The Early Termination Fees (of cellphone companies) and mortages is a bad comparision. Unless, you talking about how USA Gov. has done mortages and financial management for the past 31+-years, the most recent banking and financial criss, recession and how are Gov. officials have dealt with the banking and financial criss; then it is every good comparision. Before the late 70s we would not be full-board for bailing-out the banks and financial companies that caused the crises by creating expensive departments just to figure-out ways to fool the people in need for mortages and loans on their homes. Let alone derivitives (sp?) which is fruadant process to be providing other industries with protection on their bad mortages and loans. Plus, we did not have coorporate media that spent the first-two-years blaming the people that were fooled into taking the mortages, because god for bid the need a place to live and all their politicians tell them that this is the good times and buying a house instead of apartment was a must. Heck those companies even ignored their own departments that told them they making dangerous mortages and loans, that would eventually take down their companies.

    All that being said does even matter or even address my point.
    Simple, thing is The Early Termination Fee (concept) in itself is a legal (my understanding), but only one of many horrible business practices (many of the other are valitations of Antitrust Laws). But I ask if you do not want to trap your customers into staying in contractual requirements that bleed your customers out of money, one minimum sized charge at a time (on top of the other charges that build up to super large charges), then why do you even need The Early Termination Fee, let alone ask for increasing them (as the blog points-out, when one reads it)? The companies always say they must protect themselves from people just leaving their debts, on the companies to pay*. When the real problem is that they want to sell something to customers cannot afford to have it, And why does all those people think they have to have it, simple the companies have Gov. and commericalization to use in making every person avoid feeling out of touch. Here is a solution, straight from our grandparents and great grandparents generations (oh, I guess the younger generations' generational fight just tuned themselves out), strenghten The USA Gov. regulations, of cellphone industry, require the customers to have to pay a UP-FRONT and high price that NOTHING to do with making HUGE and SHORT TERM profits and making sure the customers will be able pay for what they are receiving and they will be able to pay for what they will receive in the near future. End of problem, except it does not get you and the industry the huge and short term profits that your industry lives off of, until your industries' monopolizing and antitrust practices, paying politicians to prevent true regulations and monopolies become so toxic to your own companies that one-set of incidents cause your industry to need bailing-out. Bailed-out by other industries that need youir industry to survive? I am crasy, no bailed-out through our tax-payer money.

    This is another problem with comparing home mortages to cellphone pays/renting, Home are necessary and cellphones are not and never will be. No matter how many times our personal conversations and businesses tell us they are.

    *- Our Federal Gov. in most cases bails out these debts.
    Along with the locking people into one-insurance company for their cellphones replacements, only allowed to get another crapy cellphone that is only-one model up (only once you claim for a replacement), thus unless you are wasting additional money or trying to cheat the insurance and cellphone company you are going to receive a outdate cellphone and etc.
    Your and other's arguement that well the customers signed the contract is an arguement that only works in The USA and other countries that have let Big Business take over. If our government actually regulated industries, such as Telecommunications and other industries cellphones apply in, with a biased for the big business or had the departments to actually regulate (like The European countries), then the selection that the customers have, most contracts and Antitrust Laws would be drastically changed. We have grown-up (37-years old) with industries that all the companies come together and decide what to do as group pushing the profits ever so high/actually what Antitrust Laws where created in the first place for. When monopolizing practices are allowed it kills smaller business ability to compete, thus creates monopolies. Same thing was happening before Former President FDR forced them to either change or broke-up the companies within the industries.
    Last edited by GreatWhitesSAs; 11-05-2009 at 11:35 AM.
    realitybites44 likes this.



  4. #104
    nicknrm
    nicknrm is offline
    Super Moderator
    nicknrm's Avatar

    Cell Phone
    Samsung LTE MiFi
    Carrier
    Verizon Wireless
    Location
    Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,884 - liked 297 times
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    For other agreements that people break, in some cases you land in jail!

    You're missing the concept. It is an AGREEMENT.

    Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile (now that I think of it may have something similar) have a Month-To-Month type thing where you still need to pass a credit check but there are NO CONTRACTS involved and it DOES NOT have an early termination fee and it is NOT pay as you go.


    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhitesSAs View Post
    Comparing The Early Termination Fees (of cellphone companies) and mortages is a bad comparision. Unless, you talking about how USA Gov. has done mortages and financial management for the past 31+-years, the most recent banking and financial criss, recession and how are Gov. officials have dealt with the banking and financial criss; then it is every good comparision. Before the late 70s we would not be full-board for bailing-out the banks and financial companies that caused the crises by creating expensive departments just to figure-out ways to fool the people in need for mortages and loans on their homes. Let alone derivitives (sp?) which is fruadant process to be providing other industries with protection on their bad mortages and loans. Plus, we did not have coorporate media that spent the first-two-years blaming the people that were fooled into taking the mortages, because god for bid the need a place to live and all their politicians tell them that this is the good times and buying a house instead of apartment was a must. Heck those companies even ignored their own departments that told them they making dangerous mortages and loans, that would eventually take down their companies.

    All that being said does even matter or even address my point.
    Simple, thing is The Early Termination Fee (concept) in itself is a legal (my understanding), but only one of many horrible business practices (many of the other are valitations of Antitrust Laws). But I ask if you do not want to trap your customers into staying in contractual requirements that bleed your customers out of money, one minimum sized charge at a time (on top of the other charges that build up to super large charges), then why do you even need The Early Termination Fee, let alone ask for increasing them (as the blog points-out, when one reads it)? The companies always say they must protect themselves from people just leaving their debts, on the companies to pay*. When the real problem is that they want to sell something to customers cannot afford to have it, And why does all those people think they have to have it, simple the companies have Gov. and commericalization to use in making every person avoid feeling out of touch. Here is a solution, straight from our grandparents and great grandparents generations (oh, I guess the younger generations' generational fight just tuned themselves out), strenghten The USA Gov. regulations, of cellphone industry, require the customers to have to pay a UP-FRONT and high price that NOTHING to do with making HUGE and SHORT TERM profits and making sure the customers will be able pay for what they are receiving and they will be able to pay for what they will receive in the near future. End of problem, except it does not get you and the industry the huge and short term profits that your industry lives off of, until your industries' monopolizing and antitrust practices, paying politicians to prevent true regulations and monopolies become so toxic to your own companies that one-set of incidents cause your industry to need bailing-out. Bailed-out by other industries that need youir industry to survive? I am crasy, no bailed-out through our tax-payer money.

    This is another problem with comparing home mortages to cellphone pays/renting, Home are necessary and cellphones are not and never will be. No matter how many times our personal conversations and businesses tell us they are.

    *- Our Federal Gov. in most cases bails out these debts.
    Along with the locking people into one-insurance company for their cellphones replacements, only allowed to get another crapy cellphone that is only-one model up (only once you claim for a replacement), thus unless you are wasting additional money or trying to cheat the insurance and cellphone company you are going to receive a outdate cellphone and etc.
    Your and other's arguement that well the customers signed the contract is an arguement that only works in The USA and other countries that have let Big Business take over. If our government actually regulated industries, such as Telecommunications and other industries cellphones apply in, with a biased for the big business or had the departments to actually regulate (like The European countries), then the selection that the customers have, most contracts and Antitrust Laws would be drastically changed. We have grown-up (37-years old) with industries that all the companies come together and decide what to do as group pushing the profits ever so high/actually what Antitrust Laws where created in the first place for. When monopolizing practices are allowed it kills smaller business ability to compete, thus creates monopolies. Same thing was happening before Former President FDR forced them to either change or broke-up the companies within the industries.
    realitybites44 likes this.
    Send Nick a PM

    I hope you found this post helpful. Choose Like/Thanks, if you did




  5. #105
    GreatWhitesSAs
    GreatWhitesSAs is offline
    Junior Member

    Posts
    8 - liked 3 times

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    Quote Originally Posted by nicknrm View Post
    For other agreements that people break, in some cases you land in jail!

    You're missing the concept. It is an AGREEMENT.

    Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile (now that I think of it may have something similar) have a Month-To-Month type thing where you still need to pass a credit check but there are NO CONTRACTS involved and it DOES NOT have an early termination fee and it is NOT pay as you go.
    No, I understand, about contracts/agreements and it not being pay as you go. I have my own company that uses contracts and payments per service. I am not trying to go against companies having costs for those that break contracts, if I was I would be going against my own company. By the way contracts are just strong (maybe even illegal*) agreements with conditions. If one is signing a written agreement with a authorized individual's signature (of some kind) then yes that is a contract/agreement between one and the company.
    *-Remember not to skip this extremely important point, The USA & State Gov. determine what is a legal contract or not legal contract, let alone takes actions to void contracts that they determine that are illegal. No matter if the contract is written perfect or involves someone who legally can agree to a contract/agreement. The founding fathers of this country were worried about this. If our Gov. (Feredal and State) was working for their citizens, then I would never even have to bring this up.
    I never was talking about pay as you go; what was talking about is not just selling your products to customers to make the immidate profit, because you have tax payer money to fall back on, but to make sure (to the best you can) your customers can pay to the future payments with are apart of the contract. When I do think about the pay as go, type of payment, if you do not use that, then cannot charge any thing per use (per minute, per text and etc). You would have to get paid some how, as the customer uses the product, thus most do Month By Month.
    However, what I do not like is that that situation is artifically jacked-up the costs for breaking contracts, set-up and reinforced by Gov. allowing damaging practices and policies to the healthy economies and markets. Since it is that situation they take avantage of their customers with practices and polices that only put more profit to the companies and lower the quality of the companies' products. The customers do not want to break the contracts, not because they cannot afford to pay a fair price for breaking the contracts. Why not ONLY apply a cost to a service &/or product, percentage of the costs that lowers with each month (determined by the lenght of the contract customers sign) of use and figuring the cost to breaking contract, by the the costs left from the months left on the contract? I understand that there are taxes (both Federal and State); however, you know when Gov. does correct un-regulatee paid for regulating then the customers have a lot of choices and not influenced or forced into choices. Under that type of conditions you know if the customers have to pay for the companies' taxes, then they have other choices and more than likely will choose a another that is close or same quality and not passing on cost of taxes to them. Of course, the taxes just are not a lot.
    I use generalities; because during this whole thread it is about non-generalities and my posts you did not either understand or agree with what are the factual situations with not just cellphone industry and seem to skip right by them.
    You also, want to focus on individual problems with the industry, as if they are separate. I do not, because they can never be in any situation; but mostly because while the individual problems are wrong and need change, the whole problems together are worse and need just as much or more changing (my view).
    Last edited by GreatWhitesSAs; 11-06-2009 at 02:51 PM. Reason: Forgot to add the point about The USA and The States Regulating What Are Contracts and Too One-Sided Contracts.
    realitybites44 likes this.



  6. #106
    Nomorasuriance
    Nomorasuriance is offline
    Newbie

    Posts
    2 - liked 3 times

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    I'm more of a bottom-line kind of guy. I carried asurian insurance for several years. I recently used their service to replace a damaged phone. They sent out a phone the next day-- yay! Or WAS it yay?

    The replacement phone seemed lighter in weight to me. But it was supposed to be the same exact model. I didn't see anything else different about it other than the fact that the label inside specifically declared it to be an Asurian replacement model. Didn't think more of it until a few days later (10 or so, past their 7-day return deali-o) when I realized that the phone reception was greatly diminished with the replacement phone (I had no reception in areas that I always had reception before). And reprogramming the phone didn't help, either. Also, I could hardly hear the ringer or feel the buzzer.

    My opinion is that I was sent an inferior phone that doesn't work as well as my previous phone. In fact, I found it barely useable. So, as a bottom-line kind of guy, I realized that I paid out a whole bunch of money for no benefit to me. I cancelled my Asurion insurance immediately and have never looked back. I do NOT recommend Asurian insurance, as I found that it would have been cheaper just to buy a new phone when I needed it. Plus, I would have been happier that way anyway.



  7. #107
    allstarmobile
    allstarmobile is offline
    Junior Member

    Posts
    8

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    The best insurance is take care of it by your self



  8. #108
    MobilePro
    MobilePro is offline
    Newbie
    MobilePro's Avatar

    Cell Phone
    HTC Hero CDMA
    Carrier
    Sprint PCS
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3 - liked 1 times

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    If my phone has movable parts (flip, slide keyboard, etc), has a retail value of $400+, or is a series phone (Blackberries, Palms, EnVs, etc) then I'm definitely getting insurance.

    $7 Total Equipment Protection (Asurion, Sprint) over the course of 22 months (standard upgrade time frame) comes out to $154+$50 deduct comes out to around $200. Phones with movable parts are likely to run into problems, and if the retail value of a phone is commonly around $400+, then I really don't want to have to worry about the outcome of an unlucky drop to ground ending its' career. Also, with a series phone, if you wait around a year (depending on when you purchased your phone in relation to when it debuted) you're likely to get an upgraded model, especially if you're a smooth talker with the Asurion representative. In 2007 I went straight from a Treo 650 to a Treo 750p via Asurion.

    Sidenote: Best Buy's relatively new Best Buy Mobile department seems to be making a lot of smart moves in the cellular world such as abolishing mail-in rebates, having a free text notification as to when you're eligible for a phone, free data transfers, and now offering their own insurance. Their insurance costs $9.99 a month, however, they never charge any deductibles, often replace your phone right in the store (no need to wait for snail mail) and if they cannot replace your phone in the store, they have loaner phones to get you by meanwhile.

    Neither insurance in my opinion is a ripoff. New phones aren't cheap and to receive complete coverage for $7/month and a $50 deduct for something that is 100% portable and travels with you constantly is not a ripoff, especially considering the retail value of phones. Here are a couple of examples of retail buy-out prices: HTC Hero = $600, Blackberry Curve = $750, Palm Pre = $700, even most free phones range from $250-$350.
    Last edited by MobilePro; 12-01-2009 at 10:44 AM.
    oldschoolct7 likes this.



  9. #109
    tessaburkett
    tessaburkett is offline
    Newbie

    Posts
    4 - liked 2 times

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    Right on!
    IN A NUTSHELL:

    Asurion charges absurd deductibles for refurb phones! They try to send you a phone that's less than half the retail value of what you insured! They try to tell you it is a "new" phone but it isn't! And if they have their way they won't even send you a charger! I am sick of organized corporate fraud and I don't think anybody should take it lying down. Read on for my story & please respond with your thoughts.

    Asurion tried to charge an $85 dollar deductible when I called for a replacement for my water-damaged MetroPCS Samsung SCH-A870. Asurion told me I'd need to keep the charger to my old phone. I said I'd like a charger also with my replacement phone. (In addition to the water damage, the charger pins were slightly bent on the charger & my old phone & it didn't charge unless I jiggled it into place.) The MetroPCS rep in the walk-in store told me I would have to pay only a $50 deductible when I asked.

    I paid $4 a month into that insurance for 28 months. When I bought my Samsung phone in August of 2007, I paid about $119 for it, and expected that with MetroGuard my insurance would at least purchase something of comparable value. Furthermore, my phone is discontinued. So I knew that when he said he was going to send me a phone without a charger, it was a refurb phone. This model phone can easily be had as refurb out on the open market for $52. I've seen it for as little as $20.

    I don't care if I get it the very next day. I want a new phone and a charger from MetroPCS with a fair retail value of $119. If I don't get it, MetroPCS won't get another thin dime from my pocket in my lifetime.

    Total Asurion wants: $85 deductible + $112 already paid in = $197
    Total Value Asurion delivers: $52 + $25 handling (and this is being charitible since its probably a phone they got for next to nothing from the MetroPCS recycle program...)
    RIPOFF AMOUNT: $120

    I could have easily bought three of these phones for what they want and had them express shipped. Don't ever buy this insurance. Cut your losses and don't accept the replacement phone if you have to pay a deductible on a refurb phone. A reasonable layperson would assume that for property insurance or replacement/warranty, the value you insure is equal, or at least comparable, to the value of the compensation.

    Asurion's website has nothing but 4 and 5 star reviews, and I would bet $$ that anyone on this forum that defends this kind of unethical business practice is either an employee or a paid shill.

    Any lawyers out there? A class action against Asurion & possibly several major carriers could make millions in punitive because this crap has probably already happened to thousands of people. I am curious as to what my legal options are and what tack any possible litigation could take. I'm so incensed about this and other corporate ripoffs that are perpetrated everyday that I want to contact a legal professional and to help others participate in a class-action lawsuit in my market area. Major cellphone carriers should have a strong disincentive from letting third-party insurers perpetrate fraud on their customers.
    Last edited by tessaburkett; 12-28-2009 at 11:39 PM. Reason: Auto-merged Double post
    realitybites44 likes this.



  10. #110
    nicknrm
    nicknrm is offline
    Super Moderator
    nicknrm's Avatar

    Cell Phone
    Samsung LTE MiFi
    Carrier
    Verizon Wireless
    Location
    Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,884 - liked 297 times
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

    Not a lawyer, but here are your legal options:


    • Discontinue the service.
    • Continue with the service

    Asurion is an OPTIONAL service. You choose to have insurance...no one forced you. Asurion is not the best company be they sure do beat not having a phone at all.

    Yes, they do send refurbs. You say they attempt to hide that they're refurbs...well they don't hide it well when there is a sticker under the battery that says "Certified Asurion Refurbished Device".

    Yes, deductibles have increased...like anything else in this world. So has the monthly coverage premiums. What service stays the same price for 5 years straight? Asurion. Until recently, their prices didn't change in quite a while.

    I do not like the customer service as you go through an automated system that is pretty lengthy. Just press 0 and you do eventually get a person.

    IN ALL OF MY EXPERIENCE, Asurion is the best choice for insurance on a wireless device. I pay $5.99 per month (even though I have the droid, an advanced device which is supposed to be $7.99 per month) this includes the extended warranty, and I have a $79 deductible. REASONABLE for a $569.00 phone. I also have WPP Insurance from Asurion on my NETBOOK for $6.00 per month with an $89.00 deductible...WHAT A VALUE!

    If you're not interested in Asurion, check in on another third party company such as Safeware (Laptop, Desktop, Tablet PC and PDA/Smartphone insurance from Safeware Insurance Agency, Inc.). They provide insurance for wireless devices and charge you based on the value of the device. They have plans with and without deductibles. They cover other household electronics too.

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaburkett View Post
    Right on!

    Any lawyers out there? A class action against Asurion & possibly several major carriers could make millions in punitive because this crap has probably already happened to thousands of people. I am curious as to what my legal options are and what tack any possible litigation could take. I'm so incensed about this and other corporate ripoffs that are perpetrated everyday that I want to contact a legal professional and to help others participate in a class-action lawsuit in my market area. Major cellphone carriers should have a strong disincentive from letting third-party insurers perpetrate fraud on their customers.
    Send Nick a PM

    I hope you found this post helpful. Choose Like/Thanks, if you did




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast