Contracts. Why?

In alt.cellular.t-mobile Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So go buy one on eBay, newegg, or Craig's List for $30. Nobody
> is forcing you to take a "free" phone and sign a contract.
>

Sprint PCS does. Try activating a used [ESN clear] phone on a new account;
they won't do it without a contract. Hell, just swapping phones with Sprint
[even an insurance replacement ... any ESN change at all] resets the $150
credit you get towards a new phone every two years. They have the absolute
worst billing system and CRM that I have seen of any company!

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.

---

› See More: Contracts. Why?

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. They give you a $300
phone for $150 ... or sometimes if they have a sale on massive inventory or
vendor pricing discounts, they will give you the $300 for $99 or less ... but
the subsidy in this case is still $150 and the rest is money they discount
because of the manufacturer [i.e. Motorola pushing a KRZR] or to reduce
inventory on older models.

>> Why do we tolerate it?
>
> People tolerate it because they want a "free" phone.
>

Nothing is free in life and this especially applies to mobile phones.

I love Verizon, but if they don't implement the pro-rated early termination
fees as they promised to do 15+ months ago, then I may take my chances with
AT&T, because at least I can easily switch out phones via the card in the back
of the phone without risking contract changes, albeit, Verizon is pretty good
about not sneaking in contract renewals like Sprint PCS does.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.

In alt.cellular.t-mobile Elmo P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Joel Koltner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Historically contracts were used by carriers to recover the costs
>> of phones, which tended to cost much more than most people were willing to
>> "pony up" for. In other words, the marketing guys figured out it's easier to
>> sell a phone for $39 and then have them subscribe for, say, $40/mo than sell
>> a
>> phone for $239 and subscribe for $30/mo.
>
> 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.
>

Simple ... it is old inventory that is becoming obsolete and they sell it at a
discount to move it. ALL businesses that cary inventory do this, and
especially businesses that deal with evolving and in-demand technology.

> And I don't do business with Verizon.
>

No, you do business with Walmart [or perhaps the Kiosk vendor as the case may
be].

> 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.
>

Ever notice that if you go to the Verizon or any traditional mobile phone
company that does both pre-pay and post-pay that the same phone is more
expensive for pre-pay customers? Well, you see why; they are under no
commitment.

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.

> So much for the whole contract idea.
>

Never was a contract for pre-pay.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.

In alt.cellular.t-mobile Jack Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'd be surprised if they cost more than $25 to make, but exact cost
> information doesn't seem possible to get. Many people claim that
> phones really "cost" the $200-$500 that carriers charge, but I don't
> believe it. Why would phones be the only consumer electronics devices
> that don't have a huge markup?
>

NEW technology has high costs [especially phones with CDMA technology due to
Qualcomm licensing], but once it hits mass production, the price goes down.
Consider prescription drugs. Prilosec, when it was released, was very
expensive yet the same company now sells it over-the-counter quite cheaply.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.

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

(Superfluous vendor-specific groups removed from Newsgroups
line.)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> writes:
>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.
>THAT IS WRONG!

Then don't do business with Sprint and other companies that
engage in that practice.

Sprint provides lousy service anyway. See
http://blog.kamens.brookline.ma.us/~jik/wordpress/?p=75 for
my own personal Sprint horror story.

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."
>
>