| reply to jjeffeory
Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by jjeffeory:There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. Without any ETF at all, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people, who would get service, quit, and then resell cellphones they got at deep discounts on eBay and elsewhere. Therefore, getting rid of ETFs would result in "no discounts" on cellphones. Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| This is why they should offer the plans unlinked to any phone.
IE "Bring your own phone" or "Buy what you like" and use our service. What they have been doing is using the gee whiz factor of the latest fancy phone to sell people their service contracts (iPhone, anyone?).
There should be no ETF options on every contract level. You buy the phone you want, or pick one they offer, and have the choice to pay normal price (or buy one off the Net). IE every phone should be unlocked and not bound to a particular carrier. That's been anti-competitive for years.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | I disagree- I know a cell-phone company will work in my area, if I can get a free phone by agreeing to sign up with them for a long-term contract why shouldn't I?
Now, non-contract options should be available, but I think for most consumers the current set-up is more cost-efficient than the one you are suggesting. |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by jjeffeory:There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. Without any ETF at all, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people, who would get service, quit, and then resell cellphones they got at deep discounts on eBay and elsewhere. Therefore, getting rid of ETFs would result in "no discounts" on cellphones. Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them. What about those that bring their own handset and get nothing in subsidies when they join and are unhappy and get hit with ETF. sorry TK i dont buy that arguement. is just an easy no cost way to make money off of unhappy subs.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to EPS
said by EPS:Now, non-contract options should be available, but I think for most consumers the current set-up is more cost-efficient than the one you are suggesting. Actusally that is what I am suggesting. That non-contract options should exist, and should be cheaper since there's no rebated hardware to cover.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them. Gosh, you mean we'd actually be able to do business directly with Motorola and Nokia instead of being locked into the walled garden model of carriers that see fit to disable useful features just because they don't mesh with their revenue model?
And I'd like to know why a $200 ETF is justified on a phone that retails (without a contract) for $100 and can be had in pre-paid kits for around $30-$40. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Then why is is that Verizon is trying to get me to sign up to a new contract that still has an ETF in it even though I'm sticking with the phone I've had for 2.5 years?
Why is there an ETF for contracts that don't give you a new phone? |
|
 homenodePremium
join:2007-11-18
Bullhead City, AZ | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Speaking as one of the guys that helped invent "churn", it's the "churn" that casues the need for ETFs. It used to be that phone companies had you locked-in because they were a monopoly. Then, with deregulation in the 1980's, they started competing on price. The price wars got customers "shopping" for service every few months and switching every time they got a better deal. It got worse when the phone companies started offering rebates to sweeten the churn from competitors, to the point where there were BBS's that kept the best switch deals up to date for all the phone companies out there. (Remember Dr. Bob's "Long Distance for Less"?)
Companies started instituting the ETF to add a stick to the carrot of changing vendors. Yeah, you could get 6 months free and a $100 rebate, but you had to pay it all back if you quit before the year was up. Made sense: you're going to have customer poaching going on no matter what, and most customers aren't rational consumers in that they look at the cheap price and the shiny-shiny to make a decision.
It's the air fare wars all over again. Southwest offers reasonable, fair prices in all their markets, regardless of the number of competitors they have. Other airlines, like American, Delta, Northwest, United, offer cheap fares where they compete against Southwest and HUGE fares where they don't.
Southwest doesn't have an "ETF" on its tickets - yes, you can change a ticket 5 minutes before the plane leaves and pay NO PENALTY on rebooking the flight. Every other airline has draconian ETFs - $150 change fee plus the fare change - usually double or triple the price of the original ticket.
The point in this digression: you have two completely different business models working in the airfare market. And you have customers using both - with most customers taking the "shiny-shiny" of a $100 ticket on American with no possibility of getting a refund or rebooking - instead of the $150 Southwest ticket with no strings attached. (If this wasn't true, you wouldn't have AA or DL or UA or NW in business any more.)
SO...until a telco decides to "do a Southwest" - which would be flat-rate contracts, phones purchased separately or added to the contract for a nominal or no fee, and either no ETFs or a "reasonable" ETF like one month's additional fee and the reamining cost of the phone, you'll continue to have the freebies and come-ons because customers love that "shiny-shiny" feeling...
Maybe Sprint will be the first one to do this - they need to do SOMETHING to break out of their current funk! |
|
