1 edit | reply to Mike_
Re: Lame said by Mike_:Lmao, talk about being scared of people leaving? What do they expect people are actually not going to like "the network".. How could that be? /sarcasm It is more about protecting against fraudsters looking to make a quick buck by flipping the phone and selling at a profit and not REAL customers who will stay or go based on service quality.
»I agree..
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Mike_:Lmao, talk about being scared of people leaving? What do they expect people are actually not going to like "the network".. How could that be? /sarcasm It is more about protecting against fraudsters looking to make a quick buck by flipping the phone and selling at a profit and not REAL customers who will stay or go based on service quality. » I agree.. VZ gets their initial fees, and they get an ETF. I don't see they really "hurting" in that situation, subsidized phone or not.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
How is paying an activation fee, paying for a phone, then paying an early termination fee being fraudulent? Perhaps it's gaming the system a little, but those who are clever enough to do so should not be punished for it. |
|
|
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:VZ gets their initial fees, and they get an ETF. I don't see they really "hurting" in that situation, subsidized phone or not. The non-subsidized price for the droid is $600 but they're selling for $200 after rebate and subsidy. If the $200 price + the old $175 ETF didn't cover the wholesale cost of the phone, they'd be losing money to people selling them on e-bay to make money.
With a $375 ETF plus the $200 price, they're coming in close to the retail price of the phone. Can't really blame them- why should they subsidize profits for people just out to sell the phone? |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by dynodb:said by ptrowski:VZ gets their initial fees, and they get an ETF. I don't see they really "hurting" in that situation, subsidized phone or not. The non-subsidized price for the droid is $600 but they're selling for $200 after rebate and subsidy. If the $200 price + the old $175 ETF didn't cover the wholesale cost of the phone, they'd be losing money to people selling them on e-bay to make money. With a $375 ETF plus the $200 price, they're coming in close to the retail price of the phone. Can't really blame them- why should they subsidize profits for people just out to sell the phone? So that is the price VZ is getting them for? Doubtful.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
 Mike_
join:2003-06-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Comcast
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
That is not a "fraudster". There is nothing wrong with a customer no longer liking their service, canceling, paying their etf as required, and legally selling an asset that is no longer usable to make back what they spent on the services. Explain how that is "fraud" ? Also, how and in what way does that hurt poor old mr. Verizon who has no say in what an individual does after a contract is closed?
--
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unless you know what you're doing. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy:How is paying an activation fee, paying for a phone, then paying an early termination fee being fraudulent? Perhaps it's gaming the system a little, but those who are clever enough to do so should not be punished for it. How is it not fradulent if someone signs a contract with no intention of honoring the terms?
Wireless providers sell subsidized phones at a loss in exchange for making the money back on subscription payments. It's unrealistic to expect them to sell (or give away) a phone at less than cost yet have no recourse against someone who doesn't honor the contract. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:So that is the price VZ is getting them for? Doubtful. I don't know what they're paying for them, but it's no doubt less than $600. It's not at all hard to believe that they might be paying more than $375 though. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by dynodb:said by ptrowski:So that is the price VZ is getting them for? Doubtful. I don't know what they're paying for them, but it's no doubt less than $600. It's not at all hard to believe that they might be paying more than $375 though. I would be extremely surprised if it was. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that they get them at a much lower price than $375.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:said by NOVA_Guy:How is paying an activation fee, paying for a phone, then paying an early termination fee being fraudulent? Perhaps it's gaming the system a little, but those who are clever enough to do so should not be punished for it. How is it not fradulent if someone signs a contract with no intention of honoring the terms? Wireless providers sell subsidized phones at a loss in exchange for making the money back on subscription payments. It's unrealistic to expect them to sell (or give away) a phone at less than cost yet have no recourse against someone who doesn't honor the contract. That is why there is an ETF in the first place. If someone is going to turn and burn them they pay the ETF, everyone is satisfied.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
| reply to ptrowski
It doesn't matter what they pay wholesale for the phone. What matters is their expected revenue over the contract period. If ebay flippers are substantially decreasing that then there's the rationale behind the increased ETF. |
|
| reply to ptrowski
It's probably not outright fraud, but it is abuse of the system, hence the increased ETF to combat abuse. |
|
NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to dynodb
Both parties to the contract have honored its terms. Verizon provides the phone and service, and the consumer pays for the phone, service, and early termination fee. Everyone is happy... at least until now, when Verizon decides to get even greedier.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:How is it not fradulent if someone signs a contract with no intention of honoring the terms? The terms called for an ETF. The ETF was paid. The terms of the contract were met. Thus there's no fraud.
said by dynodb:Wireless providers sell subsidized phones at a loss in exchange for making the money back on subscription payments. You assume they are selling subsidized smartphones at a loss. I've yet to see independent data that proves this. The fact that even if you pay the full price for a smartphone you are still require to sign a contract cast doubts on the whole 'subsidized phone' claims by the cell carriers.
said by dynodb:It's unrealistic to expect them to sell (or give away) a phone at less than cost yet have no recourse against someone who doesn't honor the contract. It's unrealistic to think they are actually giving away the smartphones in the first place.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:That is why there is an ETF in the first place. If someone is going to turn and burn them they pay the ETF, everyone is satisfied. Sure- just now the ETF is higher, and is agreed to by both parties signing the contract. You can still "turn and burn" the phone, but you're not going to be making much if any profit in the deal with a $375 ETF and thus have little incentive. |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| said by dynodb:said by ptrowski:That is why there is an ETF in the first place. If someone is going to turn and burn them they pay the ETF, everyone is satisfied. Sure- just now the ETF is higher, and is agreed to by both parties signing the contract. You can still "turn and burn" the phone, but you're not going to be making much if any profit in the deal with a $375 ETF and thus have little incentive. Right. The name of the game then becomes volume I guess. I don't turn and burn, but an ETF in theory should be going down. They can charge more for the phone if need be.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:It's probably not outright fraud, but it is perceived by Verizon suits as abuse of the system, hence the increased ETF to combat the perceived abuse. Fixed it for you.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
| said by jhboricua:said by fifty nine:It's probably not outright fraud, but it is perceived by Verizon suits as abuse of the system, hence the increased ETF to combat the perceived abuse. Fixed it for you. It isn't perceived abuse. It IS abuse if you sign a 2 yr contract to make money for yourself by flipping the phone for a quick profit with no intention at all of honoring the contract.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to jhboricua
said by jhboricua:[You assume they are selling subsidized smartphones at a loss. I've yet to see independent data that proves this. The fact that even if you pay the full price for a smartphone you are still require to sign a contract cast doubts on the whole the 'subsidized phone' claims by the cell carriers. OK, maybe "fraud" isn't the right word- but it's close.
I suggest you check out the subsidized phone prices. Unless you believe that Verizon (for instance) is only paying $50 for the HTC Ozone (and less for other low-end smartphones), then it's pretty obvious the subsidized prices are far less than wholesale cost.
Surely you don't believe that the carriers pay nothing for the "free" phones they give away. Of course they're subsidized. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:Right. The name of the game then becomes volume I guess. I don't turn and burn, but an ETF in theory should be going down. They can charge more for the phone if need be. Why should the ETF be going down when the phones are becoming much more advanced? It can't be cheap to build such a small device that acts as a phone, computer, GPS, camera, etc.
And why would they want to charge more for the phone in exchange for a lower ETF? Offering subsidized phones for under cost is the main incentive for people to sign a contract, especially after their intial one expired.
Sure, they could raise the price on phones and lower monthly rates a bit instead, but I'm pretty sure that most people would rather have lower initial costs instead of slightly lower rates.
The ETF is something a very small minority of subscribers ever end up having to pay. It only makes sense that they're going to cater to the 95% (completely made up number) who don't. |
|
