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?
If the non-subsidized cost is $600 and the subsidized and rebated cost is $200 (with a 2 year contract) with a $375 EFT, the monthly reduction should be $15.65 not just $10 (ie: It should go down based on how long you have paid under the contract so the EFT is fully paid off at the end of the contract - At $10 a month, you still owe $145 after 23 months). The supposed reason for an EFT is to pay back the unearned subsidized discount you got by not buying at the full price.
