dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to DarkSithPro

Re: Jailbreaking cell phones to become ILLEGAL at midnight

said by DarkSithPro:

What difference does it make if you buy it subsidized, or not? You're still under contract and if you breach the contract you pay a hefty early termination fee. Either way the end result will be the same. The carrier still gets it's money. Also A lot of people root their phone to avoid additional tethering fees. It's absolutely ridiculous that the phone carrier charges you extra to use your limited data as you choose. I think people should fight back and demand roll-over unused data and unreasonable charges, along with unreasonable bloatware the carrier puts on their phones.

Difference is - if the carrier is subsidizing the phone, they are counting on x amount of revenue over the term of the contract to recoup the cost of the subsidy... Like I said - an iPhone 5 costs about $700 to buy outright, and $50 on a 3 year contract... the carrier is $650 in the hole on day 1. The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way... Cost of acquisition is the term, and it's one of the biggest expenses carriers face)

Rooting/jailbreaking is different then the lock ruling here, from what I understand, and remains completely legal.


DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2

1 edit

said by LazMan:

said by DarkSithPro:

What difference does it make if you buy it subsidized, or not? You're still under contract and if you breach the contract you pay a hefty early termination fee. Either way the end result will be the same. The carrier still gets it's money. Also A lot of people root their phone to avoid additional tethering fees. It's absolutely ridiculous that the phone carrier charges you extra to use your limited data as you choose. I think people should fight back and demand roll-over unused data and unreasonable charges, along with unreasonable bloatware the carrier puts on their phones.

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way... Cost of acquisition is the term, and it's one of the biggest expenses carriers face)

Hmmm, must be a Canadian thing. Anyways The way I understand it is if you go to the Apple store and buy an iPhone at full price the only 2 major carriers that will compliment you is AT&T and T-Mobile. Verizon and Sprint will not add the new IMEI's to their network. From what I understand is you have to buy the phones directly from Verizon and Sprint for it to be turned on in their network. This is not a hardware limitation as the 4s and 5 are world phones which can use GSM and CDMA networks...

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way...

Then why they don't set ETF accordingly to the phone price? Why do they need a new law now? Is it because they could be out of $450?

And BTW, they don't pay $650 to Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the phone as you, the individual consumer, may pay on the market. So, the cost, that you've mentioned here, is highly exaggerated.

And finally, you have explained why we have to worry about corporations and their profits and why someone (not me) needs a new law, that could punish consumer even further. Now tell me, where is the "copyright" infringement here and how it's related to DMCA?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200...

That is not correct at all, and not even close to the reality of ETF's.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

said by Juggernaut:

said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200...

That is not correct at all, and not even close to the reality of ETF's.

Straight from TELUS' website - the maximum fee is $200. Rogers talks about a "Device Savings Recovery Fee" and uses formula's I haven't seen since Gr 12 calculus... But if I get the gist of it, they are actually charging for the remaining amount of the subsidy, plus a $50 cancellation fee. Bell charges a minimum of $100 to a max of $400 to cancel early.

I was right about TELUS policy - Roger's changed theirs in '12, and I wasn't up on the changes... my bad...


DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2

said by LazMan:

said by Juggernaut:

said by LazMan:

The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200...

That is not correct at all, and not even close to the reality of ETF's.

Straight from TELUS' website - the maximum fee is $200. Rogers talks about a "Device Savings Recovery Fee" and uses formula's I haven't seen since Gr 12 calculus... But if I get the gist of it, they are actually charging for the remaining amount of the subsidy, plus a $50 cancellation fee. Bell charges a minimum of $100 to a max of $400 to cancel early.

I was right about TELUS policy - Roger's changed theirs in '12, and I wasn't up on the changes... my bad...

That seems like a real shady Policy on the companies behalf. Lets them open to cell phone scams and the such. An early termination fee should include the total cost of the smartphone minus the subsidized price you paid.


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
reply to LazMan

Yep, it's hard to keep up these days, no foul man. Quebec has totally different rules to boot.

My point was, if the device is paid for, why should they refuse to unlock it? They have their pound of flesh.

It's just greed, and nastiness after that.
--
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." ~ Albert Einstein



LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to OZO

said by OZO:

Then why they don't set ETF accordingly to the phone price? Why do they need a new law now? Is it because they could be out of $450?

And BTW, they don't pay $650 to Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the phone as you, the individual consumer, may pay on the market. So, the cost, that you've mentioned here, is highly exaggerated.

And finally, you have explained why we have to worry about corporations and their profits and why someone (not me) needs a new law, that could punish consumer even further. Now tell me, where is the "copyright" infringement here and how it's related to DMCA?

To answer your points in order:

I think they should - once the subsidy has been repaid, I think the phone should automatically be unlocked, at no charge.

The wholesale and retails cost for the handsets isn't much different - Apple and Samsung in particular, know consumers want specific handsets, more then they want a specific carrier - hell, carriers have been known to pay Apple MILLIONS to be the first to carry the iPhone in a given market... It used to be the other way 'round, that the carriers had power over the handset producers, but thanks to Apple and the iPhone, it doesn't work like that anymore.

I won't pretend to understand the DMCA, and the ever growing range of things it covers... I said I get this particualr law, strictly from an economics point of view... How does it fit under the copyright act? No eff'ing clue.


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

1 recommendation

reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

Difference is - if the carrier is subsidizing the phone, they are counting on x amount of revenue over the term of the contract to recoup the cost of the subsidy... Like I said - an iPhone 5 costs about $700 to buy outright, and $50 on a 3 year contract... the carrier is $650 in the hole on day 1. The ETFs (at least in Canada) are typically limited to about $200... So in theory, I buy a phone on contract monday for $50 - cancel it on Tuesday, and pay a $200 ETF - I'm still $450 ahead of the game; and the carrier is out $450 (they pay Apple/Samsung/HTC, etc for the device either way... Cost of acquisition is the term, and it's one of the biggest expenses carriers face)

I understand most of what is said, but as a consumer buying an iPhone for $700, general rule of thumb, 50% mark up applies to cover the man in the middle's business and profit, so reduce that to $350 for the cost initially.
If you are a big Telco buying in bulk, $100 at least would be wiped off the initial cost at least due to bulk buying, if not half of the initial $350, which would make it $175 for the cost of the $700 iPhone.
This isn't including the cost of manufacture, where you may find a realistic figure of $100 per phone could be possible.

Just putting in perspective the dollar figure here. Off the shelf cost to the consumer is considerably different from the factual cost of the phone.
These are not factual figures, but the general public can be blinded to what real term figures of the phone they buy is.
That goes for most products give or take a few percentage points. The end user doesn't think too much about this when the "newest and greatest" is forced upon them before Xmas.

This would then theoretically put the termination charge equal to costs and a few dollars for profit. Most will not go the path of unlocking and will be sucked dry by the 2 yr/$50/mth fees for the phone.
That makes $1200 for a $200 phone over a 2 year period.
I'd love to see those profits for any company I worked for.
Down Under we are charged extra for phone contracts, from $20 to $80 for phone calls on top.
I'm not sure what you see there.

Quite differing figures to your initial theories quoted here for a handful who might consider being smart about the money they spend.
Nothing illegal in that from where I sit.

On those figures the law is for the corporations to protect very high profit margins, not take care of the end users, who spent the money and want a phone that works and a service.
Microsoft on the other hand charges extra for service outside of the US, does it not?
Beautiful example of fund raising.

There is a vastly differing cost to margin most people do not see, and an employee saying this would be sacked and or sued depending on the cost to the corporation from those words.
Laws are in place to cover the corporation here too, not the person who sees a company ripping blind the general public.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

Difference is, my numbers didn't come out of my ass... As I said earlier; the cell carriers get no great breaks in cost as compared to retail anymore; the iPhone was a game changer in that regard. You can say there's a 50% or better markup, but doesn't make it true...

Anyways...



Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

said by LazMan:

Difference is, my numbers didn't come out of my ass... As I said earlier; the cell carriers get no great breaks in cost as compared to retail anymore; the iPhone was a game changer in that regard. You can say there's a 50% or better markup, but doesn't make it true...

Anyways...

Here's some numbers for you that won't just fly out of an ass.... I didn't specifically see you quote crap. Here in the US things are quite different than you describe.

I recently bought an HTC one X+ from AT&T. AT&T charges 199.99 with a contract and an ETC of $325. With fees and crap, that phone ended up costing $250 out of pocket directly from AT&T. Phone $250 + ETF $325 = $575. If we use what AT&T claims as the regular price, which is $549, then you can clearly see that if you buy the phone subsidized, then pay the ETF, you will end up paying more than the regular price AT&T claims the phone costs if you were to cancel.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

said by Lagz:

Here's some numbers for you that won't just fly out of an ass.... I didn't specifically see you quote crap. Here in the US things are quite different than you describe.

I recently bought an HTC one X+ from AT&T. AT&T charges 199.99 with a contract and an ETC of $325. With fees and crap, that phone ended up costing $250 out of pocket directly from AT&T. Phone $250 + ETF $325 = $575. If we use what AT&T claims as the regular price, which is $549, then you can clearly see that if you buy the phone subsidized, then pay the ETF, you will end up paying more than the regular price AT&T claims the phone costs if you were to cancel.

199.99+325 = 524.99 by my math... "Fees and crap" aren't part of the phone price; that's part of the activation of the service - and you'd end up paying those even if you bought the phone outright...

$525 $549 - it's not much of a discount, but it's still a bit of one...

We're getting bogged down in details here, though; and getting off on to a bit of a tangent - like I've said; I have no issue with the concept of the law (even though the punishments are inflated, and no doubt meant to scare people who run unlock businesses, rather then actual end users; and I have no idea where it honestly fits in to the DMCA) - but the idea behind it; that a phone is locked to the subsidizing carrier UNTIL the subsidy is paid out, I have no problem with...

But the flip side should be that when the subsidy is paid out, the phone is automatically unlocked at no charge to the end user...


Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

said by LazMan:

said by Lagz:

Here's some numbers for you that won't just fly out of an ass.... I didn't specifically see you quote crap. Here in the US things are quite different than you describe.

I recently bought an HTC one X+ from AT&T. AT&T charges 199.99 with a contract and an ETC of $325. With fees and crap, that phone ended up costing $250 out of pocket directly from AT&T. Phone $250 + ETF $325 = $575. If we use what AT&T claims as the regular price, which is $549, then you can clearly see that if you buy the phone subsidized, then pay the ETF, you will end up paying more than the regular price AT&T claims the phone costs if you were to cancel.

199.99+325 = 524.99 by my math... "Fees and crap" aren't part of the phone price; that's part of the activation of the service - and you'd end up paying those even if you bought the phone outright...

$525
One example is the AT&T upgrade fee, which is $36. Yes you can with some hassle get that removed, but the fee is still charged to your account. This fee is to help recover the cost of the phone. I know, I used to work for AT&T when it was Cingular back when they instituted this policy. That fee is rarely ever mention at the point of sale(at least not back then, nor this time when I was the buyer). This is one of many tactics that is used in order to recover the cost of the phone. You opened this can of worms and it is not at all off topic.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football.


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by Lagz:

One example is the AT&T upgrade fee, which is $36. Yes you can with some hassle get that removed, but the fee is still charged to your account. This fee is to help recover the cost of the phone. I know, I used to work for AT&T when it was Cingular back when they instituted this policy. That fee is rarely ever mention at the point of sale(at least not back then, nor this time when I was the buyer). This is one of many tactics that is used in order to recover the cost of the phone.

I've been with Verizon Wireless since their inception. I deal with them a lot online. They are all ways trying to get me to upgrade. I all most did it once about six months ago. I was going through the step by step process online---picking the phone, picking the plan, and so on. Screen after screen but...its not until the last screen the upgrade fee of $30 appears. Upgrade when I am doubling my bill with the new plan, plus forking over $250 plus bucks! Heck, it they are going to want that $30 dollars they should simply bury it somewhere the cost of the phone or some other way rather than saving it till the end and then insult me by not only charging it but hiding it until the very end of the order process.

I stopped the upgrade at that time just on principle and my indignation of the upgrade fee.
--
The signal is usually drowned out by the noise.