Many Customers Happily Pay ETFs

I seriously doubt that Verizon or at&t have $350 ETF's in the hope that their customers will go to the competition so they can collect $350. That one time $350 is much less than what the company would get form that customer if they stay. I think the motivation is to KEEP customers. According to the OP logic if people stopped paying ETFs then carriers would stop charging so much for them. Except that if people aren't paying ETFs then that means they are staying with their carrier which as I said is exactly what the carriers want. And if carriers started charging less for ETFs people would right back to switching companies over and over.

The ETF is the most up-front, fully disclosed fee that any cell phone subscriber needs to know about. There's also ample opportunity for people to escape these fees if they are unhappy with their service.

Why aren't all the other hidden fees, the ones that you don't know about until after the you get the first bill, made known to people? These fees should be fully disclosed to the user as being part of the advertised price of service before any service agreements are signed. If a retail store advertised prices in the same manner, it would be hit with charges of false advertising, why aren't subscription-based service providers held to the same standard?

IMO laws need to be passed at the federal level that require all service providers to be able to tell you total monthly cost at the point of sale before any ink hits the contract.

I mean when I pull into the Wawa I know what its going to cost per gallon to fill my car, its not like there is a below the line "Nozzle Maintenance Fee" tacked on after I am done.

IMO laws need to be passed at the federal level that require all service providers to be able to tell you total monthly cost at the point of sale before any ink hits the contract.

I mean when I pull into the Wawa I know what its going to cost per gallon to fill my car, its not like there is a below the line "Nozzle Maintenance Fee" tacked on after I am done.

Naturally the cell carriers would fight such a law because it would prevent them from selling service at 39.95/mo and then the actual bill being closer to $60/mo.

This is why we have multi-mode and multi-band devices. It does work in the USA as I have used the same phone with SIMs on AT&T (wireless and Cingular), Suncom (while they were a separate entity) and T-Mobile networks. I have also used the same device quite successfully in three countries in Europe both while roaming with my AT&T SIM and with pre-paid local SIMs.

I do agree, it will not work for everyone as many people will not be willing to do the "integration" and troubleshooting -- should the need arise -- themselves.

I'm not sure that somebody who chooses to honor the terms of a contract can be automatically counted as being "happy" about it.

Not always sometimes the service goes down the drain.
I was an AT&T user who was very happy with their service when I got an iphone 3GS, fast forward 9 months and I had constant dropped called and very slow and unreliable 3G connection.

I paid an ETF 3 months later to switch back to Verizon.
If carriers quality was set in stone you'd be correct, but networks are constantly being upgraded, users constantly being added and issues arise that don't get resolved right away.

Like DirecTV's $480 ETF ($20 off per month) if you cancel before your 2 year commitment. And these days you don't even own the hardware anymore... it's gotta go back.