Senator Targeting Verizon's New ETF Policy

What an ignorant move by someone who clearly does not understand the wireless industry. An absurd waste of taxpayers money.

ETF's don't "unfairly" raise penalties. They prevent fraud and people taking advantage of carriers and retailers.

Without ETF's, a consumer could purchase a Motorola Droid for $199, cancel it, pay a term fee of $175 (pre increase; have a total of $375 in the phone and turn around and sell it on Ebay for over $500. The consumer could win/cheat the system...however, the carrier and retailer would lose as the device itself COSTS more than $500.

What doesn't she understand about "Subsidization??" If a consumer doesn't want to be subject to a ETF or 2-year agreement; they have the option to pay a "fair" retail ...
(continues)

She's just upset because now she can't get her Storm for $49, pay one month of service ($70), Activation Fee ($35) then ETF to cancel on day 31 ($170), which equals a total of $325, instead of paying the full retail price otherwise of $499. That is why they're increasing the ETF's people. Not to be greedy, they're doing it to cover their a$$.

I'm willing to bet at the end of the day and at the end of each quarter, VZW will still net more add's of new lines over any other carrier nationwide. Besides, most customers understand the ETF purpose. They're getting a device that retails for more than someone's average rent or mortgage payment in my area for a measley $50, or in some cases Free.

To me it just seems simple....You don't lik...
(continues)

This is what I don't get. You agree to a contract to get a phone at a lower price.

It is a contract. Let's look at the definition of a contract.

From Websters: 1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable

From Blacks Law dicionary: CONTRACT - A contract is an agreement between two or more persons, including a corporation, that creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. As defined in Restatement, Second, Contracts, Section 3: "A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty." From Black's Law Dictionary, 1990 edition.

When you have time ...
(continues)

I think ETF's should have provisions for reasonably unusual or unfortunate circumstances. Just don't patronize them if you don't like their policies.

While I'm all for some oversight of some of the nonsense that wireless providers like to pull out of their butts to rack up more charges on their customers, I have to say I don't really see the problem with an increased ETF on a higher priced phone. What they *should* do, in my opinion (for what's its worth), is prorate the ETF based on the markdown provided on the phone for going under contract.

So, for the simplicity of math here, if I buy a phone that without a contract costs $560 and I buy it for $200 with a 2yr contract, I'm getting a $360 markdown. Why not just pro-rate the markdown as an ETF at $15 a month? So if I jump out of my contract after one month, I owe $345. If I jump out after a year, then I owe $180.

Maybe the ...
(continues)

Phones will only be discounted a maximum of $200 from the SRP.


Senators should take business courses before they try legislating what is "fair."

This seems a little ridiculous.Whether or not I agree with 350 dollars. They are making a business decision to prevent equipment scams based on subsidized pricing for handsets that retail at 800 plus dollars on average.
Is she one of those customers that everytime they get mad at their carrier they want a free phone or free service and if not "I'm gonna cancel" and "no I'm not paying an ETF, I didn't sign a contract" "oh yeah I got a different phone but its not an upgrade, it was a free phone"
Why not spend her energy focusing on MSRP for handsets, which would lower subsidies for the Carrier.
Oh is it because the government can f*** with carriers, but not with manufacturers??

signed I'm getting a Droid and I don't care what the ETF...
(continues)

people! if you dont want a contract buy the phone out right! you have that choice! you also have the choice to get the subsidy and sign a contract. if you're a constant switcher than you should probably buy the device out right.

it's common sense.

How would verizon not think that congress would get involved? It was under the previous threat of intervention that the ETF's were prorated. Verizon should compare the number of sales they gain by offering BOGOs on high end devices to the number they loose to people afraid of "what if" and the $350 term fees.

Just as I have thought for years. If people are going to complain and government is going to get involved...just eliminate contracts, and have customers pay full retail for phones...see where that goes...I GUARANTEE within 1 year that people will be begging for contracts, subsidies, and ETF's again....all I'm saying is....pick your poison people...

You can write her tat the following addresses.

Washington, DC

302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186

Metro Office

1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Main Line: 612-727-5220
Main Fax: 612-727-5223
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043

Southern Office

1134 7th Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Main Line: 507-288-5321
Fax: 507-288-2922

Northwestern & Central Office

121 4th Street South
Moorhead, MN 56560
Main Line: 218-287-2219
Fax: 218-287-2930

Northeastern Office

Olcott Plaza, Suite 105
820 9th Street North
Virginia, MN 55792
Main Line: 218-741-9690
Fax: 218-741-3692

Toll Free Number:

1-888-224-9043

Or email her from her webs...
(continues)

DUMB

"Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota has said that she plans to introduce new legislation to prevent wireless carriers from unfairly raising penalties on 'costumers' who cancel their contracts early."

What's a costumer???? Someone that dresses kids up in costumes?? Author, PLEASE LEARN HOW TO SPELL!!!!

🙄