The Phone You're Paying For But Not Getting
People also forget that the carriers get screwed by fraud/non-bill pays
People using stolen information/fraud in general is a major problem for the US carriers. Some people literally don't pay their bills and then just sell the phones when they've been disconnected - and end up actually making a profit.
So while they charge you more monthly due to the subsidizing factor, they also lose a ton from people taking advantage of the system.
I'm really having a hard time understanding why people are willing to pay extra for something that is PAID OFF. When was the last time you had to continue paying the loan for your car once it was paid off?
Considering a customer can get a new subsidized phone at 20 months, it wouldn't make sense to start pulling a profit a year later in the middle of that second subsidy.
It was also common for carriers to use me to solicit business without paying me my rightful commission. A customer would come in and I would do all the work of explaining th...
Look-up the term "Investment". There is NO SUCH THING as quick and sustainable money in corporate America. If you're going to make money and survive long term, you have to have solid investments. In this case, they're investing in a consumer base that *hopefully* pays their bills and don't decide to go all fraud-central on them.
The US has the most profitable companies in the world, so don't act like we need some advice from other countries on how to run things - what we need is a less corrupt, war mongering, paid off government - not fiscal suggestions.
And that means those losses come out of OUR BILLS.
Thanks for providing yet another reason to end phone subsidies.
They don't insist on subsidizing. You can walk in and pay full price for a phone and not have the contract extended (though it doens't typically work for brand new customers) But how many choose to go that route? I'm guessing less than 1% of 1%.
Yes, you could do that, but YOU WOULD STILL BE PAYING FOR IT. How do people keep losing that thought?
When I say they insist on subsidizing phones, clearly I mean that they insist on that being their pricing structure. To try to deny that by noting that a person could pay for it and not actually take the phone is just ridiculous.
This forum is closed.