Home  ›  News  ›

AT&T to Boost ETF to $325

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 28 replies

This is a load of crap

bluecoyote

May 21, 2010, 2:38 PM
Quite frankly, if you're going to charge me a $325.00 ETF to recoup on a device handset, sell me the damn phone unlocked from the start.
...
Mark_S

May 21, 2010, 4:48 PM
Bingo! US carriers suck ass when it comes to locking GSM phones to specific carriers. Europe, Asia, and other regios do not and it gives customers the flexibility not to be bound by a ball and chain to a ****ty carrier once they find out the service is bad.
CDMA does have C-SIM cards in other countries making the phones un-lockable as well.
After a certain amount of time on contract with T-Mobile USA, they will e-mail the subsidy unlock code per request. AT&T will not. They are selfish. The principle of respect going both ways is needed.
...
Versed

May 21, 2010, 9:23 PM
Mark,
AT&T will unlock after 90 days of service, except the iPhone. So know of what you're talking about. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:06 PM
C-SIM? I thought they were called R-UIM cards...
...
waldorfsalad

May 21, 2010, 4:56 PM
This is the ATT Business Plan. Watch what Verizon does, then follow suit.
...
nmunyat

May 22, 2010, 6:58 PM
Not necessarily. But, if you had an arrogant company jumping out to be the first to do everything, wouldn't you allow them to work out the kinks in a plan before implementing it yourself?

That actually is a solid business plan, as long as it doesn't get too frequent.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:11 PM
🙄
...
waldorfsalad

May 24, 2010, 6:36 PM
Not necessarily. If your company lacked vision or a roadmap, wouldn't you watch what the most succesful provider is doing and then implement it yourself?

Frequency be damned.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:10 PM
Of course it is...Stan Sigman said as much in that Business Week interview years ago where he expressed his unabashed admiration for Verizon's business model. Can you blame him or AT&T for following Verizon's lead? It works. Sure they are *Bleep*ards but they are highly successful *Bleep*ards.
...
muchdrama

May 21, 2010, 5:13 PM
bluecoyote said:
Quite frankly, if you're going to charge me a $325.00 ETF to recoup on a device handset, sell me the damn phone unlocked from the start.


Now you can't return your iPhone. Pity.
...
jacejace

May 21, 2010, 5:24 PM
Hmmm, maybe Sprint isn't so bad after all...
...
nmunyat

May 22, 2010, 7:02 PM
Sprint charges $200 regardless of device at this point. I'll be interested to see if that changes now that they're starting to get some equipment that's actually worth using. I'm thinking that the Mi-Fi devices, the Evo4G and possibly some other higher end Smartphones might start seeing some way of controlling costs, especially since Sprint continues to hemorrhage hundreds of thousands of customer (at a minimum) each quarter.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:17 PM
Sprint would be taking a major about face were they to adopt any such strategy. When Verizon announced the $350 Advanced Device ETF, Sprint was out front stating that they were not raising their ETF in any way. Yes, now they have the EVO (I still prefer Supersonic) and they probably wish they had not made that statement.
...
Versed

May 21, 2010, 9:24 PM
But you can buy an un-subsidized iphone in any Apple Store. Just pay the full price. Only real bitch I have with this is, it should be unlocked.
...
nmunyat

May 22, 2010, 7:03 PM
Apple doesn't want you using their device on another carrier. It's really not that difficult to understand.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:21 PM
Sure he understands it...he just doesn't like it. Let him vent. He'll be alright.
...
PhonemanJ

May 21, 2010, 5:24 PM
There is a way around this. You just have to purchase the phone at full retail and sign a No Commitment Agreement. Of course, that does mean paying $499, $599, or $699 for an iPhone; $500 for a Blackberry Bold 9000:$450 for a Motorola Backflip; or $520 for a Palm Pre Plus from ATT. No contract=no early termination fee. If the carriers did not subsidize the phones so deeply, then they would not have to up the ETF in order to recover their losses on the equipment. Of course, then we would hear nothing but b$&*^ing about the prices of new phones.
...
Cellenator

May 21, 2010, 5:46 PM
or be smart and get your phones off CL for way less than retail! I just got a brand spanking new DROID for 180 bucks!
...
Versed

May 21, 2010, 9:28 PM
Depends, look at unlocked phone market, Many times you can get an unbranded unlocked same model phone significantly cheaper then what AT&T or TMO charges. Sadly this does not hold true for CDMA, they're far to anal to allow unbranded compatible phones on their system.
...
nmunyat

May 22, 2010, 7:10 PM
This is only true of SIM-less CDMA, like Verizon and Sprint.

In most foreign countries that still have CDMA deployed (which are few and far between), they use a SIM card based CDMA service, which allows for devices to be used on different carriers, similar to GSM-based SIM card devices.

It has nothing to do with being too anal - AT&T actually is the most anal about devices it allows to carry it's branding and work on its network.
...
nmunyat

May 22, 2010, 7:06 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself.

You subsidize devices and charge ETFs to cover losses? People whine and complain.

You offer them no-contract options without equipment subsidies? People whine and complain.

It just seems like people are going to whine and complain because, well, they can.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:43 PM
Very astute observation. Consumers want everything for nothing. Work in retail for a few years and learn to grit your teeth and bear it when a customer states that they should be given the most expensive phone your company carries simply because they've been a customer for four years. They don't care if the company goes bankrupt in a year. But it's okay... The company doesn't give a damn about them either.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:27 PM
of course, you DO realize that your post is way too rational for this discussion.
...
bluecoyote

May 24, 2010, 6:34 PM
I don't have a problem with the ETF as long as it equates to the no-contract price. So if you cancel, it's not big deal- you just pay what you would've saved.

My problem is the phone isn't unlocked when you cancel. I don't get it, you've paid for the phone, you've bought it at full price, but you still don't get to bring it with you.

Verizon doesn't have to because with CDMA you're basically stuck on their network period. Enjoy your brick. AT&T is a GSM provider.
...
nmunyat

May 22, 2010, 7:12 PM
Deal.

Most carriers would be more than happy to sell you the device outright, and sign you up with a no-contract (or minimal contract, i.e. 1-month) to get it fired up on the network.

Here's a crazy idea... pony up the money to pay for what the phone's actually worth.
...
bluecoyote

May 24, 2010, 6:36 PM
Why would you want to do that? Then you're out the device subsidy (which is now running about $350.00) if you stay with them for 2 years.

The problem is once you pay the ETF (essentially "buying the rest of the phone") , you're SOL with your handset. I think if you pay an ETF the handset should be unlocked. Period.
...
Azeron

May 22, 2010, 10:04 PM
I am pleasantly surprised that you remain consistent (for the first time that I can recall) in criticizing AT&T just as you did Verizon for the increased ETF. I shall do the same. AT&T has every right to charge the ETF. The phone CAN be purchased at full retail, no? If one does not wish to risk paying the ETF...don't sign the contract or better yet sign it and don't terminate the service early.
...
nmunyat

May 23, 2010, 9:38 PM
Now THERE'S a crazy idea! 😉
...
retrocool

May 22, 2010, 10:35 PM
All phones should be sold unlocked.

As for pricing, I'm okay with a device being sold at full retail cost (from a carrier or direct from the manufacturer, or through intermediaries), but I can understand subsidized, contracted device purchases when buying one from a carrier. Obviously, the ETF in such cases shouldn't be more than the device, but I'm okay with a reasonable, if expensive, ETF, based on the full retail value of the device.

But all phones should be sold unlocked and not tied down to a given carrier (a given technology, like GSM or CDMA, I'm okay with, but otherwise no).
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.