Well put.

ok...here is what you are missing. The ETF is fair because of the dollar amount of the item purchased versus the dollar amount of the ETF. In other words, I give you 175 bucks towards the purchase of the phone but if you deact before the term you pay back the cost difference...where are you? You are back to square one where you would have the same net out of pocket expense as if you bought the phone at retail and didn't have a contract. So in other words, if the net result is the same...then where is this unfair?

Why can't they just SELL phones at retail and skip the ETFs altogether? Wouldn't that make more sense? You still have cheap phones, and expensive phones - just lose the freebies and let people PAY for their phones...make the contracts 6 months then, or something, and let the SERVICE do the rest.

What?!?! And have people pay for phones?!? LOL. Yeah, we would see months of no sales before people would start accepting the true costs of phones. Also, cellular company stocks would fall as churn would rise and inability to accurately forcast future earnings would diminish. Since companies would have less confirmed income they would also, in turn, spend less on the network (building out network, etc) until they have the cash revenue in hand. So, in other words, you are asking for the cellular industry to slow down for awhile...

Thanks!

cwcanty said:
Are you phonescoopin' drunk, lol...very dangerous.

Nah, I agree with your point, however I am a fan of prorated ETF's. If I'm paying you $100 bucks a month for 2 years, then if I want to leave, I don't think I owe you $175 bucks any more.

The ETF achieves a certain level of customer buy in and commitment, which is great for business. The ETF will prolly never go away completely, but it's time we look at modifying a fairly antiquated system.

Hey, at least I spell just fine while drunk! 🤣

You and johnnyslick posted VERY GOOD replies that I align with. I was drinking, so I didn't clearly read the original post in the first place, so allow me to say this: I wholeheartedly love t...
(continues)

ok, first off...now I'm posting drunk, lol.

I appreciate the kind words...this whole ETF can get people's panties in a bunch. But I think it's an important issue that should make cell companies more accountable for their actions.

cwcanty said:
ok, first off...now I'm posting drunk, lol.

LMAO! Nice... Oh hey, they finally processed my order so I should have my phone right after memorial day. I HATE holidays sometimes (they screws up delivery schedules!)

Btw, I was so stoked this morning to wake up still dizzy drunk after only sleeping 3.5 hours. Had to work at 8, so it was a pleasure to go in a little out of it. YES! 😁

Damn Jack in the Box Supreme Croissant ruined it though. 🤣

yeah I went with the perkins tremendous 12 to cure my hangover needs yesterday morning...this weekend seems like it might not ever end,lol

cwcanty said:
yeah I went with the perkins tremendous 12 to cure my hangover needs yesterday morning

Perkins Tremendous 12? I had to look it up.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=T-12 »

And I thought Denny's Build Your Own Grand Slam was a dream come true!

I've never heard of Perkin's until now, there isn't one out here.

Where do you live? I thought perkins was pretty much everywhere. I live in wisconsin, they're all over the place up here.

California. It's Denny's and IHOP out here.

The only thing I miss about the south is Waffle House. That place rocks!

Born & raised Californian. I was stationed in NC when I was in the Army.

AvgJoe said:
What $500 phone is Verizon subsidizing for $100?? I didn't think Verizon had a phone worth $500.

Are you serious? You know I was giving a ranting example. Use some reading comprehension and see that I wasn't serious about that amount of subsidy. It was an obvious over exaggeration. 🙄

Pull your head out of your 4th point of contact and pay attention.

tgoace said:

AvgJoe said:
What $500 phone is Verizon subsidizing for $100?? I didn't think Verizon had a phone worth $500.

Are you serious? You know I was giving a ranting example. Use some reading comprehension and see that I wasn't serious about that amount of subsidy. It was an obvious over exaggeration. 🙄

Pull your head out of your 4th point of contact and pay attention.

Well if you HAVE to exaggerate to make a viable point...........Just sayin.

The Voyager is $470 full retail anyways. Close enough.

tgoace said:
The Voyager is $470 full retail anyways. Close enough.

I have never paid full reatil for any phone (and I don't use Carrier subsidies either)

Don't have to. If you shop phones you can find many less expensive than the "contract priced fare"

Of course you guys wouldn't know that. Your CArrier has got you by the short hairs. Not many phones for CDMA on the open market. Although I hear some may be coming with Verizon's foray into "open source"

AvgJoe said:

tgoace said:
The Voyager is $470 full retail anyways. Close enough.

I have never paid full reatil for any phone (and I don't use Carrier subsidies either)

Don't have to. If you shop phones you can find many less expensive than the "contract priced fare"

Of course you guys wouldn't know that. Your CArrier has got you by the short hairs. Not many phones for CDMA on the open market. Although I hear some may be coming with Verizon's foray into "open source"

You've said this before, and I'm still not impressed/don't care. Why are you changing your point?

wow...that might have been one of your worst rants ever. I didn't get anything you just said. Cmon now, if you're going to be a worthless troll that everyone hates, atleast make sure your posts make some sense. Thats the least you could do for making us listen to your useless dribble on a daily basis.

cwcanty said:
wow...that might have been one of your worst rants ever. I didn't get anything you just said. Cmon now, if you're going to be a worthless troll that everyone hates, atleast make sure your posts make some sense. Thats the least you could do for making us listen to your useless dribble on a daily basis.

Yeah I understand how you must be one of those users who live from upgrade to upgrade and therefore cannot comprehend actually buying a phone from a retailer rather than getting your little "food stamp" phone form mother Verizon every two years in return for your undying allegiance.

Its ok I DO UNDERSTAND and get you.

yeah, my last four phones have averaged $300 and have all been smartphones. So, I'm not exactly sure where you're misplaced rant against me comes from.

Once again, you're a worthless troll who has failed to provide anything of value for the past six months to this forum.

cwcanty said:
yeah, my last four phones have averaged $300 and have all been smartphones. So, I'm not exactly sure where you're misplaced rant against me comes from.

Once again, you're a worthless troll who has failed to provide anything of value for the past six months to this forum.

WOW a whole $300?
Yikes How you gonna pay the rent with that huge expense......

. And BTW I don't see a lot of cred there either dude. What do you contribute that is so useful?

Check my recent posts if you want to see how useful I am.

You come on here and spew nonsense that has nothing to do with verizon, then you complain that people are so love with verizon, yet you seem to forget that this is the VERIZON FORUM. So if you can't contribute something positive to the discussion, then just go back to the att forum.

He just contributed to the fact that you are like foreskin...no real purpose and should have been removed eight days in...

AvgJoe said:
I dont understand why Verizon wants to have their customer sign contracts.....them being the best of everything and all. Customers will not leave them...What are they afraid of?

It's about income visibility. Being able to look at the books and say: "We can expect this much income from our customers in the next 6 months."

Consumers that are under contract (even if a termination fee is as low as $50) are less likely to get pissed off when some AT&T retail rep forgets to change the right text pack on their account and simply walk into a Sprint store shouting "sign me up!"

Cellular consumers are fickle. The reality is that even when they port out their accounts, realize they're not happy wi...
(continues)

CellStudent said:
It's about income visibility. Being able to look at the books and say: "We can expect this much income from our customers in the next 6 months."

Consumers that are under contract (even if a termination fee is as low as $50) are less likely to get pissed off when some AT&T retail rep forgets to change the right text pack on their account and simply walk into a Sprint store shouting "sign me up!"

Cellular consumers are fickle. The reality is that even when they port out their accounts, realize they're not happy with the new service and decide to go back to the old carrier (but that never happens... right?) then the original carrier and the new service provider just spent HUNDREDS of dollars (per lin

...
(continues)

tgoace said:
I think I'm in love with you. 🤭 🤤 😁

I don't think my pregnant wife would approve. Sorry, bud- 👀

🤣 😁

Ah, it's ok. I have a wife too.

tgoace said:

CellStudent said:
It's about income visibility. Being able to look at the books and say: "We can expect this much income from our customers in the next 6 months."

Consumers that are under contract (even if a termination fee is as low as $50) are less likely to get pissed off when some AT&T retail rep forgets to change the right text pack on their account and simply walk into a Sprint store shouting "sign me up!"

Cellular consumers are fickle. The reality is that even when they port out their accounts, realize they're not happy with the new service and decide to go back to the old carrier (but that never happens... right?) then the original carrier and the new service provider just s

...
(continues)

Cellular consumers are fickle. The reality is that even when they port out their accounts, realize they're not happy with the new service and decide to go back to the old carrier (but that never happens... right?) then the original carrier and the new service provider just spent HUNDREDS of dollars (per line) in man-hours, system resources, and activation commissions to help a customer port out their number and then port it right back. Nobody makes a penny on that deal, and the customer just returned a subsidized phone that can't be sold as "new" any more.

EVERYONE loses. Period.

You musts have missed that part the first time. When someone leaves, even if they come back the resources expended to get a c...
(continues)

that is what i am saying though, If i walk into Verizon they should be able to throw me on a consumer plan, lets say the 59.99 select plan(with nights and weekends and everything else). I pay the activation fee and then at that point i can choose to pay retail for the phone or have it discounted at 1 or 2 year contract. Hell Verizon could even charge $50 over cost on retail and i think it would still be an option a few consumers may take, it would also teach them the real value of their phone. So say a 9100 at $289 no contract, $150 after rebate on one year and $99 after rebate on 2 year(plus you will get signed up on NE2). 99% of consumers will still sign the contract so I don't see this really harming Verizon financially, but the consumer ...
(continues)

Great points about LTE. VZW customers will be able to get phones from anywhere in the world at that point. I think consumers should be offered a choice. I don't think that carriers should subsidize handsets without a contract and subsequent etf though. Not good business at all.

yeahright said:
that is what i am saying though, If i walk into Verizon they should be able to throw me on a consumer plan, lets say the 59.99 select plan(with nights and weekends and everything else). I pay the activation fee and then at that point i can choose to pay retail for the phone or have it discounted at 1 or 2 year contract. Hell Verizon could even charge $50 over cost on retail and i think it would still be an option a few consumers may take, it would also teach them the real value of their phone. So say a 9100 at $289 no contract, $150 after rebate on one year and $99 after rebate on 2 year(plus you will get signed up on NE2). 99% of consumers will still sign the contract so I don't see this really harming Ve

...
(continues)