Most of you are sheep?
One thing that bugs me about half of you, is you don't understand how cellular companies discount phones.
People whine everyday about early term fee's.
Do you have any idea WHY there is an early term fee? Let me explain,
When you get a phone from Verizon and start service, lets say a free phone. Do you think Motorola stops by and gives them 20,000 free phones? The cell phone fairy is dropping by guys!
No. That does not happen. Even a the lowest end free phone that you recieve, costs Verizon over $200. Thats how much they pay. They subsidize the cost of the phone (or discount it) so you don't have to pay some outrageous amount to start service with them. Thats how it works with all cellular companies.
So if you cancel ...
(continues)
People whine everyday about early term fee's.
Do you have any idea WHY there is an early term fee? Let me explain,
When you get a phone from Verizon and start service, lets say a free phone. Do you think Motorola stops by and gives them 20,000 free phones? The cell phone fairy is dropping by guys!
No. That does not happen. Even a the lowest end free phone that you recieve, costs Verizon over $200. Thats how much they pay. They subsidize the cost of the phone (or discount it) so you don't have to pay some outrageous amount to start service with them. Thats how it works with all cellular companies.
So if you cancel ...
(continues)
...
Actually, it's a good thread. Definately needed considering the level of ignorance nowadays on this forum.
Sounds like you yourself was a sheep once perhaps?
Sounds like you yourself was a sheep once perhaps?
...
if only vzw and rest wasnt getting the phones at wholesale price.i would think they were losing something on subsidizing the phones. but when retail is say 269.99 for phone and vzw gets it for half of that if not a little more lower. and still charge average know 40.00 a month for service. in about 6 months,they have made back what they gave you on a discount on phone. and for actual service it probably on costs them 10.00 a month to cover most peoples service. so i dont really feel bad for them.they are not losing anything. they still make big money off people. so why shouldnt people get free phones and etc. if it wasnt for the customer. vzw and others wouldnt be in business. so you can say all you want, but i can say that most big company...
(continues)
(continues)
...
I'm sure they make money, but don't forget about expansion of the coverege, advertising, rents, paychecks, FRUs etc etc etc...
10 MAYBE covers current service. Not the rest.
Besides, Verizon isn't the only place you can get phones from.
10 MAYBE covers current service. Not the rest.
Besides, Verizon isn't the only place you can get phones from.
...
i was told by my VZW indirect agent it cost about $35 to maintain1 customer a month not counting anything extra just maintian service. now how much are they makeing??
...
It costs VZW roughly $27 a month to provide the average cell phone user with service on a monthly basis, not $10. Just to maintain a contstant connection between the towers and the phone costs an estimated 17.00 a month. If someone calls customer service a few times a month, then the cost rockets over 40.00. People wonder why cell phone carriers dont typically have 20.00 plans anymore and this is the reason why. With network improvements and enhancements come rising costs to provide service to the customer monthly. Would people be ok having a plan with 100 minutes for 25.00 like it was in the mid 90's, with roaming and an extra charge for long distance? The answer is no, so people always complain about the cost of service, and ETF's and...
(continues)
(continues)
...
well spoken and accurate facts. I get that alot of people wondering why cellular companies don't offer 15 dollar a month plans anymore. Plain and simple...cost is greater then 15 to maintain that customer. I know this might sound like a new concept since everyone wants everything for free...but a company must operate at a profit...
...
you act like the whole world owes you something what you and most people forget to notice is the little words full retial price the phone you want is supposed to be sold for 400 dollars lets say cell service works like your home phone you open the line of service and pay one company a monthly cost for it then you go to the mall and buy a phone from a separate company for 400.00 dollars thats a lot of money and we notice that if it worked like that which i wish it did no one would have cell phones it would be too expensive so we do this little scratch my back and i'll scratch yours thing called a contract with equip discount you decide to use my service for 2yrs i'll give you a 400.00 dollar phone for 150.00 and guesse what we'll do the same...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Yeah, I think lots of peeps (here, at least) get the fact that contracts exist to subsidize the phone (among other things).
What isn't so cool is that not every carrier offers the option to forego the contract if you provide your own compatible phone or buy a phone for full retail.
Not much excuse for not offering that, now is there?
PS- I do hear that VZW does offer this, but you lose all your promotions, aka unlimited n/w/IN calling. That is patently whack.
What isn't so cool is that not every carrier offers the option to forego the contract if you provide your own compatible phone or buy a phone for full retail.
Not much excuse for not offering that, now is there?
PS- I do hear that VZW does offer this, but you lose all your promotions, aka unlimited n/w/IN calling. That is patently whack.
...
how do you explain etf fees when a customer renews their plan and continues to use their old phones?
why should there be etf fees if someone begins a contract but brings their own phone.
there must be more to etf then just to subsidize the cost of new phones.
i never understude verizons resoning to criple phones. if we rented the phone then i would agree that we live by their polocies but we OWN these phone and should be alowed to do what ever we liek with them. by biggest issue is killing BT and being forced to use "GET IT NOW" or to buy a propriatery cable to transfer files using bitpim.
why should there be etf fees if someone begins a contract but brings their own phone.
there must be more to etf then just to subsidize the cost of new phones.
i never understude verizons resoning to criple phones. if we rented the phone then i would agree that we live by their polocies but we OWN these phone and should be alowed to do what ever we liek with them. by biggest issue is killing BT and being forced to use "GET IT NOW" or to buy a propriatery cable to transfer files using bitpim.
...
You know..not that I can't see your point, but I have to tell you that I have heard the opposite argument from customers on a similar issue. Customers will subscribe to Joke of the Day, Daily Horoscopes, Chat Rooms, etc and get billed .99 a message, sometimes more. Then, after the bill comes they want to know why Verizon allows them to subscribe to these things and want us to credit what a separate company charged them because we didn't disable it. Nothing against any of my customers because they are my bread and butter, but it does get hard to hear day in and day out how everyone wants everything for nothing (and of course that is a generalization, but how often does customer service get a call "Hi. Just wanted to say I love your service. H...
(continues)
(continues)
...
i have been told it is becasue o financial planning. You guarantee verizon a revenue and they plan spending under that fuarantee. So if we had etf and one month 1million subscribers all took off, verizon might not have the budget to handle that revenue loss to cover their investments. I know it all bs but that is the explanantion i received. They want you in contract so they can project their quarter earnings and make financial plans for future. That and they are just mean
...
It IS BS, though. If the service is good, half your customers aren't going to suddenly bail because you offer a pro-rated ETF. That's a stone cold exaggeration an' how.
In fact, you might be able to ATTRACT more customers by advertising the fact that you're customer-oriented enough to offer something like pro-rated ETFs.
In fact, you might be able to ATTRACT more customers by advertising the fact that you're customer-oriented enough to offer something like pro-rated ETFs.
...
oh i agree, i was just passing on the reasoning that i have heard behind this.
...
A Few Questions:
-Why does the benevolent Verizon charge $175 ETF after we complete 23 months of a 24 month contract? Haven’t they recouped just about all their subsidy by that point?
-Why does the all knowing Verizon limit what phones we can buy? If manufactures marketed directly to the public, wouldn’t the public have a much larger ranges of products to choose from? Couldn’t we purchase products we want, not what Verizon thinks we want?
-Why does the all-caring Verizon force us to purchase our phones through them, then tell us it’s the manufactures fault when we have a problem?
-Why does the great and generous Verizon cripple the features that make our phones convenient and useful? Could it be that they fear we may use these co...
(continues)
-Why does the benevolent Verizon charge $175 ETF after we complete 23 months of a 24 month contract? Haven’t they recouped just about all their subsidy by that point?
-Why does the all knowing Verizon limit what phones we can buy? If manufactures marketed directly to the public, wouldn’t the public have a much larger ranges of products to choose from? Couldn’t we purchase products we want, not what Verizon thinks we want?
-Why does the all-caring Verizon force us to purchase our phones through them, then tell us it’s the manufactures fault when we have a problem?
-Why does the great and generous Verizon cripple the features that make our phones convenient and useful? Could it be that they fear we may use these co...
(continues)
...
I can answer the first two for you, the rest are merely rhetorical I would guess.
#1 Verizon, and wireless carriers in general, subsidize handsets to allow easy entry into the market for customers. They budget based on projected revenue from these agreements. They can't change a higher ETF for customers with a $299 rate plan nor do they charge a lower ETF for a customer with a $40 rate plan. And BTW, some states DO require prorated ETF. Write your congressman. It is what your state allows. The better questuion is, why would YOU pay an ETF when you have one month of service left? That is it's own "prorated" ETF in itself.
#2 If every single possible phone manufacturer sold to the general public carriers could not support all po...
(continues)
#1 Verizon, and wireless carriers in general, subsidize handsets to allow easy entry into the market for customers. They budget based on projected revenue from these agreements. They can't change a higher ETF for customers with a $299 rate plan nor do they charge a lower ETF for a customer with a $40 rate plan. And BTW, some states DO require prorated ETF. Write your congressman. It is what your state allows. The better questuion is, why would YOU pay an ETF when you have one month of service left? That is it's own "prorated" ETF in itself.
#2 If every single possible phone manufacturer sold to the general public carriers could not support all po...
(continues)
...
Ok, then explain this one to me, Mr. Phone Nazi:
Last February (2005) we added my mom to my plan as a family plan and activated her using existing equipment. SHE NEVER PURCHASED A PHONE PERIOD!!!! So why is her line under contract and subject to an ETF if we cancel it??? Seems kinda fishy to me if your explanation that the only reason for an ETF is to recover the loss on the sale of a phone.
And, beyond that one, why, now that she wants to buy a phone, is Verizon telling her that she is not eligible to receive a discount on a new phone until December of 2006 when SHE ACTIVATED WITH EXISTING EQUIPMENT????
That just shoots your idea in the a$$. ETF's are simple: They are to stop people from leaving for a set period of time determ...
(continues)
Last February (2005) we added my mom to my plan as a family plan and activated her using existing equipment. SHE NEVER PURCHASED A PHONE PERIOD!!!! So why is her line under contract and subject to an ETF if we cancel it??? Seems kinda fishy to me if your explanation that the only reason for an ETF is to recover the loss on the sale of a phone.
And, beyond that one, why, now that she wants to buy a phone, is Verizon telling her that she is not eligible to receive a discount on a new phone until December of 2006 when SHE ACTIVATED WITH EXISTING EQUIPMENT????
That just shoots your idea in the a$$. ETF's are simple: They are to stop people from leaving for a set period of time determ...
(continues)
...
texaswireless said:
You got hosed Shawn 😲
Thanks, Captain Obvious. Tell me something I didn't know. 🤣
...
If you didn't buy the phone when the line was activated, then your mother IS eligible for a new phone. Have a service rep check the date of activation and check in the history of the account for the original order. It will show in the account that it was customer brought equipment and therefore is eligible. Most reps just see the upgrade date and take it at face value. The upgrade date defaults to 10 or 22 months from the set-up date, depending on the length of the contrct. However, get a rep to dig a little and they will fix the account to get the line eligible. That is how it is in the NE anyway.
...
Well in answer to part of your question if your mom activated using existing equipment she can upgrade anytime that she wants (at least that is how it works in my neck of the woods) all you have to do is when you talk to a csr explain the situation and have them do an activation record search on the esn once they determine that the esn was in use before the activation date they will move the upgrade date to today. Hope that helps with the getting your mom a new phone problem at least
...
kellenhoskins said:
Well in answer to part of your question if your mom activated using existing equipment she can upgrade anytime that she wants (at least that is how it works in my neck of the woods) all you have to do is when you talk to a csr explain the situation and have them do an activation record search on the esn once they determine that the esn was in use before the activation date they will move the upgrade date to today. Hope that helps with the getting your mom a new phone problem at least
I hope you are right, but, we haven't had much luck yet.
...
..done this particular rant to death. Good point, people should exhibit common sense concerning cell phones, but we've touched on this subject so, so many times on every forum on this !@# board. Yeah, There are times when i vent out (man are there a lot of times) but come on... how many times is this record going to be played?
...
...what would an internet message board be without a redundant, pointless debate that will never change anything?! 🙂
...
This board will never change things, and as one post stated, write your state lawmakers and get things changed. That is where you have to go. Pro-rated ETF's is a fair way to go for both customer and carrier. And for the one that said, if you only have one month left on your contract, that is pro-rate built in, what if the customer is on a $200 plan, and yes, he could drop the plan to $40, but, that is still higher then $7.29, what would be left on a pro-rated ETF, so, it is a built in higher ETF.
And yes, this is a broken record, but, it brings attention to this subject, which is good. It is posts like this that show that there are a lot of people that agree the ETF is not set up right. I do not think we can find any reasonable pers...
(continues)
And yes, this is a broken record, but, it brings attention to this subject, which is good. It is posts like this that show that there are a lot of people that agree the ETF is not set up right. I do not think we can find any reasonable pers...
(continues)
...
Georgia1 said:
This board will never change things, and as one post stated, write your state lawmakers and get things changed. That is where you have to go. Pro-rated ETF's is a fair way to go for both customer and carrier.
Word. Could not agree more. 😎
I really hope we get somethin' like this in California, and I'll be writin' my state legistlator types. Schwarzenegger's buddies helped shoot down the Cellular Bill of Rights or whatever last year, but I think he's singin' a diff'rent tune now that he got his head handed to 'im in the special election.
Might be the perfect time to get somethin' like this passed, as part of a new Consumer Bill o' Rights or somesuch.
...
a prorated etf is not fair to the company at all. aside from essentially encouraging a customer that it's ok to only live up to "most" of their agreement, it is simple minded to believe that the $175 fee covers the loss of the equipment only.
would it be fair if verizon were able to gradually raise the price of your calling plan throughout the length of your agreement?
if you asked your landlord if you could move out two months before your lease was up, would they charge you a prorated fee?
if you leased a car, should you be able to return it after 15 months and expect to be compensated?
despite what you're conditioned to believe, contracts, for the most part, are a good thing. if it weren't for contracts, what would a cell pho...
(continues)
would it be fair if verizon were able to gradually raise the price of your calling plan throughout the length of your agreement?
if you asked your landlord if you could move out two months before your lease was up, would they charge you a prorated fee?
if you leased a car, should you be able to return it after 15 months and expect to be compensated?
despite what you're conditioned to believe, contracts, for the most part, are a good thing. if it weren't for contracts, what would a cell pho...
(continues)
...
your example of a prorated contract wouldn't even be a contract: it would be an interest-free $175 loan. i fail to see how that is fair to both sides.
...
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. People are not saying we should not have to sign contracts yet, but at least pro-rate them, that is all.
...
i don't think it's as simple as 'agree to disagree' because a prorated termination fee would be really one-sided to the consumer's benefit.
let's use a common example that's happening at stores across the country right now.
the moto v3c retails for 419.99. with the new every two discount, a customer can walk out the door with the phone for 99.99. the net loss of 320.00 is already close the double the early termination fee.
now let's fast forward to let's say february of 2007. the customer is halfway through his agreement. verizon has still not recouped on his initial investment, but the customer is sick of his razr and he wants the new vzw phone that teleports bodies to europe. since the customer is only halfway through his con...
(continues)
let's use a common example that's happening at stores across the country right now.
the moto v3c retails for 419.99. with the new every two discount, a customer can walk out the door with the phone for 99.99. the net loss of 320.00 is already close the double the early termination fee.
now let's fast forward to let's say february of 2007. the customer is halfway through his agreement. verizon has still not recouped on his initial investment, but the customer is sick of his razr and he wants the new vzw phone that teleports bodies to europe. since the customer is only halfway through his con...
(continues)
...
The above example is pretty extreme, an' maybe not so typical.
Most phones ain't subsidized anywhere near $320. My Nokia 6256 got subsidized around $120, give or take $10. Different customers get different deals on different phones.
Yet one thing all customer agree on is that pro-rated ETFs are a VERY good idea.
Solution? Stop pretending that a one-size-fits-all $175 ETF is a good idea. Make the ETF equal to the amount the carrier is subsidizing the phone. That's 110% fair, in't it? And individual to each customer as well.
And carriers are ALWAYS saying that the ETF is just there to cover the phone subsidy, right? This takes them at their word.
Now that the ETF is set at a level that covers the subsidy, Pro-Rate it. T...
(continues)
Most phones ain't subsidized anywhere near $320. My Nokia 6256 got subsidized around $120, give or take $10. Different customers get different deals on different phones.
Yet one thing all customer agree on is that pro-rated ETFs are a VERY good idea.
Solution? Stop pretending that a one-size-fits-all $175 ETF is a good idea. Make the ETF equal to the amount the carrier is subsidizing the phone. That's 110% fair, in't it? And individual to each customer as well.
And carriers are ALWAYS saying that the ETF is just there to cover the phone subsidy, right? This takes them at their word.
Now that the ETF is set at a level that covers the subsidy, Pro-Rate it. T...
(continues)
...
I work for vzw in a department that deals with customers who leave all the time. From a business standpoint prorated etf's are not a good idea. You would have inflated churn numbers. Someone who has 3 lines and six months left on their agreement has the upper hand in this scenario every time. I tell them it'll be 525 dollars to disconnect now and they have to think about it. 175 for a 9.99 share line is bad economics. Now if we prorated the etf they may only have to pay 50 dollars to discoonect. For the 9.99 share lines it is reasonable. What we fail to see though is the single line accounts and primary lines on share accounts. Share plans the minimum is $60 for a primary. 6 months for that line is a lot of money i lose when i prorate the et...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Yes pro-rated ETFs are a bad idea. It would force carriers to provide good service in order to keep their customers. This is highly unfair and Un-American.
...
Want_New_Phone said:
Yes pro-rated ETFs are a bad idea. It would force carriers to provide good service in order to keep their customers. This is highly unfair and Un-American.
LOL! 😁
...
The retail price of a phone is very highly marked up. Verizon is not paying that much for a phone, so they are not subsidizing phones as much as you would like us customers to think they are. I would wager a bet that around the 2 year contract price, verizon or any carrier breaks about even on what they paid for the phone, but, that is something we will never know, because verizon will never come out and tell us that.
and what about the customers that come in with their own equipment, or pay full retail (highly marked up) for the phone, why should they not be allowed to sign up for the advertised plans without a contract....after all, verizon is not subsidizing any equipment. What you are basically saying, is that a wireless carrier wa...
(continues)
and what about the customers that come in with their own equipment, or pay full retail (highly marked up) for the phone, why should they not be allowed to sign up for the advertised plans without a contract....after all, verizon is not subsidizing any equipment. What you are basically saying, is that a wireless carrier wa...
(continues)
...
which one of you phonescoop regulars created a new account to start this thread? 😕
🙄
i would say a foul joke but i'm tryna be nice. 😁 😎
🙄
i would say a foul joke but i'm tryna be nice. 😁 😎
...
I wouldn't be surprised to see that it was DKVZW but I'm not accusing him of anything
...
I think it was you gunny! 😲 😳 .......
while we're at it.....lemme just call you out on all your names.
tenmidgets
ilovemotov330
cain
betterthanjake
ihateuall
Adolf Hitler
Deepthroat
the guy who shot JR on Dallas
anywho......you know i'm only joshing you. 😉
while we're at it.....lemme just call you out on all your names.
tenmidgets
ilovemotov330
cain
betterthanjake
ihateuall
Adolf Hitler
Deepthroat
the guy who shot JR on Dallas
anywho......you know i'm only joshing you. 😉
...
shiat......I know it's damn hard just talking to you online. Being you has got to be a 24/7 struggle. 🤣 🤣 🤣 😉
...
