[IP] more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sam Weiler <weiler@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 11, 2005 4:08:04 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ip Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone Early
Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
[My experience with Cell Companies is not what Gerry describes. I
always supply the phone since I am not happy with the cell phones
sold in the USA. Yet I am tied up with 1 or 2 year contracts with
$175 cancellation agreements. Why?? djf]
Could we hear from an IPer who is either with Verizon Wireless/
Cingular/Sprint or who has direct experience with real world data?
Are there differences across carriers? (Normally, if there's an
anticompetitive practice going on, I would expect this to become a
dimension of competition)
Gerry
In my personal experience, none of Verizon/Cingular/AT&T(when it was
separate) will offer month-to-month terms (in the US), even if you're
bringing your own hardware. Sprint will, but they now charge an
extra $10/mo., even when they aren't buying down an handset.
Even more curiously, Verizon refuses to activate a handset they did
not originally sell, even though most of Sprint's would be compatible
with their network. (Most CDMA handsets are locked to the carrier.
Even if you have the appropriate unlock code for a Sprint phone,
Verizon still refuses to activate it.)
To be clear, all of these carriers have explicitly refused my
personal request for a month-to-month service plan when I walked in
with my own (unlocked) hardware. In a competitive market, I would
expect to see either month-to-month terms or lower rates available
when there's no handset subsidy.
-- Sam
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/