[IP] more on I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dana Spiegel <dana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 22, 2005 6:35:00 PM EDT
To: gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How
Cell Phone Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
To Gerry's question, my $0.02:
There are 3 reasons why people don't opt for Sprint or pre-pay:
1) phone selection. no matter what people maintain, each phone is
different. Try finding a phone from Verizon that you can sync with
your Macintosh over Bluetooth. Or use the address book or text
messaging of a Motorola side by side with a Nokia. You'll soon find
that each brand is markedly different, from both a physical interface/
capability perspective, as well as a software UI/feature perspective.
2) Coverage. Every single person I speak to has made their choice
primarily based on the coverage of their provider. I was in the South
End in Boston today speaking with a friend, and he told me that he
had to switch to Verizon in order to get any service on his block. I
personally had to switch from T-mobile to AT&T a few years ago in
order to get service in my office and in my apartment in New York City.
3) Laziness/Pain. Do you know how hard it is to change phone
companies? The last time I did this, just after local number
portability was introduced, it took a week to change from T-mobile to
AT&T. It took my girlfriend _A MONTH_ to get things worked out
properly for the same switch. Recently she upgraded her phone, and
had to spend 5-6 hours total on the phone just to get a new phone
from Cingular. Do this once, and you'll likely never want to switch
again.
Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
dana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422
Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
On Oct 21, 2005, at 12:29 PM, David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 11, 2005 9:28:27 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell
Phone Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
OK, this has been a learning experience;-). Thanks to the the many
informed IPers who responded. Here's what I've found out (and
another question):
1- The only carrier that offers a month-to-month service for "bring
your own phone" is Sprint, as several IPers have mentioned. None
of the others do. But in case you didn't notice, Sprint is probably
the weakest of the cellphone companies (even with their merger), so
it would appear that offering a month-to-month with "bring your own
phone" is simply not very important to customers. Maybe to IPers,
but most of those who reported this dastardly practice do not seem
to have switched to Sprint. In other words, while you and I may
want the option of month-to-month, it is not important enough to
most customers to be a competitive advantage. Too bad.
2- It's pretty obvious a multi-year contract is in the interest of
the phone company. For example, magazines make much more $$ from
yearly subscriptions than newstand sales. And if customers don't
think it's important enough to choose a carrier based on month-to-
month, it will not happen.
3- Some IPers mentioned foreign phones brought to the US and
operated on month-to-month, but noted they were much more
expensive. Of course, that was my original point: month-to-month
will be more expensive.
4- I was surprised almost no one discussed pre-paid cell service,
which of course involves no commitment at all, beyond the initial
minutes purchased. This has been a successful business model; e.g.,
Virgin Mobile only does pre-paid. This is a very different model,
in that there is no credit risk for the firms to bear.
I would think that IPers who object so strongly to multi-year
contracts would opt for pre-paid...or move to Sprint. I'd be
interested to learn from our correspondents why they do not avail
themselves of these options.
Prof. Gerry Faulhaber
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ip Ip" <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:45 AM
Subject: [IP] I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone
Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Goltz <tgoltz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 10, 2005 11:42:29 PM EDT
To: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone Early
Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
At 10:47 AM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
Re: cell phone contracts. I think the way this works is that you
can
get a cellphone at a below-market price from your service
provider in
return for a one- or two-year contract, OR you can buy your phone
elsewhere and get the service without a contract (or maybe a
contract
of shorter duration). So this is a trade-off, you get a price break
on your instrument in return for a longer contract. But you don't
have to take this; you can still avoid the lengthy contract by
buying
your own phone at a market price.
My experience has been the exact opposite of what you describe.
I have approached several different carriers with existing phones
that were compatible with their networks. Verizon flatly refused
to give me service without my signing *exactly* the same 1-year
contract that I'd have to sign to obtain a discounted phone.
Ditto for Cingular and T-Mobile. Only Sprint is willing to
provide service on a month- to-month basis to new customers who
either already have a phone or pay full price for the phone.
If the cell phone companies are doing such a wonderful job for
their customers, why are over 50% of the complaints received by
the Better Business Bureau cellular related? If you stop ten
random people on the street and ask them how they like their
cellular service, why will five of them tell you that they'd
switch carriers if they weren't locked into a contract?
Personally, I believe that all of us would be better off as
consumers if it was illegal for telecommunications companies to
require long- term contracts for services.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/
interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as dana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
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/