Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/21/09
So quit your bitching.
when you buy a $650 phone for $200, I believe it's within their right to charge you the remaining cost of the phone, depending on how long of a contract you have left.
12/21/09
....heart-clicked.
12/21/09
12/21/09
And, if you can't afford to pay the $600 or whatever for that Droid, then maybe you don't need a smartphone (and thus, don't need to concern yourself with an ETF) anyways.
12/21/09
If my $50/m0 data plan turned into a $30/mo data plan because I chose to pay for the phone up front, then I'd take it in a heartbeat.
I get the feeling that's not the case with Verizon, though.
12/21/09
T-Mobile's monthly plan where you pay up front for the phone is cheaper than a contract plan. My current bill is $80/month for unlimited data and text and 300 minutes. Once I'm past my one year, I can switch over to the monthly plan and pay $60/month for the same unlimited data and text and 500 monthly minutes. So, plans like this aren't impossible.
Go tell your Verizon rep this. And tell them that if you can't get a comparable plan, you'll switch to T-Mobile (even if you won't). If it's within that person's authority or knowledge to give you such a plan, they will. Or you can ask for someone who can.
I searched on Verizon's site and they do have a monthly plan. Get the numbers.
12/21/09
12/21/09
What are they doing with their money?
Certainly not helping customers, because they told me to screw off when they broke my phone.
Maybe they should stop snorting their money.
12/21/09
12/21/09
We don't have a messaging plan, or any smart phones.
Just a 1400 minute plan.
The phone they have me with right now also has a mass defect with the verizon network, and I am on my fourth model.
They refuse to cut me a credit for the repeated downtimes.
As soon as I can I am going with AT&T
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
I understand that problem. I actually went and found at&t users in my immediate area and asked how service was, and I then found they installed a cell and 3g tower or however they term the unit about 3 miles from here in October.
I've been a verizon customer for 6 years, but I run business through my phone, and they just keep making it harder and harder.
I also don't like being told that a software issue they refuse to acknowledge despite me bringing proof is all my fault according to them.
12/21/09
And this is what I have seen in my research. I asked them to justify why my bill was so high once in comparison to competitor services and I was given the
"Largest network most reliable this comes at a cost etc etc" speech.
12/21/09
12/21/09
On my verizon plan where I am, no. But neither does my neighbor who has AT&T.
My phone just goes into constant reboots due to a network incompatibility and can't be sent out of it without changing my number.
12/21/09
It doesn't matter what it costs them. That's not your concern. If you agree to the contract, you're saying you're ok with the terms. Put simply:
"You no like? You no buy!"
12/21/09
They actually do cover that in the response. A full contract term doesn't cover the entire unsubsidized cost of the phone, so they "punish" early terminators (heh) by making them cover not only the cost of their phones, but also the cost of people who buy a subsidized phone with a contract, use it to termination, and then don't renew.
It actually makes a lot of sense.
12/21/09
That's a lowest-common-denominator plan with no taxes&fees added.
Then, you buy your phone and Verizon complains they're losing money.
Does that make sense?
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
As a general idea, a single tower lease could cost Verizon (or anybody) anywhere from $800-$1500/mo., and cover about a little over a square mile of service area. To recoup *just the lease* cost, each carrier on the tower needs to have (using $1100 for a tower lease) $1100/($50/mo-voice + $5/mo-text + $30/mo-internet) = 12.94 subscribers per square mile on average, meaning a lot more in urban areas if you intend to have coverage when you step outside the suburban box.
That's really rough numbers, but you get the idea.
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
You see, apparently whenever they run a BOGO special, lots (sometimes even lots and lots) of people buy two phones and then cancel the contract so they can sell the hardware for an overall profit ("?" went my eyebrow at the time) on eBay. The sales associates claimed Verizon loses so much money on BOGO offers that they need to double all termination fees instead of ending an occasional program that supposedly empties their pockets.
12/21/09
Stop screwing the good customers!
I'm more pissed that "Any phone with a keyboard is now a Smartphone and EVERY carrier is now screwing you out of $30 minimum mandatory "data plan" . And the blind FCC takes their medicine from telco lobbyists...
12/21/09
High ETF = Less Churn
Each phone means nothing. The true value is in subscribership. BOGO either gets Verizon an extra customer or ensures that two subscribers have now signed on for another couple years.
Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about Verizon's problem with subsidizing expensive phones like the Droid. Smartphones are *gateway* phones - they lead to increased usage of SMS, MMS and sudden poorness due to high monthly mobile internet access costs.
To a carrier, a mobile phone is just subscriber bait. To that end, I think AT&T, with its historically more appealing phone lineup, has been more generous than Verizon.
12/21/09
12/21/09
However, I would generally recommend this as advice to resolving disputes.
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
you don't need an MBA to figure that out.
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
Maybe they need to offer a contract free plan where you pay the unsubsidized cost of the phone if you want to. I think for many people the ETF wouldn't seem so insane when they realized just how much of an upfront payment break Verizon was giving them.
12/21/09
12/21/09
i don't think there is anything confusing about it.
if you enter into a contract with verizon and then break that contract, you will pay a fee. if that fee is too high, don't sign a contract.
but yes, thanks to our benevolent overlords at the FCC for questioning verizon....
12/21/09
12/21/09
The government might do well to step in and force them to provide some option for unsubsidized phones with no contract and to clarify just how much of the subsidy is left.
However, its a pipe dream to think that your going to get phones at today's prices with nothing similiar to ETFs being involved if you leave the carrier who subsidizes the phone.
12/21/09
"The government might do well to step in and force them to provide some option for unsubsidized phones with no contract and to clarify just how much of the subsidy is left. "
i think the government might do well to refrain from meddling just because its convinced it can.
show me one thing that got better after the government got involved and i'll show you one thing that you're wrong about.
12/21/09
I'd rather be throwing out options that don't involve the government dictating pricing than throwing out unrealistic libertarian options that allow people who want much more intervention than I do to control voting.
A government mandated order to allow an unsubsidized no contract plan would be much less worse than the government stepping in and minutely regulating an ETF fee schedule, or not allowing them altogether.
12/21/09
"people right now seem to want the government to intervene more often than not."
sad and true, yet falls under 'if all your friends jumped off a bridge'.
"You have to be realistic about how much of a free market is attainable given current political climates."
If we're going for realistic, then i ought to be rallying as hard as i can against government intervention, given the current political climate. more intervention means i should be more antithetical, not less.
"unrealistic libertarian options"
they're only unrealistic because people like you who have their intentions in the right place falter and cave to the whims of the herd. something about a bridge here, again.
"A government mandated order to allow an unsubsidized no contract plan"
I would phrase that as "A government mandated order to force them to give us an unsubsidized no contract plan". That's some shady doublespeak way of using the word 'allow'.
'Less bad' doesn't mean 'right' - more often than not, 'right' is 'difficult' or 'unrealistic'. it's unrealistic to expect crime to vanish, but it's right to fight against it. what's right is often a losing proposition - don't let the ends justify un-right means. a 'better' or 'preferable' outcome doesn't mean the method of achieving it was just - a parallel that comes to mind is forced charity through taxation. it doesn't matter that such an arrangement benefits some and ultimately, the whole - the methods used to attain that end are wrong, and so there is no virtue in it.
12/21/09
also, most carriers DO offer prepaid options. t-mo and att do, i think verizon is the only one of the big 3 that doesn't.
12/21/09
Please man, thats just not true. Voting in the last election proves that clearly wrong. Believe whatever libertarian pipe dreams you want, the reality is people are afraid of big business and what government intervening right now. It sucks, but thats the way it is. Taking absolutists positions is pointless, and in politics it just means you take yourself out of the legislative process. Look at who is controlling the health care bill. Its not Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, or arch conservative Republicans. Its the Blue Dog Dems and moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe. Why? because they are in the middle politically, and thus are the most needed votes.
You're right that "less bad" doesn't mean right. Thats why I said less worse, not better. But I'm also a realist and want to minimize whatever invovlement ends up inevitably happening. Face it, the voters have spoken, and unfettered competition is not wanted right now. You can advocate for positions that aren't as extreme and have people listen to you, or you can keep to your ideals and have everyone ignore you.
If for example, the minority on the FCC committee were to take the tack you are advocating, they'd end up with no voice in decisions at all.
12/21/09
"Face it, the voters have spoken, and unfettered competition is not wanted right now. "
why is what the people want, in this instance an issue? if the people wanted to annex Canada... you see where im going with this.
"You can advocate for positions that aren't as extreme and have people listen to you, or you can keep to your ideals and have everyone ignore you."
I'll take unpopular integrity over compromised popularity any day. And so should you. So should everyone. What you're advocating is 'it's ok to steal during a riot' mentality - that the misdeeds of others somehow exonerate less than principled acts on your part.
"If for example, the minority on the FCC committee were to take the tack you are advocating, they'd end up with no voice in decisions at all."
Which apparently you believe is more important than maintaining integrity.
You're saying it's ok to compromise on your principles, or more importantly, on the supreme law of our country, as long as doing so gains you a voice, a hand in the decisions.
That's a case of the ends justifying the means, buddy.
I'd rather ave a dystopia build on honor than a utopia built on nihilist, misanthropic, dispassionate opportunism.
12/21/09
Compromise would be changing your beliefs to match current events. I'm talking about fighting for the difference between total government control and some government intervention. These are the only options you have right now. You can waste your breath fighting for something that isn't possible or you can try to mitigate the damage from idiotic choices of others. Its your choice.
You're not going to have what you want right now in terms of free and open markets, end of discussion. Since that option is completely off the table, why not try for something less than pure government control?
And as much as I love my libertarian ideals, there's simply no way to say its the "supreme law" of our country. The supreme law of our country is the Constitution and in spite of what the founders believed about laisezz-faire economics they refrained from imbuing the Constitution with explicit endorsements of it.
Yes, the ends do justify the means sometimes. If you have a choice between complete government intervention and some government intervention which would you choose? Because those are your choices. You can continue to live in your world where political absolutes are realistic goals, or you can join the rest of us in reality, where compromise on political ideals is unpleasant yet unavoidable.
12/21/09
12/21/09
2. ?????
3. Profit!!!!
12/21/09
1. Buy iPhone 3GS
2. eBay it
3. Cancel contract
4. ????
5. Profit!!!
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
The scariest part about this is not that Verizon is charging it. If they get away with this, every other carrier will follow suit - just like text messaging. Yippee! I love to pay more money for nothing!
12/21/09
12/21/09
[www.phonedog.com]