|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > September 2006 > Plan pricing
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| The price of cell phone plans seems to be going up-up-and away. I wonder if
the cell phone providers are connected with the petroleum industry ... as
they continue to shake down their customers.
A few years ago I wanted my mom to upgrade her phone (she had a blue nokia
candybar phone that weighed 5 lbs.) to a flip style. At the time she had a
$19.99 plan and only used the phone for emergency calls. The CS rep
convinced her that the $19.99 plan no longer existed and she would have to
bump it up to the $29.99 plan. She complained so much about the price
difference that I gave her $240 to cover the difference for the term of the
new contract. She is still using the Samsung phone she got and I think she
should upgrade again ... but I don't dare mention it because now the lowest
priced plan is $39.99.
It would be great if they still had no-frills plans available for those who
don't live on the phone (like the retired / elderly) but still need to
communicate while away from home.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-09-08, 10:33 am |
| At 08 Sep 2006 04:32:08 -0400 Ann wrote:
> The price of cell phone plans seems to be going up-up-and away. I
wonder if
> the cell phone providers are connected with the petroleum industry ...
as
> they continue to shake down their customers.
It's a two-way street. We, as customers "demand" things like free phones
every few years.
>
> A few years ago I wanted my mom to upgrade her phone (she had a blue
nokia
> candybar phone that weighed 5 lbs.) to a flip style. At the time she
had a
> $19.99 plan and only used the phone for emergency calls. The CS rep
> convinced her that the $19.99 plan no longer existed and she would have
to
> bump it up to the $29.99 plan. She complained so much about the price
> difference that I gave her $240 to cover the difference for the term of
the
> new contract.
Think about it- your cable company doesn't give you a new TV every two
years, or the gas Company doesn't buy you a new stove. If your mom
didn't re-up for a new phone, she'd still be on the $19.99 plan.
> She is still using the Samsung phone she got and I think she
> should upgrade again ... but I don't dare mention it because now the
lowest
> priced plan is $39.99.
Why do YOU think she needs a new phone? What does SHE think?>
> It would be great if they still had no-frills plans available for those
who
> don't live on the phone (like the retired / elderly) but still need to
> communicate while away from home.
They do- it's called prepaid. I bought my mom a prepaid phone years ago-
she's neverused more than 20 minutes in a month, so even a $20/month plan
was overkill.
You could buy mom a Cingular "Go Phone" online right now for $30, and put
her on the 25-cents/minute plan. She'll need to add a $25 "refill" card
(available at Wal-Mart, grocery and convenience stores everywhere or
online) every 90-days. That works out to less than $9/month- less than
half of her old emergency plan.
Sometimes we need to take respsonsibility for being smart consumers upon
ourselves rather than blaming the big, bad companies all of the
time... ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com 2006-09-08, 10:33 am |
| I agree that part of the problem is that US consumers don't want to pay
the real price of the handsets.... The expectation has been set that
"sign a contract, get a phone for free". Well, that's not what's really
been happening.
The service plan rates help the cell providers recoupe that cost time
and time again.
Consider the most popular cell phone, the Motorola RAZR. The current
model retails for about $199, after new contract incentives the phones
price drops to $99. There are quite a few phones in the $100-$150 range
that are "free" after new contract incentives and most of the public
opts for these models.
Well of course the cell providers have some markup on the retail price
of the handsets, but when they give phones away they have to recoupe
that cost somewhere and it has to be hidden in the monthly service fee.
The problem with this system is that all consumers have to accept these
rates, even if they didn't opt for a free or discounted phone. In this
case, maybe this woman could have continued with her $20/month plan,
but anyone walking in the door wanting a new contract couldn't have.
Regarding the analogy about the cable provider not giving you a TV or
gas company giving a new stolve. These are invalid.
You could use the cable analogy, but it's not the TV you want to
compare the cell phone to, it's the cable box. My biggest complaint is
that cell providers treat their phones like leased equipment, very much
like TimeWarner and Comcast treat their cable boxes. Think about it-
1. Out of the box, your new handset is locked by your service provider
to only work on their service/network.
2. Out of the box your phone is generally "application locked" to allow
the cell provider to control what applications you can run (i.e.
software applications) or to marshall them through the phones Internet
connectivity.
3. It's becoming more common now that cell phones are branded by the
service provider and not the manufacturer, just like cable boxes.
The big difference is that cable boxes are leased equipement, when
TimeWarner was rolling out their High Definition DVR units, all I had
to do was take my existing unit in and their was no upgrade cost. I had
a small service fee increase of like $5 more a month for the HD unit.
But the $1200 HDTV DVR unit was leased equipment, I didn't pay a dime
ofr it, it remained property of TimeWarner Cable. When the next
generation cable box comes out next year, I can easily go swap out for
it without paying a dime. That's traditionally the way leased equipment
works. The trade off is, the box belongs to time warner, they own it,
they can put locks and restrictions in it. It's not my property to
reconfigure.
Contrast this with cell phones, you own the handsets, yet the providers
have the system so that they are essentially treated like leased
equipment, except the providers don't service them like leased
equipment and they certainly won't upgrade for free.
There is hope with new providers like Cricket, who is offering only
month-to-month fixed rate plans. There devices aren't locked but they
are the only ones using CDMA in the US.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 08 Sep 2006 04:32:08 -0400 Ann wrote:
> wonder if
> as
>
> It's a two-way street. We, as customers "demand" things like free phones
> every few years.
> nokia
> had a
> to
> the
>
> Think about it- your cable company doesn't give you a new TV every two
> years, or the gas Company doesn't buy you a new stove. If your mom
> didn't re-up for a new phone, she'd still be on the $19.99 plan.
> lowest
>
>
> Why do YOU think she needs a new phone? What does SHE think?>
>
> who
>
> They do- it's called prepaid. I bought my mom a prepaid phone years ago-
> she's neverused more than 20 minutes in a month, so even a $20/month plan
> was overkill.
>
> You could buy mom a Cingular "Go Phone" online right now for $30, and put
> her on the 25-cents/minute plan. She'll need to add a $25 "refill" card
> (available at Wal-Mart, grocery and convenience stores everywhere or
> online) every 90-days. That works out to less than $9/month- less than
> half of her old emergency plan.
>
> Sometimes we need to take respsonsibility for being smart consumers upon
> ourselves rather than blaming the big, bad companies all of the
> time... ;-)
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Jackzwick 2006-09-08, 10:33 am |
| In article <1157727325.695867.98450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Contrast this with cell phones, you own the handsets, yet the providers
> have the system so that they are essentially treated like leased
> equipment, except the providers don't service them like leased
> equipment and they certainly won't upgrade for free.
If you "own" a phone that sells in the millions, (like the V3) there are
web sites that will tell you how to do all sorts of things to and with
the phone including those that Cingular might prefer you didn't know.
http://www.planetmotox.net/monster_packs.php
http://theunit.poeticfolly.com/getprepared.htm
http://xlr8.us/hofo/
http://www.razrmods.com/page1.html
| |
| Steevo@my-deja.com 2006-09-08, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:56:49 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>It's a two-way street. We, as customers "demand" things like free phones
>every few years.
No, that's not the problem.
The problem is the carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment,
keeping competition away completely.
If Walmart had a wall full of multi carrier Nokia, LG, Motorola and
Samsung phones at competitive prices that had no connection to any
carrier except being compatible technology this would not be
occurring. They would be competing on equipment with Target, Sears,
online sellers, etc. Prices would decline and more reflect the value
of those products. How much do you think it really costs Motorola to
make a phone at a plant in Mexico? China? $4? $6? And before
anyone brings up the CDMA/GSM compatibility argument remember the ATT
quad band phones? They can do it, if they wanted but they have no
incentive. Motorola would be selling CDMA/GSM phones on the wall at
Walmart if they could.
Equipment would be *much* cheaper, and you wouldn't have to sign a new
contract to get a new phone. The only purpose of the *free* phones is
to keep you signed up to long contracts all the time. The phones
aren't *free*, they are part of the marketing.
>Think about it- your cable company doesn't give you a new TV every two
>years, or the gas Company doesn't buy you a new stove.
If you could only buy a tv from your cable company and nowhere else
this would be a valid argument. Glad that's not true.
>You could buy mom a Cingular "Go Phone" online right now for $30, and put
>her on the 25-cents/minute plan. She'll need to add a $25 "refill" card
>(available at Wal-Mart, grocery and convenience stores everywhere or
>online) every 90-days. That works out to less than $9/month- less than
>half of her old emergency plan.
Or buy the gophone, put your current $19.99 sim in it and go on with a
new phone and no contract. A better solution. Gophones have no
contract and more closely reflect the value of the phone. Not
subsidized, or not much.
>Sometimes we need to take respsonsibility for being smart consumers upon
>ourselves rather than blaming the big, bad companies all of the
>time... ;-)
They *are* big, bad companies. They keep a stranglehold on the
equipment to eliminate competition. They mark it up to absurdly
inflated prices and give you a *discount* in exchange for signing up.
The market is broken. It's not a free market at all. That is the
problem and that's what should be fixed. It's surprising that it's
not illegal. Maybe it actually is, or will be some day. I hope so.
How would you like it if you could only buy Chevrolet gasoline for
your Chevy, Ford gas was much cheaper but it wouldn't work?
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-09-08, 10:33 am |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@americaon
line.com> wrote:
>
> You could buy mom a Cingular "Go Phone" online right now for $30, and put
> her on the 25-cents/minute plan. She'll need to add a $25 "refill" card
> (available at Wal-Mart, grocery and convenience stores everywhere or
> online) every 90-days. That works out to less than $9/month- less than
> half of her old emergency plan.
>
Well, if "Mom" limits herself to native Cingular area, fine, the Go phone will
work. My "Mom", my Wife, my Daughter and I head to Door County, WI and find
no native Cingular coverage at all! No native Verizon coverage either! No
native T-Mobile or Sprint PCS coverage either! In fact, all the major
carriers roam on a local carrier. So much for prepaid.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Todd H. 2006-09-08, 12:33 pm |
| Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com writes:
> There is hope with new providers like Cricket, who is offering only
> month-to-month fixed rate plans. There devices aren't locked but they
> are the only ones using CDMA in the US.
Isn't Verizon CDMA? They're not exactly small.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
| |
| Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com 2006-09-08, 12:33 pm |
| It's refreshing to hear from someone with a similar perspective....
Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:56:49 -0600, Todd Allcock
> < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> No, that's not the problem.
>
> The problem is the carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment,
> keeping competition away completely.
>
> If Walmart had a wall full of multi carrier Nokia, LG, Motorola and
> Samsung phones at competitive prices that had no connection to any
> carrier except being compatible technology this would not be
> occurring. They would be competing on equipment with Target, Sears,
> online sellers, etc. Prices would decline and more reflect the value
> of those products.
Excellent point... The question is, why hasn't this happend? It's
interesting to see how the whole system has evolved in the US. The cell
providers have customers thinking "this is just the way it is" and
Verizon, Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint/NexTel collectively control the
market and they all have adopted similar practices in regards to the
way they treat the phones. Since they are generally exclusive
distributior or the phones they carry, the cell providers use their
weight to get certain features implemented. As a software developer for
mobile devices I've had to deal with this for the past few years. Some
examples of the cell providers pushing their weight (sorry I don't have
specific model numbers):
- Some model flip-phones by Samsung and LG had application transfer
features removed (e.g. you can't load J2ME MIDlets into the phone
through the data cable), in the developer forums the vendors support
confirmed these features were not implemented in the handset because
Cingular wanted to restrict what users could load into their phones.
- On Nokia phones developed for Verizon, ability to transfer sounds,
imagines and applications through the optional data cable were blocked
"by provider".
- It appears on the upcoming Cingular 8525 PDA/Mobile 5 phone, Cingular
has made the vendor HTC remove the camera above the screen in favor of
a camera on the back side of the phone (rumor is they don't feel their
3G network can support video conferencing yet and that that feature
would promote it)
- It appears Cingular requested the removal of the WiFi radio from the
2125 phone, the same phone rebranded for T-Mobile (T-Mobile SDA)
feature the WiFi radio, cost on the devices are identical.
- On all SmartPhones, Microsoft has made it so the cell providers have
the ability to application lock the phones. The cell providers can
control what applications run or do not run on the phones. When
questioned, Microsoft claims this is the "security model" that best
meets the needs of the cellular industry. It's seems the reality is,
cell providers aren't interested in handsets they can't control... With
PDAs they make some exceptions, but overall they want complete control
over "their" handsets.
So there's really is no free market with cell phone hardware.... How
did we let ourselfs as consumers buy into this?
> How much do you think it really costs Motorola to
> make a phone at a plant in Mexico? China? $4? $6? And before
> anyone brings up the CDMA/GSM compatibility argument remember the ATT
> quad band phones? They can do it, if they wanted but they have no
> incentive. Motorola would be selling CDMA/GSM phones on the wall at
> Walmart if they could.
>
> Equipment would be *much* cheaper, and you wouldn't have to sign a new
> contract to get a new phone. The only purpose of the *free* phones is
> to keep you signed up to long contracts all the time. The phones
> aren't *free*, they are part of the marketing.
>
I disagree about the cost of the phones. I think they are priced
fairly, but consumer expectations are that cell phones are free and
that cell phone service is always tied to a contract... This is the
model pushed upon the consumer, it's what the cell providers want.
Compare the cost of other hand held devices, e.g. PDAs, MP3 players,
etc... I don't believe the cell providers are putting a huge markup on
the devices, but they are controlling the devices and treating them
like their property.
| |
|
| Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> If Walmart had a wall full of multi carrier Nokia, LG, Motorola and
> Samsung phones at competitive prices that had no connection to any
> carrier except being compatible technology this would not be
> occurring. They would be competing on equipment with Target, Sears,
> online sellers, etc. Prices would decline and more reflect the value
> of those products. How much do you think it really costs Motorola to
> make a phone at a plant in Mexico? China? $4? $6?
Actually the low end phones cost about $20, but that is falling to about
$10 within a year. The higher end phones cost a little more. But this is
only the manufacturing cost, it doesn't include the development cost.
> Or buy the gophone, put your current $19.99 sim in it and go on with a
> new phone and no contract. A better solution. Gophones have no
> contract and more closely reflect the value of the phone. Not
> subsidized, or not much.
Apparently Cingular has stopped this little workaround.
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Well, if "Mom" limits herself to native Cingular area, fine, the Go phone will
> work. My "Mom", my Wife, my Daughter and I head to Door County, WI and find
> no native Cingular coverage at all! No native Verizon coverage either! No
> native T-Mobile or Sprint PCS coverage either! In fact, all the major
> carriers roam on a local carrier. So much for prepaid.
Some prepaid MVNO carriers do allow roaming, at a significantly higher
price per minute.
You can't roam with T-Mobile prepaid, except onto some 1900 MHz
networks. Virgin doesn't allow roaming. Verizon InPulse says they do,
but it's a terrible deal to begin with. PagePlus allows roaming, but
it's something like $2 per minute if you're off the Verizon network. The
Locus prepaid MVNOs say that they allow roaming.
For a phone that's primarily for urgent use, I'd choose a prepaid
provider that allows roaming onto other digital and AMPS carriers, even
if the price per minute is very high.
| |
| dold@XReXXPlanX.usenet.us.com 2006-09-08, 3:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Apparently Cingular has stopped this little workaround.
I wonder if that's an inadvertent byproduct of that phone being refurb and
having previously been used as a postpaid Cingular phone.
That should only affect a Cingular Go Phone, so if you wanted to play with
a Cingular SIM, you should probably buy some other brand of pre-paid phone.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-09-08, 3:33 pm |
| At 08 Sep 2006 15:30:52 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@americaon
line.com> wrote:
put[color=darkred]
card[color=darkred]
than[color=darkred]
>
> Well, if "Mom" limits herself to native Cingular area, fine, the Go
phone will
> work. My "Mom", my Wife, my Daughter and I head to Door County, WI and
find
> no native Cingular coverage at all! No native Verizon coverage either!
No
> native T-Mobile or Sprint PCS coverage either! In fact, all the major
> carriers roam on a local carrier. So much for prepaid.
>
The OP described this as an emergency phone for Mom. I suspect the
limited coverage would be acceptable, since 911 would work anywhere her
current Cingular GSM phone works. (I did assume her upgraded phone from
two-years ago was GSM since they made her change rate plans. (In my old
days as a Cingular dealer, we never forced customers to change rate plans
on a TDMA upgrade, but their system didn't allow a TDMA rate plan on a
GSM handset.)
Either way, I really used GoPhone as an example, since she currently had
Cingular service I knew a GoPhone would work. There are a plethora of
prepaid services available. I should've suggested the OP check out a few
comparison sites. Dave Markson's cellguru.net and Bill Radio's
mountainwireless.com are excellent places to start.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-09-08, 3:33 pm |
| At 08 Sep 2006 15:29:04 +0000 Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:56:49 -0600, Todd Allcock
> < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
phones[color=darkred
]
>
> No, that's not the problem.
>
> The problem is the carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment,
> keeping competition away completely.
Not really- especially with GSM. Unlocked phones can be used with
Cingular and T-Mobile, and are readily availble if you look for them.
> If Walmart had a wall full of multi carrier Nokia, LG, Motorola and
> Samsung phones at competitive prices that had no connection to any
> carrier except being compatible technology this would not be
> occurring.
Sure it would- those "competitive prices" would be $100 and up. Most
people would still take a free phone (and contract).
> They would be competing on equipment with Target, Sears,
> online sellers, etc. Prices would decline and more reflect the value
> of those products. How much do you think it really costs Motorola to
> make a phone at a plant in Mexico? China? $4? $6?
Wholesale costs of cellphones are much higher than you seem to think.
Even "cheap" low-end phones wholesale for $40-50. If Walmart was content
to have a 2% margin (and they aren't!) that would be a $41 phone with no
frills.
> And before
> anyone brings up the CDMA/GSM compatibility argument remember the ATT
> quad band phones? They can do it, if they wanted but they have no
> incentive.
Correct- because so few people would want or need one, that no one could
afford to build one, especially given the short product curve of today's
wireless market- models are replaced every six months or so.
> Motorola would be selling CDMA/GSM phones on the wall at
> Walmart if they could.
What's stopping them? (Except no one would actually buy one, making it a
failure for both manufacturer and retailer.)
>
> Equipment would be *much* cheaper, and you wouldn't have to sign a new
> contract to get a new phone.
Then why aren't phones dirt cheap in Asia or Europe? Because phones
aren't as cheap as you seem to think.
> The only purpose of the *free* phones is
> to keep you signed up to long contracts all the time.
You're probably too young to remember, but originally cellular phones
were sold unsubsidized and without contract here in the US. The cell
companies came up with the subsidy idea to reduce the cost to the
customer and make cellular a mass-market item. Getting a $700 phone for
$400 or eventually a $400 phone for $99 allowed cellular to take off,
rather than be a business-only or the rich person's purchase.
When Sprint launched their PCS service they did it without contracts, and
were selling $200 phones while the analog guys were giving free phones
with contract. It didn't take Sprint long to adjust their business model
to "free phone with contract" like everyone else, because enough people
didn't see the value of paying $200 for an item that was "supposed" to be
"free".
> The phones
> aren't *free*, they are part of the marketing.
>
> If you could only buy a tv from your cable company and nowhere else
> this would be a valid argument. Glad that's not true.
Again, with GSM providers no one forces you to get your phone from the
company. Online vendors and even mainstream retailers like CompUSA sell
unlocked unsubsidized phones. Most people, however, aren't willing to
pay $200-400 for a phone when their service provider offers 10 different
models for "free".
>
put[color=darkred]
card[color=darkred]
>
> Or buy the gophone, put your current $19.99 sim in it and go on with a
> new phone and no contract.
She's on a $29 plan now- she lost the $19 plan two years ago on her last
upgrade.
> A better solution. Gophones have no
> contract and more closely reflect the value of the phone. Not
> subsidized, or not much.
Actually the GoPhones are subsidized about $30-50 depending on model.
>
upon[color=darkred]
>
> They *are* big, bad companies. They keep a stranglehold on the
> equipment to eliminate competition. They mark it up to absurdly
> inflated prices and give you a *discount* in exchange for signing up.
This is the market WE asked for. Cingular (at least as of two years ago
when I last used them) offered no-contract plans- you either brought your
own compatible phone or could buy one from them unsubsidized. You paid
the $36 activation fee and were month-to-month. People were NOT beating
down Cingular's doors to take that option. Consumer Cellular (a Cingular
reseller located at www.savecell.com) offers no contract plans and
relatively low prices on phones TODAY (nothing fancy- very basic phones
at fairly low prices.) You can also activate your current phone with
them as well and have a competitive monthly plan with no contract.
If we were chaffing at the bit for this type of market, it would exist in
a more obvious form, not as word of mounth or net-only resellers. The
free market, like nature, abhors a vaccum. If no-contract/unsubsidized
wireless was a compelling need, a major retailer (like Wal-mart) would
make it happen by partnering with an MVNO or becoming one. It still
hasn't happened. (Hell, if Sprint couldn't make it work a decade ago, no
one is likely to!)
> The market is broken. It's not a free market at all. That is the
> problem and that's what should be fixed. It's surprising that it's
> not illegal.
It's the perfect example of a free market- not one I particularly like,
but it is what it is- phone prices are competitively low, monthly rates
are as low (on a per-minute basis) as they've ever been, and consumers in
most markets can choose from a half-dozen providers. Ironically, what
would have made the market more "free" by your definition, is if the FCC
had mandated an official digital technology for wireless 15 years ago
like it should have. Then all handsets would be interoperable. They
opted instead to let wireless be a truly free market- equipment and
technology would be selected by the marketplace, who have settled on CDMA
and GSM and rejected TDMA and analog.
> Maybe it actually is, or will be some day. I hope so.
Start an MVNO and fix it yourself if you think it needs fixing. Judging
by the existing MVNOs out there, all the major carriers will allow
resellers.
>
> How would you like it if you could only buy Chevrolet gasoline for
> your Chevy, Ford gas was much cheaper but it wouldn't work?
Then I'd buy a Ford! In your hyothetical, however, Ford and Chevy gas
would be ve y competitively priced, because sales of new vechicles would
depend on it. Similarly, wireless plans are pretty competitive because
if Verizon, for example, rasied their lowest plan to $99, they'd stop
attracting new customers.
Remember back in the good-old analog cellular days all phones were
compatible with all services and no phones were "locked". If $400
unsubsidized phones and $29.99 local (roaming costs extra) plans with 80
anytime minutes per month were your idea of the perfect wireless market,
I submit to you that you were simply born too late to enjoy wireless'
"golden age"! ;-)
BTW, my first phone was a Nokia-built 2-lb. "brick phone" with a six-inch
rubber antenna and an amazing 8-hours of standby time. It was $200 (on
clearance!) with a contract. I had a $19.99/month rate plan with "First
Cellular Omaha" that gave me 10 minutes/month, and 45-cents for each
extra minute. Roaming (anywhere outside of Omaha or Lincoln, NE) was
$3/day plus $1/minute. Ahhh, those were the days... ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com 2006-09-08, 3:33 pm |
|
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 08 Sep 2006 15:29:04 +0000 Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> phones
>
> Not really- especially with GSM. Unlocked phones can be used with
> Cingular and T-Mobile, and are readily availble if you look for them.
>
I think that last statement is contradictory... "readily available...
if you look for them". Where are these phones? You certainly won't find
them at your local T-Mobile, Cingular, Sprint, Verizon retail
outlet.... You won't find them at Walmart, BestBuy, etc... The only
chain retailers that I know of in the US that sells unlocked phones are
Frys and CompUSA and they both only have a handful.
The reality is unlocked phones are not readily available. You can go to
some mom & pop cell phone outlet and find them in any major city, you
can also go to such places and have your phone unlocked for a fee
($20-$60). I believe it's considered grey area and shouldn't be... The
phones should be unlocked when purchased. You sign a two year contract,
and in exchange for that comitment you get a discounted phone.... that
shouldn't mean the service provider has a right to control that device
as if they own it.
>
>
> Sure it would- those "competitive prices" would be $100 and up. Most
> people would still take a free phone (and contract).
>
I believe the cell providers charge fair pricing on their handsets
without contract. If you want a Motorola RAZR you're going to be $200,
if you want one of the higher end PDA's or SmartPhones you're going to
pay $300-$600. In cases where you have the manufactuer also selling
direct to the public, you'll find these prices are not subsidized as
you claim. They are just suggested retail price and they are the prices
you would pay regardless. The "subsidizing" comes in the form of
instant rebates given incentive to sign a contract of service, looking
at Cingular as an example it seems to be fixed range between $100-$150
off depending on the handset. In some cases this allows handsets to be
given away, in others they are just reduced in price. Cingular makes
this money back off all their customers, it's padded into your monthly
rate, even those who don't take advantage of contract signing
incentives. This also explains why they perform credit checks on
customers who they give the incentives to. There are more ethical ways
of doing business.
This whole "sign a contract, get a phone" system was built at time when
people only made phone calls from their cell phones and could care less
what model they had. Today people are starting to want specific models,
or at least specific features out of their handsets (e.g. look at the
success of the Motorola RAZR and Motorola's advertising around that
phone). You can look at the SmartPhones today and that represents the
future of functionality that will be standard for everyone in a few
years. People will expect more out of their phones and as they begin to
realize how much control the providers are enforceing on the handsets
they will demand and hopefully the providers will respond.
>
> Wholesale costs of cellphones are much higher than you seem to think.
> Even "cheap" low-end phones wholesale for $40-50. If Walmart was content
> to have a 2% margin (and they aren't!) that would be a $41 phone with no
> frills.
>
>
> Correct- because so few people would want or need one, that no one could
> afford to build one, especially given the short product curve of today's
> wireless market- models are replaced every six months or so.
>
>
> What's stopping them? (Except no one would actually buy one, making it a
> failure for both manufacturer and retailer.)
There are four companies stopping them: Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint,
Verizon. As I detailed in one of my post to this thread, cell service
providers have extreemly tight relationships with the cell phone
divisions at: Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc... These companies are
taloring phones for the cell service providers because they are the
distribution chain in the US. There would likely be repercusions for
Samsung selling direct to Target, Walmart, etc... The cell service
providers could easily boycott a brand and they could do it covertly
and legally. So it would be risky and the vendors can't afford to take
those risk. One company (HTC) is doing just that, but they are in a
unique position being the sole manufacturer of Microsoft SmartPhone
devices, they have some leverge, in that they offer a unique product
that Cingular, Verizon, etc.. can't easily go to another vendor an
obtain for the same price. but HTC hasn't found wide distrubtion yet. I
believe their model represents the future.
> Then why aren't phones dirt cheap in Asia or Europe? Because phones
> aren't as cheap as you seem to think.
>
>
> You're probably too young to remember, but originally cellular phones
> were sold unsubsidized and without contract here in the US. The cell
> companies came up with the subsidy idea to reduce the cost to the
> customer and make cellular a mass-market item. Getting a $700 phone for
> $400 or eventually a $400 phone for $99 allowed cellular to take off,
> rather than be a business-only or the rich person's purchase.
>
Yeah, but you have to account for this being 2006, phones don't cost
$700 anymore. Asian factories outside the reach of OSHA and other US
regulations have really brought the cost down on consumer electronics.
A moden phone today can be had unsubsidized for around $200 that will:
act a digital camera, a mp3 player, allow browsing of the internet, and
run mobile software applications built with Java2. We've seen a
transition in the last three years especially from handheld phone to
handheld computer with phone capabilities, again SmartPhones represent
the future and the dynamics change.
> When Sprint launched their PCS service they did it without contracts, and
> were selling $200 phones while the analog guys were giving free phones
> with contract. It didn't take Sprint long to adjust their business model
> to "free phone with contract" like everyone else, because enough people
> didn't see the value of paying $200 for an item that was "supposed" to be
> "free".
>
That is the current system, still doesn't give cell providers the right
to treat the handsets as if they own them or lock them to their
service. Skim the terms of the contract, the cell provider acknowledges
the handsets belong to the consumer. They don't want them back, they
put in a clause wher if the contract is broken they can charge you the
full price of the handsets (this is always generic and always more than
the incentive price, comes in the form of a fixed amount, I believe
Cingular charges a flat $250.. which is about 150% more than the
measily $100 instant rebate they give you for the phone on contract
signing, but who cares about ehtics, let's make some money).
>
> Again, with GSM providers no one forces you to get your phone from the
> company. Online vendors and even mainstream retailers like CompUSA sell
> unlocked unsubsidized phones. Most people, however, aren't willing to
> pay $200-400 for a phone when their service provider offers 10 different
> models for "free".
>
No one forces you, however the existing system is built around getting
the phones exclusivley from the cell service providers. I would bet
more than 95% of the billions of cell users in the US obtain their
phones through the service providers. I would also bet over 80% of
those are locked in a contract of some kind.
>
> put
> card
>
> She's on a $29 plan now- she lost the $19 plan two years ago on her last
> upgrade.
>
>
> Actually the GoPhones are subsidized about $30-50 depending on model.
> upon
>
> This is the market WE asked for. Cingular (at least as of two years ago
> when I last used them) offered no-contract plans- you either brought your
> own compatible phone or could buy one from them unsubsidized. You paid
> the $36 activation fee and were month-to-month. People were NOT beating
> down Cingular's doors to take that option. Consumer Cellular (a Cingular
> reseller located at www.savecell.com) offers no contract plans and
> relatively low prices on phones TODAY (nothing fancy- very basic phones
> at fairly low prices.) You can also activate your current phone with
> them as well and have a competitive monthly plan with no contract.
>
> If we were chaffing at the bit for this type of market, it would exist in
> a more obvious form, not as word of mounth or net-only resellers. The
> free market, like nature, abhors a vaccum. If no-contract/unsubsidized
> wireless was a compelling need, a major retailer (like Wal-mart) would
> make it happen by partnering with an MVNO or becoming one. It still
> hasn't happened. (Hell, if Sprint couldn't make it work a decade ago, no
> one is likely to!)
>
I disagree, only because I think the dynamics are changing. Utimately
it's going the consumers desire for choice and freedom that will push
people away from the current model. The cell providers will have a
window of opportunity to adjust their practices, They really gain
nothing from locking the devices to their service and putting
application locks in place (the later being there to help filter
ringtone and game purchases exclusively through their on-line stores).
>
> It's the perfect example of a free market- not one I particularly like,
> but it is what it is- phone prices are competitively low, monthly rates
> are as low (on a per-minute basis) as they've ever been, and consumers in
> most markets can choose from a half-dozen providers. Ironically, what
> would have made the market more "free" by your definition, is if the FCC
> had mandated an official digital technology for wireless 15 years ago
> like it should have. Then all handsets would be interoperable. They
> opted instead to let wireless be a truly free market- equipment and
> technology would be selected by the marketplace, who have settled on CDMA
> and GSM and rejected TDMA and analog.
>
>
> Start an MVNO and fix it yourself if you think it needs fixing. Judging
> by the existing MVNOs out there, all the major carriers will allow
> resellers.
>
> Then I'd buy a Ford! In your hyothetical, however, Ford and Chevy gas
> would be ve y competitively priced, because sales of new vechicles would
> depend on it. Similarly, wireless plans are pretty competitive because
> if Verizon, for example, rasied their lowest plan to $99, they'd stop
> attracting new customers.
>
> Remember back in the good-old analog cellular days all phones were
> compatible with all services and no phones were "locked". If $400
> unsubsidized phones and $29.99 local (roaming costs extra) plans with 80
> anytime minutes per month were your idea of the perfect wireless market,
> I submit to you that you were simply born too late to enjoy wireless'
> "golden age"! ;-)
>
> BTW, my first phone was a Nokia-built 2-lb. "brick phone" with a six-inch
> rubber antenna and an amazing 8-hours of standby time. It was $200 (on
> clearance!) with a contract. I had a $19.99/month rate plan with "First
> Cellular Omaha" that gave me 10 minutes/month, and 45-cents for each
> extra minute. Roaming (anywhere outside of Omaha or Lincoln, NE) was
> $3/day plus $1/minute. Ahhh, those were the days... ;-)
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Grant Edwards 2006-09-08, 3:33 pm |
| On 2006-09-08, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that last statement is contradictory... "readily available...
> if you look for them". Where are these phones?
TigerDirect.com has quite a few. There's always tons on e-bay
(many of them new). Googling for "unlocked gsm" will turn up
dozens of mail-order sources.
> You certainly won't find them at your local T-Mobile,
> Cingular, Sprint, Verizon retail outlet....
That's for true.
> You won't find them at Walmart, BestBuy, etc...
If people started asking for them, they's start carrying them.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want to dress you
at up as TALLULAH BANKHEAD and
visi.com cover you with VASELINE and
WHEAT THINS...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-09-08, 10:33 pm |
| At 08 Sep 2006 13:06:57 -0700 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> I think that last statement is contradictory... "readily available...
> if you look for them". Where are these phones? You certainly won't find
> them at your local T-Mobile, Cingular, Sprint, Verizon retail
> outlet.... You won't find them at Walmart, BestBuy, etc... The only
> chain retailers that I know of in the US that sells unlocked phones are
> Frys and CompUSA and they both only have a handful.
Again, they are plentiful online (you can even buy some models direct
from Nokia's website) and the fact that only a small number retailers
like CompUSA carry them show there is only a little interest.
>
> The reality is unlocked phones are not readily available. You can go to
> some mom & pop cell phone outlet and find them in any major city...
Again, if there was widespread interest, major retailers would get into
the biz. A water pump for a 1975 Ford Mustang is only available in a few
specialty shops because demand is low.
> ...you
> can also go to such places and have your phone unlocked for a fee
> ($20-$60). I believe it's considered grey area and shouldn't be... The
> phones should be unlocked when purchased. You sign a two year contract,
> and in exchange for that comitment you get a discounted phone.... that
> shouldn't mean the service provider has a right to control that device
> as if they own it.
You have no argument from me there! Personally I think it should be
illegal for a wireless provider to alter any feature of a phone UNLESS
they give it a new model name or number. If Nokia's website, for
example, says model 1001 can do this or that, I expect the version
Cingular (or whoever) sells me to do what the manufacturer says it can do.
> In cases where you have the manufactuer also selling
> direct to the public, you'll find these prices are not subsidized as
> you claim.
No, I said prepaid phone prices are subsidized- i.e. a Nokia 6030 GoPhone
with no contract is sold by Cingular for less than the same phone sold
with no contract to a post-paid customer. I didn't mean to imply that
all sales are subsidized.
> This also explains why they perform credit checks on
> customers who they give the incentives to. There are more ethical ways
> of doing business.
Actually they run credit checks on all post-paid customers regardless of
whether they subsidize a phone. The bigger liability the company takes on,
even beyond the subsidy, it the possibily you'll rack up hundreds of
dolloars in overages, data, and int'l LD charges.
>
> This whole "sign a contract, get a phone" system was built at time when
> people only made phone calls from their cell phones and could care less
> what model they had. Today people are starting to want specific models,
> or at least specific features out of their handsets (e.g. look at the
> success of the Motorola RAZR and Motorola's advertising around that
> phone).
Sure, but cellular customers couldn't afford to replace their phones as
often as their underwear without subsidies and contracts. It's a
parasitic relationship. Customers aren't happy unless they have the
latest razor thin chocolate colored phone, and carriers like customers
under contract- it's a "win-win", sadly.
> You can look at the SmartPhones today and that represents the
> future of functionality that will be standard for everyone in a few
> years. People will expect more out of their phones and as they begin to
> realize how much control the providers are enforceing on the handsets
> they will demand and hopefully the providers will respond.
Providers will respond IF customers demand it. I suspect they won't.
RCN (one of the industry trade papers) reported a few months ago that
something like less than 25% of US wireless customers ever used any
wireless internet. Cellphones to this day are primarily voice devices,
despite geeks like me trying to show friends and family otherwise!
it a[color=darkred]
>
> There are four companies stopping them: Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint,
> Verizon. As I detailed in one of my post to this thread, cell service
> providers have extreemly tight relationships with the cell phone
> divisions at: Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc... These companies are
> taloring phones for the cell service providers because they are the
> distribution chain in the US. There would likely be repercusions for
> Samsung selling direct to Target, Walmart, etc... The cell service
> providers could easily boycott a brand and they could do it covertly
> and legally. So it would be risky and the vendors can't afford to take
> those risk.
Nokia and Motorola have enough clout to bypass the providers, and their
phones are in-demand enough that carriers would still buy the hot models.
Besides, this would be a golden opportunity for lesser known brands
(here) to gain a foothold- like Panasonic, who for years sold the
smallest GSM phonse in the world, but couldn't entice a single US carrier
to offer them. (My wife uses a G51 I bought on eBay for $80 and people
still marvel at it's size even though it was discontinued two years ago!)
> One company (HTC) is doing just that, but they are in a
> unique position being the sole manufacturer of Microsoft SmartPhone
> devices, they have some leverge, in that they offer a unique product
> that Cingular, Verizon, etc.. can't easily go to another vendor an
> obtain for the same price. but HTC hasn't found wide distrubtion yet. I
> believe their model represents the future.
Perhaps- Nokia is finally building retail outlets here in the US and
selling unlocked phones. I think it will have very limited appeal- geeks
like me will like it, but most consumers will stay with the status quo-
contracts and "new every two" phones.
for[color=darkred]
>
> Yeah, but you have to account for this being 2006, phones don't cost
> $700 anymore.
Some high-end phones like the HTC PPCs do. I chose to resign a contract
with T-Mo recently to get an MDA (HTC Wizard) for $249 rather than pay
$499 for it. A $200 discount was certainly worth a 1-year renewal with a
service I've had for 5 years and am happy with. Win-win.
> Asian factories outside the reach of OSHA and other US
> regulations have really brought the cost down on consumer electronics.
> A moden phone today can be had unsubsidized for around $200 that will:
> act a digital camera, a mp3 player, allow browsing of the internet, and
> run mobile software applications built with Java2. We've seen a
> transition in the last three years especially from handheld phone to
> handheld computer with phone capabilities, again SmartPhones represent
> the future and the dynamics change.
Yes and no. Some people just won't care. In a year with her G51 my wife
has never even fired up the browser to check the weather. For her, it
doesn't matter how "smart" phones get- they'll still be voice devices.
>
and[color=darkred]
model[color=darkred]
people[color=darkred
]
to be[color=darkred]
>
>
> That is the current system, still doesn't give cell providers the right
> to treat the handsets as if they own them or lock them to their
> service.
No, the law allows that! It's the definition of the free market- they're
free to stack the deck against you, and you're free to go elsewhere for
products or services.
> Skim the terms of the contract, the cell provider acknowledges
> the handsets belong to the consumer. They don't want them back, they
> put in a clause wher if the contract is broken they can charge you the
> full price of the handsets (this is always generic and always more than
> the incentive price, comes in the form of a fixed amount, I believe
> Cingular charges a flat $250.. which is about 150% more than the
> measily $100 instant rebate they give you for the phone on contract
> signing, but who cares about ehtics, let's make some money).
But in fairness to Cingular, they are still the only major service
provider that offers no-contract post-paid plans (AFAIK- this was two
years ago when I last inquired.) So arguably, anyone entering into a
contract with Cingular does it by choice.
>
different[color=dark
red]
>
> No one forces you, however the existing system is built around getting
> the phones exclusivley from the cell service providers. I would bet
> more than 95% of the billions of cell users in the US obtain their
> phones through the service providers. I would also bet over 80% of
> those are locked in a contract of some kind.
>
I'd guess it's even higher if you discount prepaid. The real question,
however, is how many of those people would be willing to pay more for an
unsubsidized phone and have no contract? My guess is that would be a
very low number. You need to have service to use a phone, and a year
isn't that big a commitment (although, IMHO, two years is something to
avoid. I've never signed a two year commitment nor do I intend to.)>
>
contract/ unsubsidized[color=d
arkred]
ago, no[color=darkred]
>
> I disagree, only because I think the dynamics are changing. Utimately
> it's going the consumers desire for choice and freedom that will push
> people away from the current model.
If the dynamics are changing (which I doubt), your model will co-exist
with the current one, not replace it. Most consumers like and expect
"free" phones. Some will embrace a no-contract model, but I wonder if
the increasing value of prepaid offerings will take care of that. If I
could get reasonably priced "unlimited" data from T-Mo prepaid, I'd
probably switch my postpaid plan over. $0.10/min for voice on T-Mo PPD
is reasonable.
> The cell providers will have a
> window of opportunity to adjust their practices, They really gain
> nothing from locking the devices to their service and putting
> application locks in place (the later being there to help filter
> ringtone and game purchases exclusively through their on-line stores).
Right there is what they have to gain. Every dollar spend on MMS'ing a
camera picture or ringtone to/from the phone is extra revenue from the
carrier. I simply avoid crippled handsets. My last three phones, Nokias
3650 and 3620, and my MDA, aren't crippled in function. I, as a
consumer, made my decisions and have been relatively happy with them.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Steevo@my-deja.com 2006-09-12, 12:33 pm |
| On 8 Sep 2006 09:41:56 -0700, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
>- On Nokia phones developed for Verizon, ability to transfer sounds,
>imagines and applications through the optional data cable were blocked
>"by provider".
And Verizon disabled the transflash slot on those Motorola phones so
you would have to pay them to get the pictures out of your phone.
Big bad companies, like I said. Outrageous.
| |
| Steevo@my-deja.com 2006-09-12, 12:33 pm |
| On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:57:47 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>At 08 Sep 2006 15:29:04 +0000 Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>phones
>
>Not really- especially with GSM. Unlocked phones can be used with
>Cingular and T-Mobile, and are readily availble if you look for them.
Hardly true. There are very few places you can buy a non "fake
subsidized" unlocked phone. Ebay is one of them, but there is hardly
competition. The unlocked ones are usually lots more than the carrier
locked ones. That's the carriers keeping a stranglehold on the
equipment again.
>
>
>Sure it would- those "competitive prices" would be $100 and up. Most
>people would still take a free phone (and contract).
Maybe, but if you break or lose your phone lots of people would find
it better to buy one off the wall a Walmart. I wouldn't sign a
contract in order to get a phone except as a last resort.
Unfortunately that's how it's been.
Ya know, I asked Cingular if I could activate a phone on one of their
plans without a contract, without them giving me or even selling me a
discounted phone. There was no way to get that. I couldn't bring my
own. I argued that the only reason I would get a "contract" is in
order to get a phone from them, and I ought not have to have one if I
am not getting a phone. Nope. Impossible.
At the local store and by email and by chat on their site and on the
phone with their phone reps. Same story. NOPE.
Hardly sounds like an open competitive market to me.
>
>Wholesale costs of cellphones are much higher than you seem to think.
>Even "cheap" low-end phones wholesale for $40-50. If Walmart was content
>to have a 2% margin (and they aren't!) that would be a $41 phone with no
>frills.
Those are fake wholesale costs. If there was competition between
manufacturers without the carriers involved at all those prices would
decline due to competition.
>
>Correct- because so few people would want or need one, that no one could
>afford to build one, especially given the short product curve of today's
>wireless market- models are replaced every six months or so.
>
>
>What's stopping them? (Except no one would actually buy one, making it a
>failure for both manufacturer and retailer.)
As things are you are right, there is no need. Just try to get a CDMA
phone activated on Sprint or Verizon that they didn't sell. NOPE.
>Then why aren't phones dirt cheap in Asia or Europe? Because phones
>aren't as cheap as you seem to think.
>
>
>You're probably too young to remember, but originally cellular phones
>were sold unsubsidized and without contract here in the US. The cell
>companies came up with the subsidy idea to reduce the cost to the
>customer and make cellular a mass-market item. Getting a $700 phone for
>$400 or eventually a $400 phone for $99 allowed cellular to take off,
>rather than be a business-only or the rich person's purchase.
Hardly. My first cellular phone was an AT&T speakerphone on PacTel
Cellular in LA. It was about 25# and screwed in my car. It was
expensive too. $45 a month plus 45 cents/minute for all calls.
I paid $700 for it. I had one of the first portable phones too. A
Samsonite briefcase with a phone and lead acid battery. Weighed about
45#. Man, you would be sitting in a restaurant and the phone would
ring, you would open your briefcase and take out the handset, with
it's cord. Was that FUN. People thought I was a really big wheel.
>When Sprint launched their PCS service they did it without contracts, and
>were selling $200 phones while the analog guys were giving free phones
>with contract. It didn't take Sprint long to adjust their business model
>to "free phone with contract" like everyone else, because enough people
>didn't see the value of paying $200 for an item that was "supposed" to be
>"free".
And Sprint never ever advertised that. They should have promoted the
no contract idea. "you'll love us or you'll dump us, so we will make
you happy"
I was one of their first customers, the service and coverage sucked.
Maybe they knew they needed to lock users in to keep them around.
>
>Again, with GSM providers no one forces you to get your phone from the
>company. Online vendors and even mainstream retailers like CompUSA sell
>unlocked unsubsidized phones. Most people, however, aren't willing to
>pay $200-400 for a phone when their service provider offers 10 different
>models for "free".
Times have changed, manufacturing volumes are very high now. Costs
should be declining on equipment but the market is being distorted by
the carrier's involvement.
| |
| Grant Edwards 2006-09-12, 12:33 pm |
| On 2006-09-12, Steevo@my-deja.com <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ya know, I asked Cingular if I could activate a phone on one
> of their plans without a contract, without them giving me or
> even selling me a discounted phone. There was no way to get
> that.
I did.
> I couldn't bring my own.
I did.
> At the local store and by email and by chat on their site and on the
> phone with their phone reps. Same story. NOPE.
You can on the prepaid plans.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Thousands of days of
at civilians... have produced
visi.com a... feeling for the
aesthetic modules --
| |
| Todd Allcock 2006-09-12, 3:33 pm |
| At 12 Sep 2006 16:21:15 +0000 Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hardly true. There are very few places you can buy a non "fake
> subsidized" unlocked phone. Ebay is one of them, but there is hardly
> competition.
CompUSA, Fry's, some independent phone dealers, several online web
Vendors (non-eBay) like TigerDirect, Geeks.com, etc.
> The unlocked ones are usually lots more than the carrier
> locked ones. That's the carriers keeping a stranglehold on the
> equipment again.
No, that's the carrier offering a discount in return for a comittment.
While I'm not a big fan of contracts, I recently signed a one-year w/T-Mo
to get my MDA for $250. I could've bought it w/out contract for $450, or
bought an unlocked version for about $500-600. Since I didn't intend to
leave T-Mo, I figured why not take the subsidy? I've been with T-Mo for
5 or 6 years and had no plans to leave. Worst case scenario I eat a $200
ETF, which makes the phone "regular price" again.
>
> Maybe, but if you break or lose your phone lots of people would find
> it better to buy one off the wall a Walmart. I wouldn't sign a
> contract in order to get a phone except as a last resort.
In most cases you could use a Wal-Mart prepaid phone as a replacement for
far less than an unsubsidized phone from the carrier. For example, a low-
end T-Mobile Nokia 6010 is a $30 pre-paid phone or $100 from T-Mo w/o
contract. You could buy the $30 version, throw away the SIM and use it
as a replacement on your contract.
> Ya know, I asked Cingular if I could activate a phone on one of their
> plans without a contract, without them giving me or even selling me a
> discounted phone. There was no way to get that. I couldn't bring my
> own. I argued that the only reason I would get a "contract" is in
> order to get a phone from them, and I ought not have to have one if I
> am not getting a phone. Nope. Impossible.
>
> At the local store and by email and by chat on their site and on the
> phone with their phone reps. Same story. NOPE.
Thanks for clearing that up. I have done a couuple of years ago when I
needed temporary service with fax capability for a business, but that was
in 2003 or 2004, IIRC.
>
> Hardly sounds like an open competitive market to me.
Sure it is- the free market is also (sadly) a two-way street. Companies
can market their service in anyway they see fit legally, and we're free
to buy or not to buy
Again, if you want no contract Cingular service, use a reseller like
Consumer Cellular (savecell.com).>
content[color=darkre
d]
no[color=darkred]
> Those are fake wholesale costs. If there was competition between
> manufacturers without the carriers involved at all those prices would
> decline due to competition.
What do you mean by "fake wholesale" price. I'm talking about the price
a carrier pays for their phones in high-volume orders. That's a "true" a
wholesale price as you can get.
>
it a[color=darkred]
> As things are you are right, there is no need. Just try to get a CDMA
> phone activated on Sprint or Verizon that they didn't sell. NOPE.
Correct- again, that's the "free market" at work. No service provider is
forced to let you use any equipment you'd like, and you're not forced to
use them.
You don't really want a free market (which is fine), you want a
government regulated market with consumer protections mandated. Again,
there's nothing wrong with wanting that- just don't pretend that's what a
free market is.
> Hardly. My first cellular phone was an AT&T speakerphone on PacTel
> Cellular in LA. It was about 25# and screwed in my car. It was
> expensive too. $45 a month plus 45 cents/minute for all calls.
>
> I paid $700 for it. I had one of the first portable phones too. A
> Samsonite briefcase with a phone and lead acid battery. Weighed about
> 45#. Man, you would be sitting in a restaurant and the phone would
> ring, you would open your briefcase and take out the handset, with
> it's cord. Was that FUN. People thought I was a really big wheel.
So how is today's market worse? If you assume the EFT reflects a fair
discount off of a phone price (which it is on high-end phones- certainly
not on a low-end freebie) you can accept the EFT as an upfront rebate
that you repay if you cancel early.
I'd like the freedom to purchase any company's service without a
contract, but I'd like it as an option in addition to the current system,
not instead of it. The discount-for-contract game has it's advantages,
particularly as new services are rolled out. My MDA will be a dog when T-
Mo rolls out 3G next year, and I might be in the market for it's
replacement. Why wouldn't I want to spend $300 for it instead of $500 or
more if I intend to stay with T-Mobile?
and[color=darkred]
model[color=darkred]
be[color=darkred]
> And Sprint never ever advertised that. They should have promoted the
> no contract idea. "you'll love us or you'll dump us, so we will make
> you happy"
>
> I was one of their first customers, the service and coverage sucked.
> Maybe they knew they needed to lock users in to keep them around.
They offere contractless service for at least a year before changing the
business model (IIRC, the words "no contracts!" were prominently printed
directly on the box of that original handset they offered for $199.)
sell[color=darkred]
different[color=dark
red]
>
> Times have changed, manufacturing volumes are very high now. Costs
> should be declining on equipment but the market is being distorted by
> the carrier's involvement.
No, it's being distorted by increased feature sets. RCN (a wireless
industry trade paper) recently ran an article about how companies like
Motorola and Nokia were racing to develop a $10-15 wholesale phone for
use in India, since the income level there prohibits selling even what
we'd call a low-end phone. These $10 phones were single-band GSM with
b&w low-res displays, and no data services (except SMS). Essentially the
equivalent of, say, a Nokia 5190 except a bit smaller. Most US consumers
wouldn't accept a phone like that without cameras, MP3 players,
bluetooth, MMS, etc.
So costs aren't really distorted by carrier involvement, they've
essentially "bottomed out" like, for example, the laptop market has- you
really can't build a laptop with color screen and a few hours of battery
life to sell for less than $300-400, so future models at that price get
more RAM, a bigger HD, etc. as time goes by. Similarly, the wholesale
cost of a color-screen phone won't drop much below $30 for awhile, but
they'll get more advanced features as time goes on, until even a "low-
end" phone will have bluetooth, a sh*tty camera, and stereo MP3 playback.
Then, perhaps, competition will drive down ETFs, like Verizon did
recently with their new (and fairer) "pro-rated" ETF, which other
companies will eventually adopt if they feel not having it i driving
customers away.
That's the great thing about a free market- it eventually corrects
itself, even if it takes a long time to do it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| ezramoore@gmail.com 2006-09-13, 12:33 pm |
| Why the hell would you want her to upgrade from a Nokia to a Samsung.
Nokias are well known for having the best reception and battery life in
the industry. The CS rep wasn't lying, that plan is surely no longer
available. Maybe shes not on the phone enough to use a plan, maybe
prepay is the way to go. I don't know why you would want her to update
her hardware so often. As long as shes using GSM shes going to have the
same reception as anyone else on the network. Plus if you're worried
about her having a phone for safety I would recommend against getting
her a new phone unless ABSOLUTELY necessary, she needs to be familiar
with her handset to be able to use it in an emergency
Ann wrote:
> The price of cell phone plans seems to be going up-up-and away. I wonder if
> the cell phone providers are connected with the petroleum industry ... as
> they continue to shake down their customers.
>
> A few years ago I wanted my mom to upgrade her phone (she had a blue nokia
> candybar phone that weighed 5 lbs.) to a flip style. At the time she had a
> $19.99 plan and only used the phone for emergency calls. The CS rep
> convinced her that the $19.99 plan no longer existed and she would have to
> bump it up to the $29.99 plan. She complained so much about the price
> difference that I gave her $240 to cover the difference for the term of the
> new contract. She is still using the Samsung phone she got and I think she
> should upgrade again ... but I don't dare mention it because now the lowest
> priced plan is $39.99.
>
> It would be great if they still had no-frills plans available for those who
> don't live on the phone (like the retired / elderly) but still need to
> communicate while away from home.
|
|
|
|
|