|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > July 2005 > am i behind . . . .
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]
| Author |
am i behind . . . .
|
|
|
|
| Frankster 2005-07-26, 11:48 pm |
| The way I read this, if you walk into a Verizon store and pay full retail
for a Verizon phone because you do not qualify yet for new every 2, you will
be charged $15 processing fee to change your ESN on top of the full retail
price of the phone. That is really ridiculous.
-Frank
"rg" < replyingroup@invalid
.com> wrote in message
news:4qnde1ts479oqbj
00pltg1sfsd2ui2cafu@
4ax.com...
>. . . . in first learning of these charges?
>
> http://www.pcsintel.com/modules.php...rticle&sid=1012
>
> It is outrageous!
>
> --
> rg
| |
|
| "outrageous"? don't you think you're being a bit
melodramatic? And ridiculous?
It's really simple. You pay charges for non essential
service if you think it's worth it. If it's not worth it you
don't use the service. If you want the service and you
can get the that service elsewhere for less you go there.
This might constitute a change of terms for those
under contract and you might be able to terminate
without penalty but that's a different issue.
It's a competitive business. VZW doesn't have a
monopoly and they are not selling an essential
service. Vote with your dollars.
-Quick
Frankster wrote:[color=darkred
]
> The way I read this, if you walk into a Verizon store and
> pay full retail for a Verizon phone because you do not
> qualify yet for new every 2, you will be charged $15
> processing fee to change your ESN on top of the full
> retail price of the phone. That is really ridiculous.
>
> -Frank
>
> "rg" < replyingroup@invalid
.com> wrote in message
> news:4qnde1ts479oqbj
00pltg1sfsd2ui2cafu@
4ax.com...
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-07-27, 2:48 am |
| Quick wrote:
> "outrageous"? don't you think you're being a bit
> melodramatic? And ridiculous?
Perhaps not. Verizon already is the most expensive traditional wireless
carrier (Nextel doesn't count, they're a specialty carrier as far as I'm
concerned). I would already consider it uncool if Cingular or T-Mobile or
Sprint started playing the nickel-and-dime game, and they're all cheaper, on
average, than Verizon is. But Verizon's already charging top dollar for the
"best network." I understand the desire to maximize ARPU, but at some point
it starts to feel like gouging.
> It's a competitive business. VZW doesn't have a
> monopoly and they are not selling an essential
> service. Vote with your dollars.
Ultimately, I'd agree. The problem is, what if VZW is the only carrier with
decent coverage in your area? And don't tell me "that's what you're paying
more money for" - you were already paying more money for the privilege of
the best coverage *before* the $15 policy started.
Really, it seems to me that the $15 penalizes loyal, existing customers. But
I believe that most US carriers seem to have this perverse desire to
prefer new activations even at the risk of losing those existing customers.
Churning customers out at the same time other carriers are losing customers
to you doesn't make good business sense. Why not take those new customers
*and* keep your loyal existing customers?
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
|
| Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>
> Ultimately, I'd agree. The problem is, what if VZW is the
> only carrier with decent coverage in your area? And don't
> tell me "that's what you're paying more money for" - you
> were already paying more money for the privilege of the
> best coverage *before* the $15 policy started.
No. I will say "that's what you choose to pay more money
for". When they deregulated the airlines a lot of small
towns in the sticks no longer had service at any price.
Cell service is not classified as a necessity (yet). They
don't have to provide service and you don't have to
buy it if they do and over price it. Why not rail against
Sprint for not providing decent service in those areas
at their lower prices?
I'm not defending the price hikes ("gouging"). I'm just
saying that it's simple supply and demand. If the price
is too high don't buy it. I sure don't want to pay more
but I don't have delusions that they "owe" me service
at some price I think is reasonable. I'll buy from whatever
company meets my needs for the lowest price. If it can't
be had for a price that's worth it to me I'll do without.
-Quick
| |
|
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:20:44 GMT, "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:
>"outrageous"? don't you think you're being a bit
>melodramatic? And ridiculous?
I was being nice by calling it outrageous. You spend a thousand or more
dollars every year to use the service and you purchase a new phone, upgrade
or not and then they charge you $15 to transfer your phonebook? Early
upgrade when eligible another $15. Yea, that's outrageous.
(I love my SIM card)
>
>It's really simple. You pay charges for non essential
>service if you think it's worth it. If it's not worth it you
>don't use the service. If you want the service and you
>can get the that service elsewhere for less you go there.
>
Which maybe people that realize that can get service via GSM will do just
that. At least these surcharges might wake some people up to the fact they
have no need for VZW solely.
>This might constitute a change of terms for those
>under contract and you might be able to terminate
>without penalty but that's a different issue.
>
>It's a competitive business. VZW doesn't have a
>monopoly and they are not selling an essential
>service. Vote with your dollars.
>
>-Quick
>
>
>Frankster wrote:
>
| |
|
| "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:wYDFe.879$iM7.13@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
> "outrageous"? don't you think you're being a bit
> melodramatic? And ridiculous?
>
The company apologists have arrived....(sigh)...(c;
--
Larry
| |
| iwantthisname@gmail.com 2005-07-27, 5:48 pm |
|
rg wrote:
> . . . . in first learning of these charges?
>
> http://www.pcsintel.com/modules.php...rticle&sid=1012
>
> It is outrageous!
>
> --
> rg
Even the greatest company can quickly go down the tubes. I love
Verizion however I hate their policies and their Holier than thou
attitude. I see them going down the tubes if they keep price gouging.
Personally I havent had any problems with them but I keep hearing about
things changing so it wouldnt take long for them to start losing
customers and quickly
| |
| Roger Binns 2005-07-29, 11:48 pm |
|
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:dc74qj$vs8$1@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
> I understand the desire to maximize ARPU, but at some point it starts to feel like gouging.
If they were having a problem with some customers (ab)using
their stores too much, then a simpler solution would be
to say the first one or two phonebook/ESN transfers etc
per year are complementary. That way ordinary users wouldn't
have a problem.
VZW is being hit badly on the ARPU side. I think they still
haven't worked out that when you sell the most expensive
product, many people get very wary of being further nickel
and dimed.
Ultimately the guide they should use is to charge for what
you are trying to discourage, and subsidise what you want
more of. I would think you want people upgrading phones
rather than putting barriers in the way. I would think you
want existing customers to experience excellent customer
service. (Wait till people get annoyed at just how bad
many of the phonebook transfer programs are as most won't
transfer speed dials, voice dials, picture ids etc).
Roger
| |
|
| Roger Binns wrote:
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:dc74qj$vs8$1@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
>
> If they were having a problem with some customers
> (ab)using
> their stores too much, then a simpler solution would be
> to say the first one or two phonebook/ESN transfers etc
> per year are complementary. That way ordinary users
> wouldn't
> have a problem.
>
> VZW is being hit badly on the ARPU side. I think they
> still
> haven't worked out that when you sell the most expensive
> product, many people get very wary of being further nickel
> and dimed.
>
> Ultimately the guide they should use is to charge for what
> you are trying to discourage, and subsidise what you want
> more of. I would think you want people upgrading phones
> rather than putting barriers in the way. I would think
> you want existing customers to experience excellent customer
> service.
I think this is just what they are doing.
You want people to upgrade phones to the extent that they
are current with the network so you don't have to support
older ones. But they lose money selling equipment.
Customer service is *very* expensive. Especially with
a physical store presence. Support call centers are way
more efficient.
So it's sort of like jacking up the taxes on cigarettes and
liquour for additional revenue.
-Quick
|
|
|
|
|