AT&T, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Defend ETFs
Feb 24, 2010, 8:20 AM by Eric M. Zeman
All four major U.S network operators — AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless — together with Google responded to an inquiry made by the Federal Communications Commission over early termination fees. All five organizations files official responses on Feb. 23, and stated that customers are well informed about ETFs before committing to wireless contracts, and know that they have plenty of choice, given the wide range of pre-paid providers also serving the market. The network operators noted that the industry is highly competitive, and ETFs are needed to recoup fees that go towards customer acquisition and equipment subsidies. Verizon indicated that it plans to clearly put ETFs on device cost labels, and told the FCC that is has reduced the number of handsets on its "advanced devices" list, which require a $350 fee (compared to the standard fee of $175). Google defended the equipment recovery fee it is charging Nexus One customers who break their T-Mobile contracts because it says T-Mobile pays it a commission for each customer T-Mobile acquires through Google. Google passes that commission on to the customer in the form of a device subsidy. All the companies noted that customers have a minimum of 14 days to test products at the onset of their contracts before the ETF becomes mandatory.
Samsung Refreshes Galaxy S Series with S Pen, New Cameras
Samsung Refines its Foldable Phones
iPhone 14 Plus Offers a Big Screen For Less
iPhone 15 Series Goes All-In on USB-C and Dynamic Island
Samsung S24 Series Adds More AI, Updates the Hardware
Comments
What i know working for Verizon
1. If your not a current customer but have a VZW phone that you get from a friend or on ebay(good luck with that) you do not have to do a contract.
2. If your that worried about having a contact then anti up and pay full price and shut up.
2. If your that worried about having a contact then anti up and pay full price and shut up.
The last sentence, is a problem with me.
I understand the carriers point. But only to a certain extent. In the 23 years I have owned cellphones, 98 percent of my issues have not been with devices. It has almost always been with the service after the sale. Generally, this has only occurred after the 30 day trial. By then it is too late. I believe the balance of compromise should be the elimination of subsidized devices. As expected, the carriers, will fight this because of the power it gives to consumers to extract themselves at anytime a carrier disproportionates itself from good customer service and/or billing issues.
I wish! But then people would bitch about buying a $200 basic phone! But thats what they cost. No subsidy means if you want an Android OS device be prepared to pay $500+. Thats about what the carriers have to pay the manufactures to get those phones. ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
The problem with that concept as I see it is:
1) handset prices would be higher than consumers would be willing to pay so the industry would slow development of new products.
2) Handsets would become a much lower quality like Tracfone and Virgi...
(continues)
1) handset prices would be higher than consumers would be willing to pay so the industry would slow development of new products.
2) Handsets would become a much lower quality like Tracfone and Virgi...
(continues)
...
Yes, the carriers like things just the way they are as do many consumers. I hope the FCC bans contracts so that all the carriers can act in one accord and eliminate equipment subsidies.
...
T-mobile offers an month to month service with phones at full price. You can opt to spread the payments over 20 months and if you want to leave you just have to pay off the phone. I think customers are fairly open to it, though there are the few peo...
(continues)
(continues)
*sigh*
the same chest beaters and fist raisers that are crying about ETFs and contracts will be the same angry mob forming at the gates of the "evil" carriers when they have to pay $150+ for their dumb phone and $700+ for their precious iPhone.
guess what people, for a long long long time you've had the option of going month to month and pay full retail for a phone. why do carriers never talk about it? because it doesn't effing sell when a customer can sign a contract and get a phone for cheaper. consumers *WANT* the subsidy model. that's how a market works, it typically will produce the product or service that the customers will actually pay for. we don't need aunty government with their predominant lack of business sense or experience to come ...
(continues)
guess what people, for a long long long time you've had the option of going month to month and pay full retail for a phone. why do carriers never talk about it? because it doesn't effing sell when a customer can sign a contract and get a phone for cheaper. consumers *WANT* the subsidy model. that's how a market works, it typically will produce the product or service that the customers will actually pay for. we don't need aunty government with their predominant lack of business sense or experience to come ...
(continues)
Don't Seen an Issue
ME as a consumer and a retail cellular store operator see No issue in this. Thru a business perspective I understand the reason for the contract signing and implications of fees and etf's. As a consumer i am well aware that if i sign a contract (any contract) that there are guidelines that I should know and follow. As a retail cellular store operator I am sometimes a little ashamed to here my competitor down the street selling the same product, might of mis-informed a customer to get a sale. It's up to us as salesman to make sure that we describe all major details of plans and contracts before a customer signs to make sure they are getting a product that they feel comfortable with. Now, at the same time as a consumer i should do some researc...
(continues)
(continues)
I completely agree with the carriers and you, everybody these days are well aware of ETFs. Its even on the fine print in the commercials. Id rather risk an EtF than pay a higher monthly bill and/or full price for a high end phone.
it's sales reps like you that get a reputation and a good returning client base. unfortunately there are too few of you out there to make a difference. if we set the customer straight from the get go there can be no misunderstanding.
...
I paid my ETF and left, then came back to save the $ and got a big surprise.
Because I paid the ETF in full and came back within 60 days, they credited the ETF back to my account and they put me on a month-to-month account! And! I still get my monthly employee discount too! Now, I am staying with AT&T for that!
yeah, I don't think AT&T is special. Giving customers 60 to 90 days to reconnect and get a refund of the ETF is no different than most other carriers. I briefly canceled service with Verizon to try the iphone and went back to Verizon about 2 1/2 month...
(continues)
(continues)
...
New Subsidized Model
Instead of signing on day one and getting a subsidized device, pay full retail for it on activation (or bring a device from previous network).
At two years (or whatever arbitrary point), be handed a device at a subsidized price for being a valued customer. No contract needed because the subsidization was over the previous two years not the future two.
At two years (or whatever arbitrary point), be handed a device at a subsidized price for being a valued customer. No contract needed because the subsidization was over the previous two years not the future two.
The problem with that is that most people are not willing to shell out full retail for a phone and wait two years for the chance to get free one.
...
New ETF Idea
Well here is the idea I propose. Every carrier should have a no contract price or a contract price on the phone. Give any phone for free if the customer sign a contract but base the ETF on the price plan they picked and multiply it by the months they have left in the contract if they decide to cancel after 3 months.
E.G.: I got the Nexus One for free with 2yr contract and signed a $39.99 Plan + $30 data plan. Then 3 month into my contract I cancel and then my ETF would be $69.99 x 21 Months left, equal $1469.79.
This will clearly benefit both the Company and the customer because the company will not lose if the customer just get the phone w/o a contract or with a contract and will make customers think better which way to go before ...
(continues)
E.G.: I got the Nexus One for free with 2yr contract and signed a $39.99 Plan + $30 data plan. Then 3 month into my contract I cancel and then my ETF would be $69.99 x 21 Months left, equal $1469.79.
This will clearly benefit both the Company and the customer because the company will not lose if the customer just get the phone w/o a contract or with a contract and will make customers think better which way to go before ...
(continues)
One thing that I like though is the ability to change my plans based on need. How many times will someone switch carriers? You don't know how the minutes will work. What if everyone is one the new carrier and you get free minutes, or no one is on the ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
ETFs are designed to recover the initial loss of the device. There should NEVER be an instance where the ETF surpasses the worth of the device, especially by almost 3x.
- VDubb
- VDubb
Your idea is clever. However, trying to sell a customer on the idea that they might have to pay an ETF of $1469.79, ain't going to fly.
I dont see a problem at where things are at
I was in the local Verizon store yesterday and the sales guy offered me a choice, no contract, 1 year contract, or a 2 year contract
I don't think the government needs to step in and take away consumer choice.
This is not any different than if the FTC decided that best buys Margin and wide screen TVs is too large and they stepped in to strong arm them to change there prices
our government is becoming a Nanny state where thy don't feel consumers can make informed choices and the government knows better what you need So they take away your choice or make it for you
I do also understand that perception is "I get a free phone" eliminate contract and those days are gone
I don't think the government needs to step in and take away consumer choice.
This is not any different than if the FTC decided that best buys Margin and wide screen TVs is too large and they stepped in to strong arm them to change there prices
our government is becoming a Nanny state where thy don't feel consumers can make informed choices and the government knows better what you need So they take away your choice or make it for you
I do also understand that perception is "I get a free phone" eliminate contract and those days are gone
Hmm, 1yr contracts are still available with VZN, huh? I thought 1yr contracts weren't available anymore.
I'm with ATT though. It's 8:30 here, so I will wait til 10 for my local store to open and find out.
I'm not a big fan of being married to a ...
(continues)
I'm with ATT though. It's 8:30 here, so I will wait til 10 for my local store to open and find out.
I'm not a big fan of being married to a ...
(continues)
...
It also doesn't help that...
...the latest, greatest, gotta have gadget is released what seems like every other week.
