Google Says Nexus One $350 'ERF' Is Necessary

...doesn't connect to Tmob's 3G service. And you'll get hammered with crazy ETF's.

Sounds like a bargain.

Okay,

Everyone wants to cry foul about this policy, but its a very common practice on sites like amazon.com. For some reason google is getting hammered for this.

People keep asking: Why is the ETF higher than the total cost of the phone?

Heres why...

If you only paid the Tmob ETF, then google loses $350 based on the retail price of the phone ($530) and the subsidized price of $180. I don't think thats fair and scammers have the ability to get an unlocked "superphone" for $380 if they cancel immediately. Google would get screwed.

Now if you only paid the google ETF, Tmob gets screwed. You signed a CONTRACT stating that you would pay them a specified amount for 2 years. If you break that, Tmob loses thousands of dollars. ...
(continues)

That's less, but if you buy a Verizon Droid from Amazon, Amazon will charge the $250 on top of Verizon's $350... that's $600 total.

To compare the Nexus $550 to Verizon's $350 alone is moronic. It's just a flat out lie really.

ETF Money is for repaying the phone subsidy. So is Google subsidizing the phone, or is T-Mobile Subsidizing the phone? It sounds like Google is (who likely gets a cut from the T-Mobile service plan.) Even Verizon's $350.00 ETF is because congruous with their subsidy.

T-Mobile loses out on "theoretical" dollars, but they're not entitled to that by cell-phone-contract standards. If I buy an LG Lotus from Sprint with the $150.00 subsidy my ETF matches the subsidy. Sprint doesn't get my 'theoretical' dollars, I just repay the subsidy amount.

So why is T-Mobile charging an ETF? It's not costing them anything other than theoretical dollars (beyond activating my account which I already pay $36.00 for.

Thats the only thing I'm concerned about. I understand everybody talking about if you don't want it blah blah blah.

I ain't trying to hear all that. I'm worried about why when you add up these ERF/ETF is it more then the Phone?

How did half the world just now notice retailers charge their own ETF? Has nobody ever heard of an indirect dealer? Every indirect has the same policy but now everyone is pissed off that google is doing this as well. Everyone who is upset please just go back to your normal ways and blame Bush/Government/apple/windows/religion/etc. This has been going on for YEARS so stop your yappin and hold up your end of the contract.

1. Customer signs up with indirect kiosk in mall
2. Indirect discounts phone
3. T-mobile pays dealer for the contract they sold.
4. Customer breaks contract within xxx days.
5. Indirect charges customer ETF
5. T-mobile charges Indirect for breach of contract, T-mobile charges customer breach of contract.

as annoying as it is with all the ETF think it this way.

at least you can get a good phone unlocked and use it on any GSM network.

Unlike the iphone unless you are with AT&T you have to pay an arm and a leg and bend over with your pants down to get one. i know you can get an used on from craigslist.

i am not hating AT&T or anything just saying that why get a locked phone when GSM aren't meant to be lock.

Maybe I am a bit if a cynic but if a customer is OK purchasing a device after knowing there are 2 ETF fees involved then why is the government getting in the way of that?

I can see it now, some guy to ignorant to read the Terms of Service buys the Nexus One and then tries to sell it to a buddy for $100 more than he paid for it. Google then sends him a letter asking for the $350 he owes them and now the guy is upset he didn't read the T's & C's.

$550 for something that doesn't even work!
Hopefully Verizon works out a better pricing plan because their ETF looks better already.

You do not get charged an ETF of 200 by T-Mobile unless you have passed the 15 day grace period set by Google. Google is the one that is charging the 350 ERF. If you read the contract it does state that they will charge you that if you cancel your contract with T-Mobile. They are trying to recoup the difference between the phone and discount. Since T-Mobile is not selling the phones, they don't have any control over the fees by Google. I work for T-Mobile, and I can tell you that Google did not think this through very well. You are only able to purchase one rate plan, cannot be a current T-mobile customer, and cannot qualify for a Flexpay account. The amount of customers that are actually going to be getting the discount is minimal. I b...
(continues)

if we really wanted to have cheap phones we should blame the carriers and ourselves. we wanted free phones well we got them. now instead of phone developers making better products at a cheaper price we expect the carriers to front the cost which now we see the end results. thats why we are paying $100+ for unlimited calling instead of $50 and getting 4g service with lanline quality voice. so dont cry now that verizon, sprint, tmo, att are all saying F the customer and charging us an arm and a leg. we want cell phones to do everything then we are going to pay for that......

If you don't want a contract pay full price.

If you want it cheap take the contract and honor your word.


Its really not that hard, and for all the people well 500 is to expensive.... how bout this get a different phone then... I hate when people complain like that... how bout don't buy champagne on a beer budget.

thats it.. 😲

So let me get this straight, if you cancel your contract early you're paying a $200.00 premium OVER the unlocked handset? I would've thought Google and T-Mobile would have worked this out a little more consistently, as this is nothing short of ridiculous, on top of the half-arsed support network.

On top of that, wasn't Google's whole MO to help subsidize the handset with advertising revenue?