more on I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dana Spiegel <dana () nycwireless net>
Date: October 22, 2005 6:35:00 PM EDT
To: gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com
Cc: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How  
Cell Phone Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers


To Gerry's question, my $0.02:

There are 3 reasons why people don't opt for Sprint or pre-pay:

1) phone selection. no matter what people maintain, each phone is  
different. Try finding a phone from Verizon that you can sync with  
your Macintosh over Bluetooth. Or use the address book or text  
messaging of a Motorola side by side with a Nokia. You'll soon find  
that each brand is markedly different, from both a physical interface/ 
capability perspective, as well as a software UI/feature perspective.

2) Coverage. Every single person I speak to has made their choice  
primarily based on the coverage of their provider. I was in the South  
End in Boston today speaking with a friend, and he told me that he  
had to switch to Verizon in order to get any service on his block. I  
personally had to switch from T-mobile to AT&T a few years ago in  
order to get service in my office and in my apartment in New York City.

3) Laziness/Pain. Do you know how hard it is to change phone  
companies? The last time I did this, just after local number  
portability was introduced, it took a week to change from T-mobile to  
AT&T. It took my girlfriend _A MONTH_ to get things worked out  
properly for the same switch. Recently she upgraded her phone, and  
had to spend 5-6 hours total on the phone just to get a new phone  
from Cingular. Do this once, and you'll likely never want to switch  
again.

Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
dana () NYCwireless net
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Oct 21, 2005, at 12:29 PM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
> Date: October 11, 2005 9:28:27 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell  
> Phone Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
>
>
> OK, this has been a learning experience;-).  Thanks to the the many  
> informed IPers who responded.  Here's what I've found out (and  
> another question):
>
> 1- The only carrier that offers a month-to-month service for "bring  
> your own phone" is Sprint, as several IPers have mentioned.  None  
> of the others do. But in case you didn't notice, Sprint is probably  
> the weakest of the cellphone companies (even with their merger), so  
> it would appear that offering a month-to-month with "bring your own  
> phone" is simply not very important to customers.  Maybe to IPers,  
> but most of those who reported this dastardly practice do not seem  
> to have switched to Sprint.  In other words, while you and I may  
> want the option of month-to-month, it is not important enough to  
> most customers to be a competitive advantage.  Too bad.
>
> 2- It's pretty obvious a multi-year contract is in the interest of  
> the phone company.  For example, magazines make much more $$ from  
> yearly subscriptions than newstand sales.  And if customers don't  
> think it's important enough to choose a carrier based on month-to- 
> month, it will not happen.
>
> 3- Some IPers mentioned foreign phones brought to the US and  
> operated on month-to-month, but noted they were much more  
> expensive.  Of course, that was my original point: month-to-month  
> will be more expensive.
>
> 4- I was surprised almost no one discussed pre-paid cell service,  
> which of course involves no commitment at all, beyond the initial  
> minutes purchased. This has been a successful business model; e.g.,  
> Virgin Mobile only does pre-paid.  This is a very different model,  
> in that there is no credit risk for the firms to bear.
>
> I would think that IPers who object so strongly to multi-year  
> contracts would opt for pre-paid...or move to Sprint.  I'd be  
> interested to learn from our correspondents why they do not avail  
> themselves of these options.
>
> Prof. Gerry Faulhaber
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> To: "Ip Ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:45 AM
> Subject: [IP] I AGREE djf more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone  
> Early Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
>
>
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Tom Goltz <tgoltz () QuietSoftware com>
> > Date: October 10, 2005 11:42:29 PM EDT
> > To: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
> > Cc: dave () farber net
> > Subject: Re: [IP] more on Locked In a Cell: How Cell Phone Early  
> > Termination Fees Hurt Consumers
> >
> >
> > At 10:47 AM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Re: cell phone contracts.  I think the way this works is that you  
> > > can
> > > get a cellphone at a below-market price from your service  
> > > provider in
> > > return for a one- or two-year contract, OR you can buy your phone
> > > elsewhere and get the service without a contract (or maybe a  
> > > contract
> > > of shorter duration).  So this is a trade-off, you get a price break
> > > on your instrument in return for a longer contract.  But you don't
> > > have to take this; you can still avoid the lengthy contract by  
> > > buying
> > > your own phone at a market price.
> >
> > My experience has been the exact opposite of what you describe.   
> > I  have approached several different carriers with existing phones  
> > that  were compatible with their networks.  Verizon flatly refused  
> > to give  me service without my signing *exactly* the same 1-year  
> > contract that  I'd have to sign to obtain a discounted phone.   
> > Ditto for Cingular  and T-Mobile.  Only Sprint is willing to  
> > provide service on a month- to-month basis to new customers who  
> > either already have a phone or  pay full price for the phone.
> >
> > If the cell phone companies are doing such a wonderful job for  
> > their customers, why are over 50% of the complaints received by  
> > the Better Business Bureau cellular related?  If you stop ten  
> > random people on  the street and ask them how they like their  
> > cellular service, why  will five of them tell you that they'd  
> > switch carriers if they  weren't locked into a contract?
> >
> > Personally, I believe that all of us would be better off as  
> > consumers  if it was illegal for telecommunications companies to  
> > require long- term contracts for services.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com
> > To manage your subscription, go to
> >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> >
> > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/ 
> > interesting-people/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as dana () nycwireless net
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/