You really should learn to read and process information better. Many posts above have pointed out the rationale for this, and the per-month reduction that you get.
What is it about a 'contract' that you sign on to that you don't get?
1. contract prices are high to payback subsidies, this makes sense.
2. when your contract is over, you still have to pay the same price, that's makes no sense.
3. charging ETF for the iphone to get the subsidy back if you leave early, that makes sense
4. refusing to unlock your iphone after your contract is over, that should be illegal.
i dont mind current plan costs and ETF if they were to be implemented fairly. The right thing to do is provide non contract prices and iphone unlocks after your contract ends.
then there's also the SMS cost issue. they charge for sending and receiving? same with minutes on your plan, they charge minutes for making calls and receiving? that outrageous, they should only charge the person sending SMS or making a phone call. I visited a third world country where politicians are corrupt, and yet they're cell phone service charged sms and minutes only to the person sending sms or making calls.
Agreed. However, you'll find that in almost every market now, minutes and message fees are charged on both ends.
Where I am, it's also not necessarily true that when the contract ends the price stays the same. I had a choice when my 3HK contract (for which I had chosen a subsidized phone) ended. Get a new subsidized handset and keep the same contract price, continue without a contract at the same price, or get a new 12-month contract at roughly half the price. Because I chose the third option, I now pay less than US$10 for more than 2000 minutes. When I need or want a new handset, I worked it out that I will always save money by buying an unsubsidized handset and keeping the low rate.
You really should learn to read and process information better. Many posts above have pointed out the rationale for this, and the per-month reduction that you get.
What is it about a 'contract' that you sign on to that you don't get?
95% of iphone users feel the same way as this guy.
All one has to do is to buy an unlocked iPhone (sold unlocked internationally -- not jailbroken) and go month to month. Then they will neve have to worry about ETF. Hopefully Apple will sell an unlocked, unsubsidized iPhone in the US soon so that Americans don't have to go through the grey market to do this.
It's the same in Australia however we pay a connection fee (or flagfall) on outgoing calls currently around $A0.35 as soon as it connects, calls are also billed in 30 second or one minute blocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJedi
In Europe, all incoming calls and texts are free. Even if you are on pay as you go and you are out of credit, your phone will still receive calls and texts for 6 months and they are free. That must be more of that socialism nobody wants.
If you leave one day before the contract you agreed to ends, you are liable for this fee, when the clock ticks over past midnight the fee is gone, such is the nature of agreed terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
No...it only goes down by $5 a month and only if your contract started after May of 2008. So even though you're on a 2-year contract, it takes 35 months to work down the ETF, but that was based on the $175 ETF. So if you cancel after the 2-year contract is over, you would still theoretically owe $55.
Based on $325 (and assuming it still goes down by $5 a month), you would theoretically still owe $205 if you cancelled at the end of a 2-year contract. I don't even see how this is legal as you've fulfilled the terms of the contract. If they are, in essence, forcing you to stay on in order not to owe the $205, then it's not really a 2-year contract, is it? -- it's at least a 3-year contract.
IMO, this is absurd. If you have a 2-year contract than the ETF should be completely amortized over the two years. And if you sign a new contract without getting a new phone, there should not be a new ETF. In fact, if you don't get a new phone, you shouldn't have to sign a contract at all - the contract should be month to month because you've already fulfilled the obligations of the original contract.
I read yesterday in the news wherein FCC was saying that there is not much competition in wireless industry in USA. To prove that it's wrong, AT&T decided to get competitive with Verizon and raised the ETF LOL
Yeah that's right, forgot Verizon raised it so people wouldn't cancel out of the piece of junk that is DROID to go to iPhone & AT&T.
And for those of you set to refute DROID being a piece of junk, it got the worst rating in the robotic touch screen tests done a little while back. I've personally gotten to work with them in our offices for our employees wanting on wifi. THEY ARE JUNK!!
Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Adolf Hitler were evil, AT&T on the other hand, no way. They aren't doing anything that any other (large) corporation isn't doing, trying to protect their business and their profits. Does that make them greedy? Perhaps. Does that make them evil? Not by a long shot.
They weren't evil. Sociopathic, yes, but not evil. They do not qualify for that descriptor.
You really should learn to read and process information better. Many posts above have pointed out the rationale for this, and the per-month reduction that you get.
What is it about a 'contract' that you sign on to that you don't get?
Usually I would agree, but let's not forget AT&T also raised the fee for service when the 3G came out, and I would think it's about time they raised the fee for service with the introduction of the 4G, so essentially, they are gouging because they can.
................AND, to play devil's advocate, they may have information none of us are privy to, such as the, albeit extreme, possibility that their exclusivity IS ending and that it may happen shortly after the 4G is introduced and not exactly THE DATE it is introduced, so to counteract those that may possibly upgrade and jump ship shortly after with a 4 band phone (I still don't see Apple incurring the expense for this, but it could happen) they are increasing their ETF/ECF to make people rethink and second guess whether they want to take up that expense or not.
IOW, it's a trap.
I really don't see myself leaving AT&T for no other reason than the fact the bandwidth they utilize is the same as european and asian countries I visit, so I don't see switching to a carrier who's bandwidth is only used in this country and a few, though not many, choice countries that were either given a discount to utilize a dead technology or just feel they are making it difficult to listen in on their intelligence transmissions.
We as a nation should never have let Cingular and AT&T merge, or let VZ buy Alltel. This is what a lack of competition does. Sprint is the only other real competitor, but who's to say they won't follow suit. T-Mobile? Please, that company doesn't even register on the radar of VZW or ATT, or companies looking to do business with wireless companies here in the States.
Perhaps not. But when I had T-Mobile, I had SERVICE. My phone worked. That is what counts to ME; I do not care about "companies looking to do business with wireless companies here in the States".
If I were in an area with no T-Mobile tower, my nothing-burger little Motorola Razr just latched onto some other company and my calling went without event, muss, fuss, or bother. I used to see some of the darnedest names come up on the indicator. Judd's Bait Shop and Cell Phone Service. Mama Margolis' Mattzah Ball Soup and Telephone. Hopp Sing's Chinese Takeway and Cell. OK, I am exaggerating, but not by much. You name the place, and the phone worked. If not, then NO one had service.
Roaming? Never got hit with it.
Compare this with being at LAX trying to make a call with an iPhone. beep-beep-beep or "your call cannot be completed at this time...". All around me, Verizon, T-Mobile, and "burner" phone users are making calls. I know. I asked. (One kind soul lent me his T-Mobile so I could call my hotel).
So, they may be small, and they may not have the cachét of AT&T, but their rates are far lower, their customer service is customer service (not excuse-making).
Full disclosure: My iPhone service started off great, then went to so-so. In the last several months it has gone to a high rate of dropped calls, poor connections (to both cell and landlines), and ghost calls. Yes, I had the phone swapped. Same issues, and the same indifference from AT&T.
Locking in the early new adopters of the 4g, and those 3G owners looking for an upgrade is the best source of contracts for AT&T. They already got the low hanging fruit and it is doubtful many Verizon customers will switch over.
Which is why I don't think this means V is getting it immediately. If they got it at the same time that AT&T does, then anyone that wants to go to Verizon will not be affected by this. Those that are under contract now and want to switch will pay the original ETF. Those that are not under contract to AT&T can just go to Verizon. In neither case would the new ETF affect people going to Verizon.
For this to be a reaction to V getting the next iPhone, it would make sense that Verizon is getting it later and AT&T knows this. Then anyone that signs or re-signs a contract with AT&T to get the new iPhone would have to pay the new fee to get out and go to Verizon. They would also have to buy a new iPhone unless the new one can work on both networks, but I didn't think Qualcomm had released the hardware for this yet.
If AT&T was concerned about keeping people from switching to another carrier and/or attracting new customers, they should simply allow Skype over 3G. All they would be losing is international fees. Most international users already circumvent that situation using wireless or other alternatives. The benefits of offering Skype would be that it would take some load off the voice services, but more importantly, it would significantly increase the company's popularity.
I'm pretty satisfied with my current AT&T service but I do use Skype a lot for international calls so it would be an awesome upgrade to be able to use it over 3G.
isn't that an issue with skype not allowing it on at&t? i recall reading that apple allows it, att allows it, but skype hasn't enabled it in their iphone app, despite claiming months ago that they were ready. i think the app fring allows you to use your skype account over 3g.
(tinfoil hat alert: also read somewhere that verizon may be behind the delay, as they do allow skype over cell. there could be some collusion going on there between skype and verizon to keep it off at&t).
That's right, the Skype CEO was whining in December how Apple and AT&T were being unfair by not allowing the 3G version that he stated they'd had ready for months, to be released.
This was in a speech detailing a string of failures to deliver eg Blackberry, Symbian S60v5 etc, the one success (iPhone OS over 3G) he proudly proclaimed was held back through no fault of Skype.
That restriction was relaxed in February and here we are months later and still no Skype for 3G on iPhone's despite Fring being ready to roll on the first day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino
isn't that an issue with skype not allowing it on at&t? i recall reading that apple allows it, att allows it, but skype hasn't enabled it in their iphone app, despite claiming months ago that they were ready. i think the app fring allows you to use your skype account over 3g.
(tinfoil hat alert: also read somewhere that verizon may be behind the delay, as they do allow skype over cell. there could be some collusion going on there between skype and verizon to keep it off at&t).
That's right, the Skype CEO was whining in December how Apple and AT&T were being unfair by not allowing the 3G version that he stated they'd had ready for months, to be released.
This was in a speech detailing a string of failures to deliver eg Blackberry, Symbian S60v5 etc, the one success (iPhone OS over 3G) he proudly proclaimed was held back through no fault of Skype.
That restriction was relaxed in February and here we are months later and still no Skype for 3G on iPhone's despite Fring being ready to roll on the first day.
Seems to be a common practice in the tech industry: blame Apple for one's own shortcomings.
Comments
Almost never any strong 3G signal inside a building.
Does AT&T really think that making your customers hate you is a good strategy for growth?
"I don't want to be loved, I want to be feared"
screw AT&T
Comments like this are pretty stupid.
You really should learn to read and process information better. Many posts above have pointed out the rationale for this, and the per-month reduction that you get.
What is it about a 'contract' that you sign on to that you don't get?
1. contract prices are high to payback subsidies, this makes sense.
2. when your contract is over, you still have to pay the same price, that's makes no sense.
3. charging ETF for the iphone to get the subsidy back if you leave early, that makes sense
4. refusing to unlock your iphone after your contract is over, that should be illegal.
i dont mind current plan costs and ETF if they were to be implemented fairly. The right thing to do is provide non contract prices and iphone unlocks after your contract ends.
then there's also the SMS cost issue. they charge for sending and receiving? same with minutes on your plan, they charge minutes for making calls and receiving? that outrageous, they should only charge the person sending SMS or making a phone call. I visited a third world country where politicians are corrupt, and yet they're cell phone service charged sms and minutes only to the person sending sms or making calls.
Agreed. However, you'll find that in almost every market now, minutes and message fees are charged on both ends.
Where I am, it's also not necessarily true that when the contract ends the price stays the same. I had a choice when my 3HK contract (for which I had chosen a subsidized phone) ended. Get a new subsidized handset and keep the same contract price, continue without a contract at the same price, or get a new 12-month contract at roughly half the price. Because I chose the third option, I now pay less than US$10 for more than 2000 minutes. When I need or want a new handset, I worked it out that I will always save money by buying an unsubsidized handset and keeping the low rate.
Comments like this are pretty stupid.
You really should learn to read and process information better. Many posts above have pointed out the rationale for this, and the per-month reduction that you get.
What is it about a 'contract' that you sign on to that you don't get?
95% of iphone users feel the same way as this guy.
F... ATT!!
In Europe, all incoming calls and texts are free. Even if you are on pay as you go and you are out of credit, your phone will still receive calls and texts for 6 months and they are free. That must be more of that socialism nobody wants.
No...it only goes down by $5 a month and only if your contract started after May of 2008. So even though you're on a 2-year contract, it takes 35 months to work down the ETF, but that was based on the $175 ETF. So if you cancel after the 2-year contract is over, you would still theoretically owe $55.
Based on $325 (and assuming it still goes down by $5 a month), you would theoretically still owe $205 if you cancelled at the end of a 2-year contract. I don't even see how this is legal as you've fulfilled the terms of the contract. If they are, in essence, forcing you to stay on in order not to owe the $205, then it's not really a 2-year contract, is it? -- it's at least a 3-year contract.
IMO, this is absurd. If you have a 2-year contract than the ETF should be completely amortized over the two years. And if you sign a new contract without getting a new phone, there should not be a new ETF. In fact, if you don't get a new phone, you shouldn't have to sign a contract at all - the contract should be month to month because you've already fulfilled the obligations of the original contract.
I read yesterday in the news wherein FCC was saying that there is not much competition in wireless industry in USA. To prove that it's wrong, AT&T decided to get competitive with Verizon and raised the ETF
Yeah that's right, forgot Verizon raised it so people wouldn't cancel out of the piece of junk that is DROID to go to iPhone & AT&T.
And for those of you set to refute DROID being a piece of junk, it got the worst rating in the robotic touch screen tests done a little while back. I've personally gotten to work with them in our offices for our employees wanting on wifi. THEY ARE JUNK!!
Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Adolf Hitler were evil, AT&T on the other hand, no way. They aren't doing anything that any other (large) corporation isn't doing, trying to protect their business and their profits. Does that make them greedy? Perhaps. Does that make them evil? Not by a long shot.
They weren't evil. Sociopathic, yes, but not evil. They do not qualify for that descriptor.
Comments like this are pretty stupid.
You really should learn to read and process information better. Many posts above have pointed out the rationale for this, and the per-month reduction that you get.
What is it about a 'contract' that you sign on to that you don't get?
Usually I would agree, but let's not forget AT&T also raised the fee for service when the 3G came out, and I would think it's about time they raised the fee for service with the introduction of the 4G, so essentially, they are gouging because they can.
................AND, to play devil's advocate, they may have information none of us are privy to, such as the, albeit extreme, possibility that their exclusivity IS ending and that it may happen shortly after the 4G is introduced and not exactly THE DATE it is introduced, so to counteract those that may possibly upgrade and jump ship shortly after with a 4 band phone (I still don't see Apple incurring the expense for this, but it could happen) they are increasing their ETF/ECF to make people rethink and second guess whether they want to take up that expense or not.
IOW, it's a trap.
I really don't see myself leaving AT&T for no other reason than the fact the bandwidth they utilize is the same as european and asian countries I visit, so I don't see switching to a carrier who's bandwidth is only used in this country and a few, though not many, choice countries that were either given a discount to utilize a dead technology or just feel they are making it difficult to listen in on their intelligence transmissions.
We as a nation should never have let Cingular and AT&T merge, or let VZ buy Alltel. This is what a lack of competition does. Sprint is the only other real competitor, but who's to say they won't follow suit. T-Mobile? Please, that company doesn't even register on the radar of VZW or ATT, or companies looking to do business with wireless companies here in the States.
Perhaps not. But when I had T-Mobile, I had SERVICE. My phone worked. That is what counts to ME; I do not care about "companies looking to do business with wireless companies here in the States".
If I were in an area with no T-Mobile tower, my nothing-burger little Motorola Razr just latched onto some other company and my calling went without event, muss, fuss, or bother. I used to see some of the darnedest names come up on the indicator. Judd's Bait Shop and Cell Phone Service. Mama Margolis' Mattzah Ball Soup and Telephone. Hopp Sing's Chinese Takeway and Cell. OK, I am exaggerating, but not by much. You name the place, and the phone worked. If not, then NO one had service.
Roaming? Never got hit with it.
Compare this with being at LAX trying to make a call with an iPhone. beep-beep-beep or "your call cannot be completed at this time...". All around me, Verizon, T-Mobile, and "burner" phone users are making calls. I know. I asked. (One kind soul lent me his T-Mobile so I could call my hotel).
So, they may be small, and they may not have the cachét of AT&T, but their rates are far lower, their customer service is customer service (not excuse-making).
Full disclosure: My iPhone service started off great, then went to so-so. In the last several months it has gone to a high rate of dropped calls, poor connections (to both cell and landlines), and ghost calls. Yes, I had the phone swapped. Same issues, and the same indifference from AT&T.
July 14th cannot come soon enough.
Locking in the early new adopters of the 4g, and those 3G owners looking for an upgrade is the best source of contracts for AT&T. They already got the low hanging fruit and it is doubtful many Verizon customers will switch over.
Which is why I don't think this means V is getting it immediately. If they got it at the same time that AT&T does, then anyone that wants to go to Verizon will not be affected by this. Those that are under contract now and want to switch will pay the original ETF. Those that are not under contract to AT&T can just go to Verizon. In neither case would the new ETF affect people going to Verizon.
For this to be a reaction to V getting the next iPhone, it would make sense that Verizon is getting it later and AT&T knows this. Then anyone that signs or re-signs a contract with AT&T to get the new iPhone would have to pay the new fee to get out and go to Verizon. They would also have to buy a new iPhone unless the new one can work on both networks, but I didn't think Qualcomm had released the hardware for this yet.
If AT&T was concerned about keeping people from switching to another carrier and/or attracting new customers, they should simply allow Skype over 3G. All they would be losing is international fees. Most international users already circumvent that situation using wireless or other alternatives. The benefits of offering Skype would be that it would take some load off the voice services, but more importantly, it would significantly increase the company's popularity.
I'm pretty satisfied with my current AT&T service but I do use Skype a lot for international calls so it would be an awesome upgrade to be able to use it over 3G.
isn't that an issue with skype not allowing it on at&t? i recall reading that apple allows it, att allows it, but skype hasn't enabled it in their iphone app, despite claiming months ago that they were ready. i think the app fring allows you to use your skype account over 3g.
(tinfoil hat alert: also read somewhere that verizon may be behind the delay, as they do allow skype over cell. there could be some collusion going on there between skype and verizon to keep it off at&t).
95% of iphone users feel the same way as this guy.
snip
and 85% of statistics are made up on the spot. 65% of people know that!
Steve Jobs can never be forgiven for making us use the INCOMPETENT and HORRIBLE provider ATT.
Almost never any strong 3G signal inside a building.
i think it was reported that verizon turned down the iPhone. redirect your anger accordingly...
This was in a speech detailing a string of failures to deliver eg Blackberry, Symbian S60v5 etc, the one success (iPhone OS over 3G) he proudly proclaimed was held back through no fault of Skype.
That restriction was relaxed in February and here we are months later and still no Skype for 3G on iPhone's despite Fring being ready to roll on the first day.
isn't that an issue with skype not allowing it on at&t? i recall reading that apple allows it, att allows it, but skype hasn't enabled it in their iphone app, despite claiming months ago that they were ready. i think the app fring allows you to use your skype account over 3g.
(tinfoil hat alert: also read somewhere that verizon may be behind the delay, as they do allow skype over cell. there could be some collusion going on there between skype and verizon to keep it off at&t).
That's right, the Skype CEO was whining in December how Apple and AT&T were being unfair by not allowing the 3G version that he stated they'd had ready for months, to be released.
This was in a speech detailing a string of failures to deliver eg Blackberry, Symbian S60v5 etc, the one success (iPhone OS over 3G) he proudly proclaimed was held back through no fault of Skype.
That restriction was relaxed in February and here we are months later and still no Skype for 3G on iPhone's despite Fring being ready to roll on the first day.
Seems to be a common practice in the tech industry: blame Apple for one's own shortcomings.