I don't think anyone has said anything even remotely similar to "we shouldn't' ever criticize corporations" on this thread. At least I haven't. What I have said is that Apple/AT&T can generally decide how they provide their products/services and that a cancellation fee is not per se illegal. Just don't impugn the cancellation fee's legality without providing any basis in law or fact. Criticize the fee all you want. Kickaha's post provides sensible and pragmatic suggestions on how to do so.
You've done more than simply claim it's legal. You've essentially tried to shut down any criticism of the practice of cancellation fees by saying "you don't have to buy it," which everyone already knows anyway. AI is essentially a consumer website. To suggest that it's somehow inappropriate for consumers to criticize a corporation for their practices runs completely counter to the basic purpose of this website. Of course people can write letters, but there's nothing incompatible about discussing it on AI as well, and discussion may in fact encourage people to get angry enough about it to take further action.
Second, it's completely reasonable for someone to ask whether this fee is legal and not be told simply "shut up and don't buy it if you don't like it." There are a number of active lawsuits on this issue, and furthermore, if we don't like it we could ask our legislators to address it. To discuss those issues on a consumer-oriented website seems completely rational and appropriate.
In short, let people whine about it if they want; this wouldn't be AI without the whining.
Okay. If AT&T is requiring a 2-year service contract that does not subsidize the difference in cost of a product or service and then charges a termination penalty for breaking such contract then that's wrong.
If AT&T can prove -- which I'll bet they'll try -- that the data or voice rates they're charging for iPhone are less than their cost to provide them then they are justified in requiring a contract or penalty for breaking that contract.
If the reported penalty is true -- which it probably is since a contract is required -- I'm thinking we're going to see some very reasonable data or voice rates for iPhone. That makes sense since it's probably a lot harder to convince people to spend an arm and a leg each month rather than one time (for the upfront cost of the phone).
Cheap phone and ridiculous monthly fees: "Meh."
Expensive phone and reasonable monthly fees: "Okay, I can do that."
Okay. If AT&T is requiring a 2-year service contract that does not subsidize the difference in cost of a product or service and then charges a termination penalty for breaking such contract then that's wrong.
If AT&T can prove -- which I'll bet they'll try -- that the data or voice rates they're charging for iPhone are less than their cost to provide them then they are justified in requiring a contract or penalty for breaking that contract.
If the reported penalty is true -- which it probably is since a contract is required -- I'm thinking we're going to see some very reasonable data or voice rates for iPhone.
Right. As someone has already pointed out, let's say that AT&T is charging $100/month for unlimited date and 1000 talk minutes, a figure that has been bandied about in another thread.
Under that scenario, canceling your contract amounts to just 7 weeks of service, so it's not that much of a disincentive, compared to carrying the contract forward.
Which possibly suggests at least some options for considerably less.
Yes, I realize the logic here is a bit tenuous, but I post for sport.
Personally I feel we need some laws passed to eliminate these mafia contracts and fees. They are ridiculous.
Laws lead to loopholes, loopholes lead to the same situation, but with the corporations being able to point at them and saying "See? We're already regulated... leave us alone."
Give them feedback, and vote with your wallet, preferably at the same time. That's the only long-term effective route to getting the services you want at the price you want.
We are bitching and whining out of the way, then we are all going to buy the iPhone. AT&T and Apple knows this. They are hiring extra security, closing ahead of time, etc. And for those that don't buy it at first, there will be some price drop or incentive. So yeah, bitch and whine, then go get your iPhone. Resistance is futile.
We are bitching and whining out of the way, then we are all going to buy the iPhone. AT&T and Apple knows this. They are hiring extra security, closing ahead of time, etc. And for those that don't buy it at first, there will be some price drop or incentive. So yeah, bitch and whine, then go get your iPhone.
Not buying isn't the only way to influence corporations. Bitching about them to others is also a perfectly legitimate way to voice consumer opinion.
I really don't get this "we shouldn't ever criticize corporations" attitude.
I think here its more of a "We shouldn't ever criticize Apple or Apple's allies" -type thing. \
Fortunately, its just one point of view. Frankly, I think charging an ETF on top of no subsidy for the phone sucks enormous donkey schlong. Sure, they can get away with it for now, but that does not alter the fact that it sucks enormous donkey schlong. Meanwhile, I invite ATT to perform deviant acts upon itself that would make a Teamster blush.
i make cellphone games, we buy phones at full retail all over the place, or get them free from the makers on a prelease, sometimes we need a new contract and we'll still have to sign up for the cancellation fees or lengthier contracts although generally you can get a 1 year contract for a lot of phones, they just don't tell you, and will suddenly remember you can do things like that once you push the question.
so subsidy of the phone you have itself doesn't always come into in, subsidy of the other phones they sell might though.
they have still asked for two years contracts , even if we provide a phone.
i make cellphone games, we buy phones at full retail all over the place, or get them free from the makers on a prelease, sometimes we need a new contract and we'll still have to sign up for the cancellation fees or lengthier contracts although generally you can get a 1 year contract for a lot of phones, they just don't tell you, and will suddenly remember you can do things like that once you push the question.
so subsidy of the phone you have itself doesn't always come into in, subsidy of the other phones they sell might though.
they have still asked for two years contracts , even if we provide a phone.
Of course they'll ask for two year contracts, no matter what. The salesman gets a larger commission for a two year contract than a one year. They're incentive-ized to push two years and not mention one years unless you ask them about it first.
The real rip-off though, is you providing the phone and them still putting you under an ETF. The main argument for carriers charging ETFs is that, since they subsidize the phone up front, and then make their money back slowly over the life of the contract, customers being able to just walk away from contracts without penalty would devastate their bottom line.
Of course, they wouldn't have to worry too much about that if their service was good, but in purely economic terms, ok, it makes sense. But... wtf if you supply your own phone? The carrier isn't doing you any economic favors up front then. So, how is an ETF justified in those cases? It really can't be, not by any good reason I've heard yet.
The industry is starting to see more of a push from consumer groups and politicians to regulate ETFs, and of course they're counter-lobbying and coming up with some bullsheeite reasons why ETFs are actually good for the industry. But in reality, aside from protecting a carrier's phone subsidy investment, what ETFs mainly do is protect weaker, more poorly run carriers who provide bad service. It ends up being a Berlin Wall meant to keep dissatisfied customers in, and it may actually be self-defeating. The only good justification for an ETF is if they give you a discount on a phone. \
A few carriers have even seen the future coming (ETFs becoming increasingly restricted by legistlation) and are trying to get out ahead of the trend. Verizon, for example, actually pro-rates the ETF over the life of the contract. For every month you're under contract, your ETF is reduced $5. That isn't much, but over time, does add up.
However, Verizon does that largely because its churn rate/customer loyalty is very good... it doesn't have to erect a high fence to keep its customers in. It'd be hard to imagine a company with bad churn and a lot of customers leaving, like Sprint right now, doing the same thing voluntarily.
Hey Sirus20x6 - went to your website to check out your "info"... I LOLd at all the spam you have in place of article comments. No real comments to be found, and your piece on the iPhone is as full of holes as a paid analyst. Thanks for wasting my time.
Y'all argue all you want, one week and 6 hours from now I'll be playing with my new iPhone.
Time to leave work and ride into Boulder and do some Apple/AT&T recon
Z
yeah sites overrun with spam. tough shit, and you enjoy those edge speeds. mmm 200k a second ..... ill just stick with my 700+ 3G HSDPA phone
Okay. If AT&T is requiring a 2-year service contract that does not subsidize the difference in cost of a product or service and then charges a termination penalty for breaking such contract then that's wrong.
If AT&T can prove -- which I'll bet they'll try -- that the data or voice rates they're charging for iPhone are less than their cost to provide them then they are justified in requiring a contract or penalty for breaking that contract.
If the reported penalty is true -- which it probably is since a contract is required -- I'm thinking we're going to see some very reasonable data or voice rates for iPhone. That makes sense since it's probably a lot harder to convince people to spend an arm and a leg each month rather than one time (for the upfront cost of the phone).
You know why they'll say their rates are lower than their cost of service - Apple is bloody fleecing them for it. No operator in Europe will touch Apple, one went so far as to label them "Unbelievably arrogant" in their demands.
You know why they'll say their rates are lower than their cost of service - Apple is bloody fleecing them for it. No operator in Europe will touch Apple, one went so far as to label them "Unbelievably arrogant" in their demands.
There are better phones out there...
I'm not convinced that Apple isn't subsidizing the iPhone at least a little bit, to get the money from the contract.
It's not unreasonable to think that most of the $175 is going to Apple. How much of that $70x24 is Apple getting anyway?
You know why they'll say their rates are lower than their cost of service - Apple is bloody fleecing them for it. No operator in Europe will touch Apple, one went so far as to label them "Unbelievably arrogant" in their demands.
There are better phones out there...
And you know this without ever so much as having touched an iPhone because.....
Oh yeah, because everything we need to know about consumer electronic devices can be discerned from preliminary specs.
Only $175??? Thats actually very nice of them to do that.
In the UK the termination fee for breaking a contract is always the remaining line rental. Imagine how much it would be for you on a 2 year contract.
I think you'll find that's because the cost of the phone is being paid back as part of the contract. In that sense it's like monthly payments for something they've already given you.
The outrage here is that you're paying the full price of the iPhone outright, but still have to pay a hefty amount just to take it off the network and stop paying for service.
It's like you've just bought a car for cash, but the dealer is requiring you to buy gas from them for the next 2 years unless you pay another fee.
Well then I guess the point here is dont go out and buy such a nich product if you intend to let buyers remorse get the better of you at a later point.
Comments
I don't think anyone has said anything even remotely similar to "we shouldn't' ever criticize corporations" on this thread. At least I haven't. What I have said is that Apple/AT&T can generally decide how they provide their products/services and that a cancellation fee is not per se illegal. Just don't impugn the cancellation fee's legality without providing any basis in law or fact. Criticize the fee all you want. Kickaha's post provides sensible and pragmatic suggestions on how to do so.
You've done more than simply claim it's legal. You've essentially tried to shut down any criticism of the practice of cancellation fees by saying "you don't have to buy it," which everyone already knows anyway. AI is essentially a consumer website. To suggest that it's somehow inappropriate for consumers to criticize a corporation for their practices runs completely counter to the basic purpose of this website. Of course people can write letters, but there's nothing incompatible about discussing it on AI as well, and discussion may in fact encourage people to get angry enough about it to take further action.
Second, it's completely reasonable for someone to ask whether this fee is legal and not be told simply "shut up and don't buy it if you don't like it." There are a number of active lawsuits on this issue, and furthermore, if we don't like it we could ask our legislators to address it. To discuss those issues on a consumer-oriented website seems completely rational and appropriate.
In short, let people whine about it if they want; this wouldn't be AI without the whining.
If AT&T can prove -- which I'll bet they'll try -- that the data or voice rates they're charging for iPhone are less than their cost to provide them then they are justified in requiring a contract or penalty for breaking that contract.
If the reported penalty is true -- which it probably is since a contract is required -- I'm thinking we're going to see some very reasonable data or voice rates for iPhone. That makes sense since it's probably a lot harder to convince people to spend an arm and a leg each month rather than one time (for the upfront cost of the phone).
Cheap phone and ridiculous monthly fees: "Meh."
Expensive phone and reasonable monthly fees: "Okay, I can do that."
Okay. If AT&T is requiring a 2-year service contract that does not subsidize the difference in cost of a product or service and then charges a termination penalty for breaking such contract then that's wrong.
If AT&T can prove -- which I'll bet they'll try -- that the data or voice rates they're charging for iPhone are less than their cost to provide them then they are justified in requiring a contract or penalty for breaking that contract.
If the reported penalty is true -- which it probably is since a contract is required -- I'm thinking we're going to see some very reasonable data or voice rates for iPhone.
Right. As someone has already pointed out, let's say that AT&T is charging $100/month for unlimited date and 1000 talk minutes, a figure that has been bandied about in another thread.
Under that scenario, canceling your contract amounts to just 7 weeks of service, so it's not that much of a disincentive, compared to carrying the contract forward.
Which possibly suggests at least some options for considerably less.
Yes, I realize the logic here is a bit tenuous, but I post for sport.
ATT: "No phone subsidy AND a $175 ETF, biatch!!!"
Customer: "This deal is getting worse all the time."
.
Personally I feel we need some laws passed to eliminate these mafia contracts and fees. They are ridiculous.
Laws lead to loopholes, loopholes lead to the same situation, but with the corporations being able to point at them and saying "See? We're already regulated... leave us alone."
Give them feedback, and vote with your wallet, preferably at the same time. That's the only long-term effective route to getting the services you want at the price you want.
We are bitching and whining out of the way, then we are all going to buy the iPhone. AT&T and Apple knows this. They are hiring extra security, closing ahead of time, etc. And for those that don't buy it at first, there will be some price drop or incentive. So yeah, bitch and whine, then go get your iPhone.
Resistance is futile.
Nope.
No iPhone for me unless and until:
1) 3G
2) Price drop
3) ATT's network gets a bit better
"Assimilate THIS!!"
.
Not buying isn't the only way to influence corporations. Bitching about them to others is also a perfectly legitimate way to voice consumer opinion.
I really don't get this "we shouldn't ever criticize corporations" attitude.
I think here its more of a "We shouldn't ever criticize Apple or Apple's allies" -type thing.
Fortunately, its just one point of view. Frankly, I think charging an ETF on top of no subsidy for the phone sucks enormous donkey schlong. Sure, they can get away with it for now, but that does not alter the fact that it sucks enormous donkey schlong. Meanwhile, I invite ATT to perform deviant acts upon itself that would make a Teamster blush.
Oops. Too frank?
.
so subsidy of the phone you have itself doesn't always come into in, subsidy of the other phones they sell might though.
they have still asked for two years contracts , even if we provide a phone.
i make cellphone games, we buy phones at full retail all over the place, or get them free from the makers on a prelease, sometimes we need a new contract and we'll still have to sign up for the cancellation fees or lengthier contracts although generally you can get a 1 year contract for a lot of phones, they just don't tell you, and will suddenly remember you can do things like that once you push the question.
so subsidy of the phone you have itself doesn't always come into in, subsidy of the other phones they sell might though.
they have still asked for two years contracts , even if we provide a phone.
Of course they'll ask for two year contracts, no matter what. The salesman gets a larger commission for a two year contract than a one year. They're incentive-ized to push two years and not mention one years unless you ask them about it first.
The real rip-off though, is you providing the phone and them still putting you under an ETF. The main argument for carriers charging ETFs is that, since they subsidize the phone up front, and then make their money back slowly over the life of the contract, customers being able to just walk away from contracts without penalty would devastate their bottom line.
Of course, they wouldn't have to worry too much about that if their service was good, but in purely economic terms, ok, it makes sense. But... wtf if you supply your own phone? The carrier isn't doing you any economic favors up front then. So, how is an ETF justified in those cases? It really can't be, not by any good reason I've heard yet.
The industry is starting to see more of a push from consumer groups and politicians to regulate ETFs, and of course they're counter-lobbying and coming up with some bullsheeite reasons why ETFs are actually good for the industry. But in reality, aside from protecting a carrier's phone subsidy investment, what ETFs mainly do is protect weaker, more poorly run carriers who provide bad service. It ends up being a Berlin Wall meant to keep dissatisfied customers in, and it may actually be self-defeating. The only good justification for an ETF is if they give you a discount on a phone.
A few carriers have even seen the future coming (ETFs becoming increasingly restricted by legistlation) and are trying to get out ahead of the trend. Verizon, for example, actually pro-rates the ETF over the life of the contract. For every month you're under contract, your ETF is reduced $5. That isn't much, but over time, does add up.
However, Verizon does that largely because its churn rate/customer loyalty is very good... it doesn't have to erect a high fence to keep its customers in. It'd be hard to imagine a company with bad churn and a lot of customers leaving, like Sprint right now, doing the same thing voluntarily.
.
Hey Sirus20x6 - went to your website to check out your "info"... I LOLd at all the spam you have in place of article comments. No real comments to be found, and your piece on the iPhone is as full of holes as a paid analyst. Thanks for wasting my time.
Y'all argue all you want, one week and 6 hours from now I'll be playing with my new iPhone.
Time to leave work and ride into Boulder and do some Apple/AT&T recon
Z
yeah sites overrun with spam. tough shit, and you enjoy those edge speeds. mmm 200k a second ..... ill just stick with my 700+ 3G HSDPA phone
Okay. If AT&T is requiring a 2-year service contract that does not subsidize the difference in cost of a product or service and then charges a termination penalty for breaking such contract then that's wrong.
If AT&T can prove -- which I'll bet they'll try -- that the data or voice rates they're charging for iPhone are less than their cost to provide them then they are justified in requiring a contract or penalty for breaking that contract.
If the reported penalty is true -- which it probably is since a contract is required -- I'm thinking we're going to see some very reasonable data or voice rates for iPhone. That makes sense since it's probably a lot harder to convince people to spend an arm and a leg each month rather than one time (for the upfront cost of the phone).
You know why they'll say their rates are lower than their cost of service - Apple is bloody fleecing them for it. No operator in Europe will touch Apple, one went so far as to label them "Unbelievably arrogant" in their demands.
There are better phones out there...
You know why they'll say their rates are lower than their cost of service - Apple is bloody fleecing them for it. No operator in Europe will touch Apple, one went so far as to label them "Unbelievably arrogant" in their demands.
There are better phones out there...
I'm not convinced that Apple isn't subsidizing the iPhone at least a little bit, to get the money from the contract.
It's not unreasonable to think that most of the $175 is going to Apple. How much of that $70x24 is Apple getting anyway?
You know why they'll say their rates are lower than their cost of service - Apple is bloody fleecing them for it. No operator in Europe will touch Apple, one went so far as to label them "Unbelievably arrogant" in their demands.
There are better phones out there...
And you know this without ever so much as having touched an iPhone because.....
Oh yeah, because everything we need to know about consumer electronic devices can be discerned from preliminary specs.
I understand the new phone will not work with Vista or Microsoft Outlook. Is this the case?
No, it syncs with Outlook email, calendar, and contacts on the PC. I haven't seen specifically that it works with Vista, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't.
In the UK the termination fee for breaking a contract is always the remaining line rental. Imagine how much it would be for you on a 2 year contract.
Only $175??? Thats actually very nice of them to do that.
In the UK the termination fee for breaking a contract is always the remaining line rental. Imagine how much it would be for you on a 2 year contract.
I think you'll find that's because the cost of the phone is being paid back as part of the contract. In that sense it's like monthly payments for something they've already given you.
The outrage here is that you're paying the full price of the iPhone outright, but still have to pay a hefty amount just to take it off the network and stop paying for service.
It's like you've just bought a car for cash, but the dealer is requiring you to buy gas from them for the next 2 years unless you pay another fee.