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.
$600 is a hefty price, but hefty doesn't equal full.
After the announcement, we know that the full price of an iPhone, no strings attached, is $600+$175=$775.
Or you can take the service which subsidises the price of the phone by $175. It's too expensive for me, but I don't see a reason to be outraged either way.
$600 is a hefty price, but hefty doesn't equal full.
After the announcement, we know that the full price of an iPhone, no strings attached, is $600+$175=$775.
Or you can take the service which subsidises the price of the phone by $175. It's too expensive for me, but I don't see a reason to be outraged either way.
I do know that the Verizon Motorola Q will not sync with the new Microsoft Vista system or the new Microsoft Outlook 2007. It may be worth the switch for me if the iPhone will sync with the outlook 2007 and the new vista... that is if their service has improved since I left the last time.
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.
SHHHHHHHHH What are you TRYING to give them ideas?!?!
I agree the ETF sucks the big one....
BUT
It's not groundbreaking or earth-shattering by any stretch... Many cable broadband providers, DSL providers, VOIP carriers do it too.
$600 is a hefty price, but hefty doesn't equal full.
After the announcement, we know that the full price of an iPhone, no strings attached, is $600+$175=$775.
Or you can take the service which subsidises the price of the phone by $175. It's too expensive for me, but I don't see a reason to be outraged either way.
I'm still in doubt that Apple will be selling AT&T contracts. It's possible that Apple will sell the iPhone as is, and you'll be expected to get your own contract/SIM card from AT&T.
On the other hand (replying to original post) any change in the service on AT&T's part is a violation of the contract and you are entitled to cancel yours with no penalty. For example, if text-massaging starts at, say, $.10/message and they raise it in 2008 to $.11, they have changed the service terms meaning you are legally entitled to cancel your contract if they do not grand-father you. I've never needed to do this (with Verizon) but since my contract, there have been no fewer than 5 times when I could have, just on text-messaging changes alone. Anytime you get a new "Terms & Conditions" insert, you are in a position to cancel without penalty.
As for the iPhone, all I can say is that I wouldn't wanna be one of the new adopters...
The reason why the $175 cancelation fee is so shocking is that, unless your iPhone has an active account with AT&T, none of the other features will work. Not the iPod, not the PDA functions, nada!
From David Pogue's review in the NYTimes:
Do I need an AT&T account? Yes. The iPhone won’t work at all without a two-year AT&T voice-plus-Internet plan (and no, you can’t use it as just an iPod, no matter how tempting the bigger screen and longer battery life is).
.......
I was seriously considering forking over a lot of money for this thing, but yes, "this deal is getting worse all the time." Especially since it's AT&T we're stuck with. They have the worst ratings by afr of all cell phone companies, and don't get me started on their customer service.
That's for subsidized phones, Einstein. What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
Any more bad news, and Solipsism may need a new piece of technology to wank to.
I don't see that the fee is in any way tied to a phone being subsidized. I think thats an assumption that people have made. If they didn't charge a fee, then what is to prevent anyone from breaking their contract? There is always a cost for breaking a contract, in this case it happens to be $175.
I don't see that the fee is in any way tied to a phone being subsidized. I think thats an assumption that people have made. If they didn't charge a fee, then what is to prevent anyone from breaking their contract? There is always a cost for breaking a contract, in this case it happens to be $175.
It appears that way because the 2-year discount for a phone is traditionally $175 - a premium to get you to sign up: quit early, give back their premium: It has always been like a contingent signing bonus than a termination fee: this time, they dont give you a phone coupon for it though
The one thing that everyone over looks is the data plan is half the price of BlackBerry so that in its self will save you $240 each year
Holy crap! I just justified the iPhone cost!!! (shutters)
TBaggins: You are in top form mate. Best iPhone thread these past few weeks!!! Cheers
Yes, Episode 1, 2, and 3[especially the skwaking dragon-thing Ewan McGregor was on], for most parts I was like, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS??????????!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Like watching a train accident at night: lots of pretty sparkling thing and you can't look away even though you know the whole bloody thing is a godsdamned mish-mashed disaster.
The reason why the $175 cancelation fee is so shocking is that, unless your iPhone has an active account with AT&T, none of the other features will work. Not the iPod, not the PDA functions, nada!
From David Pogue's review in the NYTimes:
Do I need an AT&T account? Yes. The iPhone won?t work at all without a two-year AT&T voice-plus-Internet plan (and no, you can?t use it as just an iPod, no matter how tempting the bigger screen and longer battery life is).
.......
I was seriously considering forking over a lot of money for this thing, but yes, "this deal is getting worse all the time." Especially since it's AT&T we're stuck with. They have the worst ratings by afr of all cell phone companies, and don't get me started on their customer service.
You can opt out of the contract within 30 days and not be charged the ETF. You do need to sign up for / upgrade an existing ATT acount to activate the iPhone, but if you pull the SIM card, how will it know if you close the account? After the initial activation, will the iPhone work without the SIM card?
"Though the decision could be appealed, it's the first in the country to declare the fees illegal in a state and could affect other similar lawsuits, with broad implications for the nation's fast-growing legions of cell phone users."
"On June 12, a jury in the Alameda County lawsuit ruled in favor of Sprint Nextel, determining that its customers who canceled their service early had breached their contracts with the company and that early termination fees were warranted." Well, at least the jurors got it right.
"But in overruling that decision, Sabraw said the jurors appear to have erred in assuming the fees were valid, and she took issue with the way Sprint Nextel determined that its customers owed the fees."
Comments
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.
$600 is a hefty price, but hefty doesn't equal full.
After the announcement, we know that the full price of an iPhone, no strings attached, is $600+$175=$775.
Or you can take the service which subsidises the price of the phone by $175. It's too expensive for me, but I don't see a reason to be outraged either way.
$600 is a hefty price, but hefty doesn't equal full.
After the announcement, we know that the full price of an iPhone, no strings attached, is $600+$175=$775.
Or you can take the service which subsidises the price of the phone by $175. It's too expensive for me, but I don't see a reason to be outraged either way.
I do know that the Verizon Motorola Q will not sync with the new Microsoft Vista system or the new Microsoft Outlook 2007. It may be worth the switch for me if the iPhone will sync with the outlook 2007 and the new vista... that is if their service has improved since I left the last time.
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.
SHHHHHHHHH What are you TRYING to give them ideas?!?!
I agree the ETF sucks the big one....
BUT
It's not groundbreaking or earth-shattering by any stretch... Many cable broadband providers, DSL providers, VOIP carriers do it too.
Dave
$600 is a hefty price, but hefty doesn't equal full.
After the announcement, we know that the full price of an iPhone, no strings attached, is $600+$175=$775.
Or you can take the service which subsidises the price of the phone by $175. It's too expensive for me, but I don't see a reason to be outraged either way.
I'm still in doubt that Apple will be selling AT&T contracts. It's possible that Apple will sell the iPhone as is, and you'll be expected to get your own contract/SIM card from AT&T.
As for the iPhone, all I can say is that I wouldn't wanna be one of the new adopters...
ATT: "No phone subsidy AND a $175 ETF, biatch!!!"
Customer: "This deal is getting worse all the time."
.
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further
That's for subsidized phones, Einstein. What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
Any more bad news, and Solipsism may need a new piece of technology to wank to.
And what pretentious and arrogant S.O.B. you are.
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further
Yay! Somebody gets it !
And to think a Star Wars quote could come off as obscure... (its not like it was from the suckass LATER movies...)
PS- Oh, and in reference to above, let me save the 'one in every crowd' the trouble:
Dumb Replier: B-but... but.... Episodes I, II, and III weren't... THAT... bad...
*TBaggins shoots replier between the eyes*
Anyone else? :evil:
.
From David Pogue's review in the NYTimes:
Do I need an AT&T account? Yes. The iPhone won’t work at all without a two-year AT&T voice-plus-Internet plan (and no, you can’t use it as just an iPod, no matter how tempting the bigger screen and longer battery life is).
.......
I was seriously considering forking over a lot of money for this thing, but yes, "this deal is getting worse all the time." Especially since it's AT&T we're stuck with. They have the worst ratings by afr of all cell phone companies, and don't get me started on their customer service.
That's for subsidized phones, Einstein. What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
Any more bad news, and Solipsism may need a new piece of technology to wank to.
I don't see that the fee is in any way tied to a phone being subsidized. I think thats an assumption that people have made. If they didn't charge a fee, then what is to prevent anyone from breaking their contract? There is always a cost for breaking a contract, in this case it happens to be $175.
I don't see that the fee is in any way tied to a phone being subsidized. I think thats an assumption that people have made. If they didn't charge a fee, then what is to prevent anyone from breaking their contract? There is always a cost for breaking a contract, in this case it happens to be $175.
It appears that way because the 2-year discount for a phone is traditionally $175 - a premium to get you to sign up: quit early, give back their premium: It has always been like a contingent signing bonus than a termination fee: this time, they dont give you a phone coupon for it though
The one thing that everyone over looks is the data plan is half the price of BlackBerry so that in its self will save you $240 each year
Holy crap! I just justified the iPhone cost!!! (shutters)
...It sounds like if you sign up AT&T has you by the balls.
That's the whole idea. I think "your first-born-child" clause was removed at the last minute...
Yes, Episode 1, 2, and 3[especially the skwaking dragon-thing Ewan McGregor was on], for most parts I was like, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS??????????!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The reason why the $175 cancelation fee is so shocking is that, unless your iPhone has an active account with AT&T, none of the other features will work. Not the iPod, not the PDA functions, nada!
From David Pogue's review in the NYTimes:
Do I need an AT&T account? Yes. The iPhone won?t work at all without a two-year AT&T voice-plus-Internet plan (and no, you can?t use it as just an iPod, no matter how tempting the bigger screen and longer battery life is).
.......
I was seriously considering forking over a lot of money for this thing, but yes, "this deal is getting worse all the time." Especially since it's AT&T we're stuck with. They have the worst ratings by afr of all cell phone companies, and don't get me started on their customer service.
You can opt out of the contract within 30 days and not be charged the ETF. You do need to sign up for / upgrade an existing ATT acount to activate the iPhone, but if you pull the SIM card, how will it know if you close the account? After the initial activation, will the iPhone work without the SIM card?
For the sake of avoding redundancy, I won't directly reply to your post and will quote parasubvert instead:
Companies have 25+ years of imposing cellphone cancellation fees. They are enforceable. What is the precedent that says otherwise?
Well, to answer my own question, a California Judge recently ruled that Sprint's early terminatin fees are illegal. As I alluded in my original dialogue with another poster, there is no legal precedent for this type of ruling:
"Though the decision could be appealed, it's the first in the country to declare the fees illegal in a state and could affect other similar lawsuits, with broad implications for the nation's fast-growing legions of cell phone users."
"On June 12, a jury in the Alameda County lawsuit ruled in favor of Sprint Nextel, determining that its customers who canceled their service early had breached their contracts with the company and that early termination fees were warranted." Well, at least the jurors got it right.
"But in overruling that decision, Sabraw said the jurors appear to have erred in assuming the fees were valid, and she took issue with the way Sprint Nextel determined that its customers owed the fees."
This ruling is tentative and subject to appeal.