I know better than to address a post by trollest skil, but here goes.
Such argument¡ So wit¡
I'd venture a guess that the number of people on subsidized contracts is well over 50%.
Then that’s a guess. What does it have to do with anything? What does it have to do with the number of people willing to pay more? Do you have statistics on that?
People are willing to drop $300 on a phone, but a majority of them won't go up to $700 on one. I know I won't.
Well, that’s one. Two? Three, anyone? Anyone? They’ll do it if they’re told they’re paying less over the life of the device, which they would be.
People are willing to drop $300 on a phone, but a majority of them won't go up to $700 on one. I know I won't.
Well, that’s one. Two? Three, anyone? Anyone? They’ll do it if they’re told they’re paying less over the life of the device, which they would be.
Minus 1.
I looked at the cost of my current plan, which has no phone subsidy attached to it. Then I looked at the cost of the plans that are available with a subsidized iPhone. I tried to find an apples-to-apples comparison, but the subsidized plans include only HALF as much data as I get with my present plan, and the cost of going over my allotment is TWICE as much on the subsidized plans. The score so far, Buy iPhone Outright: 1, Subsidized iPhone: 0.
Then I compared the total outlay over the two-year term:
Existing plan: $65 x 24 = $1560 plus $919 for iPhone 5s 64 = $2479
Subsidized plan $85 x 24 = $2040 plus $440 for iPhone 5s 64 = $2480
Net saving zilch, I get half the data, and extra data costs twice as much.
Final score, Buy iPhone Outright: 2, Subsidized iPhone: 0
Based on this scenario, I see the demise of phone subsidies as no great loss.
Must be nice to have carriers that will change plan prices for subsidies...
Multiply stated amounts by .925 for USD.
You guys may as well just go on the US dollar at this point. Ecuador does and they love it. You could even keep your coins, like they do. Everyone hates to cart around change, but being able to call your money ‘looney’ and ’toonie’ is neat.
Well anyway, if everything you've said is true, that doesn't sound like a situation that's particularly sustainable, irrespective of whether cell phones are locked or unlocked. I don't really think many people are going to exploit the system and then declare bankruptcy for the sake of a phone, but maybe there's a cultural divide that I can't appreciate. More robust credit checks are definitely something that your industries should be looking into, and blaming the government for mandating consumer protection over use of electronics seems to me a misplaced blame for a deeper structural flaw.
The US carriers subsidy system (carrier locked phones) has been working 20 odd tears now, so rather than defending it I'll just let that stand.
Yes it is a better deal (now) to buy your own (or get one of those interest free payment plans that AT&T and T-Mo are offering (and perhaps Vx and PSC too IDK)) however... many can't qualify for those (either too young to have any credit yet or overextended (difficult times these) that could get a subsidized (locked) phone.
Now Washington has taken that option from them.
And yes I knew the England had closed the debtors prisons, that's why I use the past tense.
And of course someone wouldn't declare bankruptcy to steal a $650 phone (you are fond of constructing straw men aren't you) but the point is that when evaluating the credit of someone who is already heavily leveraged you now have the situation that IF they filed for insolvency they could take your phone and go to a prepaid plan with another carrier. This will (obviously) result in people being refused credit for an unlocked phone that would have qualified for a carrier subsidy phone (locked)
(there... consider you straw man thoroughly unstuffed ;-)
P.S. I had posted one reply that seemed to have been lost, I posted a second and they showed up concatenated (I deleted the first in edit)
You brought up declaring bankruptcy to get out of a contract, so I don't really see how you can say I constructed a straw man out of it. I've been trying to understand how you deal with debt over there, and I'm still only a little way there, it just sounds so alien. Your implication throughout seems to have been that the contract with the carrier doesn't count for anything, and the only thing tying a customer to the carrier is the phone being locked. I find that totally weird.
If credit default is such a major problem then maybe some effort should be focussed on that rather than propping up the problematic system with workarounds that are at odds with the rest of the world?
You brought up declaring bankruptcy to get out of a contract, so I don't really see how you can say I constructed a straw man out of it. I've been trying to understand how you deal with debt over there, and I'm still only a little way there, it just sounds so alien. Your implication throughout seems to have been that the contract with the carrier doesn't count for anything, and the only thing tying a customer to the carrier is the phone being locked. I find that totally weird.
If credit default is such a major problem then maybe some effort should be focussed on that rather than propping up the problematic system with workarounds that are at odds with the rest of the world?
Oh please, you argue just for the sake of arguing.
Yes credit default (and bankruptcy and foreclosure) are major problems in the US (just as there are financial problems and foreclosures (and homeless living in government housing) in the UK)
This law is useless puffery at best. And far more likely that it is damaging the ability of those who really need it most (may be their primary or only... internet access) to be able too get a smartphone. All your moving of the goal posts, diversions and clever straw men won't change that one iota.
Comments
Such argument¡ So wit¡
Then that’s a guess. What does it have to do with anything? What does it have to do with the number of people willing to pay more? Do you have statistics on that?
Well, that’s one. Two? Three, anyone? Anyone? They’ll do it if they’re told they’re paying less over the life of the device, which they would be.
Well, that’s one. Two? Three, anyone? Anyone? They’ll do it if they’re told they’re paying less over the life of the device, which they would be.
Minus 1.
I looked at the cost of my current plan, which has no phone subsidy attached to it. Then I looked at the cost of the plans that are available with a subsidized iPhone. I tried to find an apples-to-apples comparison, but the subsidized plans include only HALF as much data as I get with my present plan, and the cost of going over my allotment is TWICE as much on the subsidized plans. The score so far, Buy iPhone Outright: 1, Subsidized iPhone: 0.
Then I compared the total outlay over the two-year term:
Existing plan: $65 x 24 = $1560 plus $919 for iPhone 5s 64 = $2479
Subsidized plan $85 x 24 = $2040 plus $440 for iPhone 5s 64 = $2480
Net saving zilch, I get half the data, and extra data costs twice as much.
Final score, Buy iPhone Outright: 2, Subsidized iPhone: 0
Based on this scenario, I see the demise of phone subsidies as no great loss.
Subsidized plan $85 x 24 = $2040 plus $440 for iPhone 5s 64 = $2480
There’re between two carriers, right? And in moosebacks, of course.
Subsidized plan $85 x 24 = $2040 plus $440 for iPhone 5s 64 = $2480
There’re between two carriers, right? And in moosebacks, of course.
SAME carrier! And yeah, Canuckbucks. Multiply stated amounts by .925 for USD.
Must be nice to have carriers that will change plan prices for subsidies...
You guys may as well just go on the US dollar at this point. Ecuador does and they love it. You could even keep your coins, like they do. Everyone hates to cart around change, but being able to call your money ‘looney’ and ’toonie’ is neat.
We don't have debtors prisons any more you know.
Well anyway, if everything you've said is true, that doesn't sound like a situation that's particularly sustainable, irrespective of whether cell phones are locked or unlocked. I don't really think many people are going to exploit the system and then declare bankruptcy for the sake of a phone, but maybe there's a cultural divide that I can't appreciate. More robust credit checks are definitely something that your industries should be looking into, and blaming the government for mandating consumer protection over use of electronics seems to me a misplaced blame for a deeper structural flaw.
The US carriers subsidy system (carrier locked phones) has been working 20 odd tears now, so rather than defending it I'll just let that stand.
Yes it is a better deal (now) to buy your own (or get one of those interest free payment plans that AT&T and T-Mo are offering (and perhaps Vx and PSC too IDK)) however... many can't qualify for those (either too young to have any credit yet or overextended (difficult times these) that could get a subsidized (locked) phone.
Now Washington has taken that option from them.
And yes I knew the England had closed the debtors prisons, that's why I use the past tense.
And of course someone wouldn't declare bankruptcy to steal a $650 phone (you are fond of constructing straw men aren't you) but the point is that when evaluating the credit of someone who is already heavily leveraged you now have the situation that IF they filed for insolvency they could take your phone and go to a prepaid plan with another carrier. This will (obviously) result in people being refused credit for an unlocked phone that would have qualified for a carrier subsidy phone (locked)
(there... consider you straw man thoroughly unstuffed ;-)
P.S. I had posted one reply that seemed to have been lost, I posted a second and they showed up concatenated (I deleted the first in edit)
You brought up declaring bankruptcy to get out of a contract, so I don't really see how you can say I constructed a straw man out of it. I've been trying to understand how you deal with debt over there, and I'm still only a little way there, it just sounds so alien. Your implication throughout seems to have been that the contract with the carrier doesn't count for anything, and the only thing tying a customer to the carrier is the phone being locked. I find that totally weird.
If credit default is such a major problem then maybe some effort should be focussed on that rather than propping up the problematic system with workarounds that are at odds with the rest of the world?
You brought up declaring bankruptcy to get out of a contract, so I don't really see how you can say I constructed a straw man out of it. I've been trying to understand how you deal with debt over there, and I'm still only a little way there, it just sounds so alien. Your implication throughout seems to have been that the contract with the carrier doesn't count for anything, and the only thing tying a customer to the carrier is the phone being locked. I find that totally weird.
If credit default is such a major problem then maybe some effort should be focussed on that rather than propping up the problematic system with workarounds that are at odds with the rest of the world?
Oh please, you argue just for the sake of arguing.
Yes credit default (and bankruptcy and foreclosure) are major problems in the US (just as there are financial problems and foreclosures (and homeless living in government housing) in the UK)
This law is useless puffery at best. And far more likely that it is damaging the ability of those who really need it most (may be their primary or only... internet access) to be able too get a smartphone. All your moving of the goal posts, diversions and clever straw men won't change that one iota.