 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / April 2004Ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers change companies
Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service, www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies www.EscapeCellHell.org >Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service, >www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask >the FCC to ensure companies don't block compatible phones when customers >change companies. The campaign follows the organization's successful push >last Fall for cell phone number portability, which required the wireless >industry let customers keep their phone numbers when switching companies Just as long as consumers get the message that all handsets don't work on all services. You *know* that there will be people that should a measure such as this is proposed will *insist* that a new carrier allow their phone on the network even if it's not compatible such as trying to put a GSM phone on a CDMA network. It's probably not someone who frequents cellular/mobile related groups, but I guarantee that they're probably out there waiting for their opportunity. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply > >Consumers Union's campaign to improve cell phone service, > >www.EscapeCellHell.org, is providing a free e-mail form for consumers to ask [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > someone who frequents cellular/mobile related groups, but I guarantee > that they're probably out there waiting for their opportunity. Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc. > Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a > Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc. DAMN...A moment of lucid thought! We all outta bookmark this, err... save it as an ASCII text file. > Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a > Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc. Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why? If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you are buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business but theirs to decide? Now, if the government wants to butt in (and when don't they!) a fair rule could be that a service provider must allow you to use any phone compatible with their network, so if you have an "unlocked" phone you obtained yourself they can't force you to buy one of theirs instead as a condition of obtaining service, any more than a gas station could make you buy a car from them to be allowed to fill up. But frankly, if AT&T (or whoever)'s business plan is to sell $400 phones for $1 knowing that even if you leave them, you can't let their competitors like T-Mobile "benefit" from not having to subsididize a phone for you when you sign up, that's their right, IMHO. If we don't like it, we don't have to buy it from them. The "deeper" a provider can lock a phone, the cheaper they can sell them- look at TracFone- they were really the first company to sell affordable prepaid handsets because they knew that those handsets would ALWAYS stay with TracFone, even if second, third or fourth-hand. They certainly wouldn't have sold a $250 MSRP (at the time) Nokia 51xx for $50 if they knew you could just buy it and rather than activate it with TracFone, easily switch it to Cingular or Verizon to replace a lost or broken handset cheap if you were still under a contract. The marketplace has already solved this issue without government "help" (at least in GSM)- unlocked phones are available at higher prices if "handset portability" is a priority for you, and locked phones, in most cases, can be unlocked relatively cheaply or freely. If the government butt in, we'll likely see higher handset prices or higher EFTs, since a current-day $150 EFT won't deter somebody who's getting a $300 for a $1- paying the EFT would be a bargain, leaving the carrier hundreds in the hole with no choice but to pass the losses onto us! So, as always, "be careful what you wish for, because you might get it!" ;-) I'm personally still p-o'd about the $25/year I'm paying in "regulatory compliance fees" for the WNP "right" bestowed upon me that I'm not using. (Anybody else notice that post WNP we aren't seeing any asoundingly better "deals" than we did prior?) > (Anybody else notice that post WNP we aren't seeing any asoundingly better > "deals" than we did prior?) Yep- I think everybody waited for the other guy to flinch. One of the big reasons might be the huge bounty everyone else is seeing in the mass revolution from AT&T. Why lower your prices when you have hundreds of thousands of willing customers available to you. Of course, the whole portability hype has been reminiscent of the whole Y2K scare- much ado about nothing. All of the outside analysts predicted millions of ports in the first few months, only to be proven terribly wrong. And those same analysts were the ones raving about the deals that would have to come, in an attempt to retain customers- again, wrong. >> (Anybody else notice that post WNP we aren't seeing any asoundingly better >> "deals" than we did prior?) > >Yep- I think everybody waited for the other guy to flinch. No one should have expected anything like special porting deals. I certainly didn't. As I pointed out many times, the competition has been feirce and people should only expect to be able to port and NOT get any special deal because of the ability to port. After all, the number is being legally stollen from the carrier who bought and paid for it because (once again) of government interference in private business. About the only new deal I have seen recenty has been the T-Mobile change of it's $39.99 800 minute deal with only weekends to $39.99 1000 miutes with unlimited nites and weekends. Although they said for new customers only I was able to change my plan to the 1000 minute plan without a problem. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > No one should have expected anything like special porting deals. I certainly > didn't. Sprint was operating in December under the impression that they were forbidden to entice people to port. I was told that by higher ups in their "Executive Services". I can find no indication of the FCC saying anything like that. Perhaps there was some collusion between carriers? > > No one should have expected anything like special porting deals. I certainly > > didn't. > > Sprint was operating in December under the impression that they were > forbidden to entice people to port. I was told that by higher ups in > their "Executive Services". No you weren't, but nice try. > I can find no indication of the FCC saying anything like that. Perhaps > there was some collusion between carriers? And I hear it was a conspiracy of the grandest nature- they met at a secret location outside of Roswell, NM. There was a secret porting handshake that a person had to know to get admitted, and the order for the lunch line was based on the latest quarter's curn figures. They carried on their talks from seperate rooms,using phones off a secret list of phones that work well. A couple of them even went so far as to file bogus lawsuits against each other, in order to deflect attention from the meeting. Running out of foil again, Phil? Your head must be getting cold. > About the only new deal I have seen recenty has been the T-Mobile change of > it's $39.99 800 minute deal with only weekends to $39.99 1000 miutes with > unlimited nites and weekends. Although they said for new customers only I was > able to change my plan to the 1000 minute plan without a problem. Isn't negotiation wonderful? > Yep- I think everybody waited for the other guy to flinch. One of the big > reasons might be the huge bounty everyone else is seeing in the mass [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And those same analysts were the ones raving about the deals that would have > to come, in an attempt to retain customers- again, wrong. Sorry, but you haven't waited long enough to even see if number portability will have any significant effect. The vast majority of the nation doesn't go portable until May 24th. Mind you, I don't expect it to have nearly the effect that people were touting in October, but I think we'll see more after May 24th than we did in November. -Jeff > Sorry, but you haven't waited long enough to even see if number portability > will have any significant effect. The vast majority of the nation doesn't go > portable until May 24th. Mind you, I don't expect it to have nearly the > effect that people were touting in October, but I think we'll see more after > May 24th than we did in November. Actually, from a population perspective, the markets that already have portability represent more than half the population. From a geographic perspective, it is much smaller. And as far as waiting, we are now almost 5 months into portability. My point was that it is not the panic causing situation the analysts were predicting it to be. Remember- they were touting the realistic potential for millions of ports within the first couple of weeks. That did not occur. One other thing to keep in mind- as the markets get smaller, the number of options drop dramatically. There aren't nearly the number of options available in Bennington, VT that there are in NYC. > Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why? > > If Verizon, Sprint, AT&T etc. subsidize the phone, AND state in their > marketing literature and contracts (as ATTWS does) that the phone you are > buying is only compatible with their service, why is that any business but > theirs to decide? Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any subsidy. > > Perhaps it's the free-marketeer in me asking this, but why? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any > subsidy. No they haven't- you've paid exactly as much for service as the guy who paid full price for the phone. There is no "Subsidy Recovery Charge" on your bill. > Because after your contract has expired they've been paid back for any > subsidy. Back when I was a Cingular agent, the majority of Cingular contracts were 1 year, and dealers were paid about $250 for that contract, even on a $30/month plan. That left Cingular about $110 in total revenue from the customer for the entire first year. (Less when you factored in that in those days they paid the selling agent up to 8% of the customer's month fee as an ongoing residual.) The phone wasn't nearly paid for at that point. Back then Cingular claimed (internally) that it took 18-24 to recapture phone subsidies depending if it was sold by them directly or by an independent agent. These days AT&T, in particular, tends to subsidize handsets far more aggressively than most wireless companies. Perhaps it's no coincidence they've relied on locking longer than most carriers (going back to the SOC locks on TDMA handsets preventing them from roaming properly if activated on competitor's systems.) > I'm personally still p-o'd about the $25/year I'm paying in "regulatory > compliance fees" for the WNP "right" bestowed upon me that I'm not using. Thats because you're being overcharged. >Fine, but an AT&T phone should be allowed to work on Cingular, and a >Verizon phone should be allowed to work on SprintPCS, etc. I am for that too. But I also understand the fact that the orginal carrier subsidized that phone so they may keep it locked until the contract is up but once the contract is up, they should be required by law to unlock the phone. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.