 |
 | 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 / Cingular / November 2003Nov 24: Cell phone # portability
How do you jump ship since Cingular owns the # when you are out of the contract? > How do you jump ship since Cingular owns the # when you are out of the > contract? Cingular does not own the telephone number. On November 24th, if this is your current phone number, and you are not in contract, you may take that number to another carrier (but not in all markets, only in the top 100 cities). If you do not live in one of the top 100 cities, you cannot take your number with you until next year (I'm not sure the date yet). Telephone companies do not *own* numbers. Part of the reason for number portability is to reduce the reissuance of phone numbers. If you sign a one year contract with T-Mobile, then at the end of the year, switch to AT&T for a year, then go with Verizon, then Sprint PCS, then Cingular, then Nextel...well in less than 7 years you've had 6 phone numbers!! I picked up a 407 number early in the year, and the first one I had, I had collection agencies calling constantly for the person who had the phone. I politely asked them to stop calling, that this is a new phone number and if you had any questions please contact Cingular Wireless, but they claimed I was just covering up for "Pat". Had I been able to take my number from Verizon Wireless, I would not have had that problem. AD > I > picked up a 407 number early in the year, and the first one I had, I had > collection agencies calling constantly for the person who had the phone. > I politely asked them to stop calling, that this is a new phone number > and if you had any questions please contact Cingular Wireless, but they > claimed I was just covering up for "Pat". I'd have screwed with those people 10 ways from Sunday. That would have been fun. >Cingular does not own the telephone number. On November 24th, if this >is your current phone number, and you are not in contract, you may take >that number to another carrier (but not in all markets, only in the top >100 cities). The FCC has ruled that you cannot be prevented from going to another carrier even if you are on contract or owe charges to another carrier. If you do not pay your ETF or charges due to the other carrier it's likely that the other carrier will send your account to collections and it will probably wreck your credit. You are not heald hostage however. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com >Cingular does not own the telephone number. Yes, they do. Read your contract. They bought and paid for the numbers in blocks of 10,000. WNP is being forced upon them and they are going to have to give up that which they paid for. In fact, if you read your contract they also tell you that they have the right to change the number at any time with no penalty to them. If I were a cellular company I would change everyone's number November 1st. <chuckle> With OTA programming this is a simple task (more or less). >Telephone companies do not *own* numbers. Again, you are mistaken. Read the front of your phone book. The phone companies own the numbers. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >>Cingular does not own the telephone number. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > WNP is being forced upon them and they are going to have to give up that which > they paid for. It's like you paid for a big driveway, and now have to share it with your neighbour's new RV. > In fact, if you read your contract they also tell you that they have the right > to change the number at any time with no penalty to them. And consumers will have an equal right to keep their number with another carrier. > If I were a cellular company I would change everyone's number November 1st. > <chuckle> With OTA programming this is a simple task (more or less). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > John S. > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273 "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of what we know." -- Richard Wilbur >>Cingular does not own the telephone number. > > Yes, they do. Read your contract. > > They bought and paid for the numbers in blocks of 10,000. So, why wouldn't a phone company purchase *all* numbers in a given area code? >>> Cingular does not own the telephone number. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So, why wouldn't a phone company purchase *all* numbers in a given area > code? As I've understood it, they would, except they're not allowed to acquire more number blocks beyond their expected growth potential within the particular LATA. How this growth potential is figured is apparently the result of some tricky voodoo from the FCC cabal, and this has forced area code splits in dozens of locales already. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273 "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of what we know." -- Richard Wilbur >> How do you jump ship since Cingular owns the # when you are out of the >> contract? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that number to another carrier (but not in all markets, only in the top >100 cities). so if your contract expires after nov 24th and u want to go elsewhere u get to keep your # and go to a different wireless carrier? >Telephone companies do not *own* numbers. Part of the reason for number >portability is to reduce the reissuance of phone numbers. i used to get a lot of calls for some guy who had my same first name did cingular give me back the minutes used for these stupid calls they were their fault? nope. >If you sign a >one year contract with T-Mobile, then at the end of the year, switch to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >claimed I was just covering up for "Pat". Had I been able to take my >number from Verizon Wireless, I would not have had that problem. then where does cingular get new #'s from if everyone is taking the #'s they had and going elsewhere? i don't see how this can be implemented without cingular and other carriers fighting it in court, but i agree it should be just like your landline, change companies and keep your # > >Cingular does not own the telephone number. On November 24th, if this > >is your current phone number, and you are not in contract, you may take [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so if your contract expires after nov 24th and u want to go elsewhere > u get to keep your # and go to a different wireless carrier? Even if your contract doesn't expire, you can keep your number and go elsewhere. The mechanics of going elsewhere haven't changed; if you are under contract and want to break it, you're subject to the terms of the contract with regard to getting out of it. That's always been, and always will be. Only now, when you decide you want to break your contract, you can do so AND take your number with you to another carrier. >then where does cingular get new #'s from if everyone is taking the >#'s they had and going elsewhere? i don't see how this can be >implemented without cingular and other carriers fighting it in court, >but i agree it should be just like your landline, change companies and >keep your # cingular gets new numbers from the same place that AT&T, T-Mobile, SBC and Verizon. They get the numbers from the number administrator. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com >Cingular does not own the telephone number. On November 24th, if this >is your current phone number, and you are not in contract, you may take >that number to another carrier (but not in all markets, only in the top >100 cities). If you do not live in one of the top 100 cities, you >cannot take your number with you until next year (I'm not sure the date >yet). Where can I find the list of these 100 top cities? > How do you jump ship since Cingular owns the # when you are out of the > contract? They don't own the number. YOU own the number. You go to a new carrier and ask them to transfer the number to their service. It'll take a few hours, no big deal. found a good article about this, apparently everyone is paying for cell phone # portability to their wireless carrier while cingular and others fight against it whooda thunk that? verizon is the only company in favor of it and is not charging customers for portability like the others are http://tinyurl.com/riey > found a good article about this, apparently everyone is paying for > cell phone # portability to their wireless carrier while cingular and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/riey Verizon used to be the lead plaintiff against the rule. It has spent unknown but large sums of money against portability. Only after some studies that predicted that Verizon Wireless had the most to gain, they suddenly become the "knight in shining armor". Verizon may have also changed its view to conserve money. 45% British owner Vodafone may want out of the deal, and Verizon Communicaitons may be required to pay Vodafone $10 billion cash. If after that payment, and Vodafone has any stock left over, and wants to rid itself of the stock, Verizon Wireless stock may crash down, as Vodafone would probably want to be rid of then in a hurry. And in the article he stated, "...that the telephone number belongs to the carrier, not to the customer." So, tell me then, why do wireless companies have the luxury of "owning" telephone numbers, but landline companies do not? I think a better term is "the number belongs with a company". I highly doubt that cellular companies can just change your phone number without notifying because "they own it. They can do it." WNP is meant not only to increase competition, but also to conserve numbers. If you switch carriers every year after your contract, in six years you've had six phone numbers. Wow. With portability, in six years, you've had one phone number. With the high churn, it helps keep numbers from reassignmnet. AD > Verizon used to be the lead plaintiff against the rule. It has spent > unknown but large sums of money against portability. Only after some [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > stock, Verizon Wireless stock may crash down, as Vodafone would probably > want to be rid of then in a hurry. There is no Verizon Wireless stock- it is simply a division of Verizon. Although I wholeheartedly agree that Vodafone pulling out of the partnership would be catastrophic to the VZW organization. > And in the article he stated, "...that the telephone number belongs to > the carrier, not to the customer." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > years, you've had one phone number. With the high churn, it helps keep > numbers from reassignmnet. Actually, the effect on number conservation is only going to be as great as the number of people that ask for their number to be ported. If you don't ask, you'll get a brand new number. And if you move out of your 'home' area, you can't take your number with you. > There is no Verizon Wireless stock- it is simply a division of Verizon. > Although I wholeheartedly agree that Vodafone pulling out of the > partnership would be catastrophic to the VZW organization. "What has perhaps increased tension between the two companies is Vodafone's contractual option of forcing Verizon to pay the British firm 10 billion dollars in return for a large chunk of its stake." Sorry, I misread "stake" for "stock". > Actually, the effect on number conservation is only going to be as great as > the number of people that ask for their number to be ported. If you don't > ask, you'll get a brand new number. And if you move out of your 'home' > area, you can't take your number with you. You can change billing addresses to areas not serviced by your provider, but you will be stuck with a phone number that is long distance for anyone calling locally. I am in that situation right now with Cingular. Western Wireles Cellular One is terrible here, and Verizon isn't much better [here], so it's not even worth switching. I would guess it would be the high volume users who would want to take their numbers with them. They are the ones most likely receiving quite a few calls and those who don't want to change thier phone numbers. AD >You can change billing addresses to areas not serviced by your provider, >but you will be stuck with a phone number that is long distance for >anyone calling locally. However with LD being free with most all cell phones it isn't a situation that usually causes a lot of concern. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >There is no Verizon Wireless stock- it is simply a division of Verizon. >Although I wholeheartedly agree that Vodafone pulling out of the >partnership would be catastrophic to the VZW organization. Unlikely that it would crash. Verizon can easily borrow the cash to pay off Vodafone, based on the additional income from not having to split the profits with 55/45 with Vodafone. Vodafone wants a GSM carrier. They would likely go after AT&T if they sell their stake in Verizon. But they may just wait it out; the world is moving to CDMA, and Verizon is the leader in CDMA. Especially after investing so much in CapEx over the past few years, Vodafone won't want to walk away from Verizon, the fastest growing carrier that is seemingly unstoppable, and that will further extend it's lead when LNP starts. >>There is no Verizon Wireless stock- it is simply a division of Verizon. >>Although I wholeheartedly agree that Vodafone pulling out of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the fastest growing carrier that is seemingly unstoppable, and that > will further extend it's lead when LNP starts. But there are a few things to consider. First, the relationship between the two is very rocky, and has been for quite a while. It seems that Verizon is leaving Vodafone out of the decision making process, in violation of the partnership agreement. And we are taling about an initial payment to Vodafone in excess of $10 BILLION. And we are talking about a company (Verizon) that is already saddled with $10 billion of debt that matures within a year, and almost $39 billion in long term debt. Another $10 billion (to start) would be very bad for them, especially in light of their reduced forecasts for the rest of the year and the huge charge they are taking to encourage early retirement. According to financials, Wireless accounted for income of $257M last quarter. Applying the 65/35 rule, they would only pick up about $30M a month in income. Bottom line- I think $60B in total debt is unrealistic and would drive the stock price to the basement. >>There is no Verizon Wireless stock- it is simply a division of Verizon. >>Although I wholeheartedly agree that Vodafone pulling out of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the fastest growing carrier that is seemingly unstoppable, and that > will further extend it's lead when LNP starts. But there are a few things to consider. First, the relationship between the two is very rocky, and has been for quite a while. It seems that Verizon is leaving Vodafone out of the decision making process, in violation of the partnership agreement. And we are taling about an initial payment to Vodafone in excess of $10 BILLION. And we are talking about a company (Verizon) that is already saddled with $10 billion of debt that matures within a year, and almost $39 billion in long term debt. Another $10 billion (to start) would be very bad for them, especially in light of their reduced forecasts for the rest of the year and the huge charge they are taking to encourage early retirement. According to financials, Wireless accounted for income of $257M last quarter. Applying the 65/35 rule, they would only pick up about $30M a month in income. Bottom line- I think $60B in total debt is unrealistic and would drive the stock price to the basement. >So, tell me then, why do wireless companies have the luxury of "owning" >telephone numbers, but landline companies do not? Read both your wireless contract and your telephone companies phone book (in the front). They are both careful to point out that they OWN the number and you have no right to expect that it will continue to be assigned to you. > I highly doubt that cellular >companies can just change your phone number without notifying because >"they own it. They can do it." The way the rules are (prior to 11/24/2003) they can in fact change your number without penalty to them. They own it and yes, they can do it. >WNP is meant not only to increase competition, but also to conserve >numbers. Conserve numbers maybe, but certainly NOT increase an already very competitive market place. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > So, tell me then, why do wireless companies have the luxury of "owning" > telephone numbers, but landline companies do not? Landline companies used to be local monopolies. When the feds desired to make landline a competitive market, they instituted the LNP rules, knowing that start-up telcos would be dead in the water if they couldn't offer prospective customers their existing phone numbers. So LNP sort of stepped on the toes of the entrenched monopoly operators to jump-start competition. A bad analogy would be if McDonald's were the only hamburger chain, the feds might allow new restaurants access to the "secret sauce" recipe to allow the new chains a chance to flourish. ;-) Cellular has always been a competitive market, so the impetus for WLNP is less clear. The relatively large amount of churn pretty much proves that the lack of NP has not been a barrier to competition- obviously SOME customers, mostly commercial ones, have stuck with a carrier they'd like to dump in order to keep a static phone number, but I don't see why I, a customer who doesn't need NP, should be forced to subsidize someone who wants it, through the "regulatory compliance" fees most carriers are currently charging. > I think a better term > is "the number belongs with a company". No, John is absolutely right- carriers buy their blocks of numbers and "own" them, at lea t until WNP upsets the proverbial apple-cart. > I highly doubt that cellular > companies can just change your phone number without notifying because > "they own it. They can do it." If you read your Cingular contract, they can change your number as needed. They obviously wouldn't unless some technical reason forced them to, due to the ill-will and administrative nightmare that would result. But, to use an example you brought up recently on another thread, you mentioned multiple wireless carriers in your rural area were all sharing a single switch and one telephone exchange, which limits them to 10000 numbers in aggregate (xxx-0000 to xxx-9999). Let's say that business increases, forcing a second set of numbers to be issued. (yyy-0000 to yyy-9999). It might make sense at that time to let carrier A keep the xxx numbers, and have carrier B use yyy. So at that point, one entire carrier's customer base would be issued a new number (WNP would make this moot, of course!) > WNP is meant not only to increase competition, but also to conserve > numbers. If you switch carriers every year after your contract, in six > years you've had six phone numbers. Wow. With portability, in six > years, you've had one phone number. With the high churn, it helps keep > numbers from reassignmnet. If you've been switching carriers every year, you probably don't need WNP, since your desire for the latest glitzy free phones has seemingly overpowered your need for a consistant phone number! ;-) Good post. > But, to use an example you brought up recently on another thread, you > mentioned multiple wireless carriers in your rural area were all sharing a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carrier's customer base would be issued a new number (WNP would > make this moot, of course!) The areas I live in right now are so rural that they will only ever need xxx-#### and will never need to issue yyy-####. In the entire history of the area, no telephone number has been reassigned without prior request (source: Noonan Farmer's Telephone Company). In fact, even Northwest Bell (formerly US West now Qwest) would not even set up in the area, and so the local companies of NFT and NCC (Northwest Communication Co-operative) were started by residents. >>WNP is meant not only to increase competition, but also to conserve >>numbers. If you switch carriers every year after your contract, in six [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > WNP, since your desire for the latest glitzy free phones has seemingly > overpowered your need for a consistant phone number! ;-) I was [more] thinking about people who move and cannot continue their carrier. I was also referring to people who cannot be please and are chronic complainers. Being in a profession that required frequent relocation, I experience first hand the woes of relocating while on contract. T-Mobile only works in populated areas, Cellular One will work with some Cellular One systems, but not others. AT&T has a big dead spot for customers not on their digital one rate in ND/MT. Sprint is also limited with rural areas. Cingular by far had the best national plans, but Verizon Wireless's America's Choice is close to the Preferred Nation. Cingular is unbeatable with it's $55 Cingular Nation Plan. You had a good post that helped make people think. AD You will own the number. And you may take it with you, with a few restrictions. Like you cant use it outside it normal area. Like moving to a different area code. And only the top 100 markets are required, the other areas dont have to do it until march, I think. >How do you jump ship since Cingular owns the # when you are out of the >contract? >Like you cant use it outside it normal area. Like moving to a >different area code. huh? someone i know had another phone added to their cingular line (dumb bastard) but with an area code from central california, so you can hook up a phone with an area code not yours but u cant keep the number if u move? wtf? > >Like you cant use it outside it normal area. Like moving to a > >different area code. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can hook up a phone with an area code not yours but u cant keep the > number if u move? wtf? You're missing the point of local number portability. Look closely at the name. *Local* number portability. LNP, including WLNP, gives you the right to take your phone number with you TO ANOTHER CARRIER within your LOCAL calling area. I currently reside in the 804-227 exchange operated by Sprint/Centel. I have a very limited local calling area consisting of the other two Sprint exchanges in my county. There are no competitive carriers here. Sprint will permit me to take my 804-227 number with me if I move elsewhere within the local calling area (804-449 or 804-883 exchanges) even though AFAIK that's not required by LNP guidelines. The point to LNP is to be able to take your number with you when you change to another carrier within your local calling area. As far as my residential phone service goes, there ARE no competitive carriers here (Sprint is my only choice for local service) so LNP is pointless (rest assured I still see surcharges for it on my bill though). Now, as far as my WIRELESS service goes, I have two lines with Verizon Wireless out of Richmond. If I were to switch to, say, Sprint PCS, I could take those numbers with me. I would still be receiving service with Richmond numbers through a carrier with service switched out of Richmond. If I wanted to go with Cingular, however, I could not take those numbers wtih me. Cingular's exchanges are in Fredericksburg, 30 miles north of me, well outside the boundaries of the Richmond calling area. I would have to abandon my current VZW numbers and get new Cingular numbers. To add to the puzzle, Verizon Wireless states on their web site that they will permit porting of landline phone numbers, too. Again, this would not be beneficial to me, as even though Verizon Wireless's switching center is nearby (about 15 miles) it is outside the boundary of my local calling area. If I had an Ashland number, however, which IS within the Richmond LCA, I could take that Ashland number to my wireless service with Verizon Wireless (still not Cingular, as Fredericksburg is outside the LCA). SOOOOO... in response to your post... you most certainly *should* be able to keep that area code if you move. LNP has nothing to do with physical relocation. It has to do with the moving of wireless service from one carrier to another. If you should move your service on that line from Cingular to another carrier within that same local calling area, yes, you can take the number with you. Steve > (Sprint is my only choice for local service) so LNP is pointless (rest > assured I still see surcharges for it on my bill though). Ask for a credit. Three months ago I called CS and stated I didn't want to pay for a non-mandated "tax". Rep gave me a $50 credit spread over two billing cycles of $25 each month. Is it bad timing to sign a new contract with Cingular for a free phone? > Is it bad timing to sign a new contract with Cingular for a free phone? Yes. Do nothing until Nov. 24. Watch the competition scream for customers to stay with them on the one hand, and switch to them, on the other hand. Besides, I don't like Cingular's phone choices right now. I want a tri-band phone, and the 6340i scares me. >Is it bad timing to sign a new contract with Cingular for a free phone? Why would it be bad timing? What are you looking for besides free? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com >>Is it bad timing to sign a new contract with Cingular for a free phone? > >Why would it be bad timing? What are you looking for besides free? because youll be signing a 1 or 2 year contract, you will be stuck with cingular and they can f.ck you 7 ways from sunday while everyone else is being cut deals cause they are jumping to other carriers WITH their phone numbers, you will be stuck unless you pay $150 to get out of your contract with the devil. free now pay later. if you wait till a month or 2 after nov 24 then there will more competition and cingular and others will make new cheaper plans to keep/gain customers and the guy who signed the $100 a month contract is stuck for the next year or 2 and cingular WILL NOT cut them a deal just cause everyone else is getting one. > because youll be signing a 1 or 2 year contract, you will be stuck > with cingular and they can f.ck you 7 ways from sunday while everyone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > year or 2 and cingular WILL NOT cut them a deal just cause everyone > else is getting one. All this is true, but consider: if the contract buyout is only $150 or so, you balance that against the savings to be had by jumping. It all comes down to how much are you going to pay over the next 2 years. Do the math. If you're going to save $20/month by jumping, for a total of $240, then you pay the $150 to jump and STILL save yourself $90 over the next 2 years. >because youll be signing a 1 or 2 year contract, you will be stuck >with cingular and they can f.ck you 7 ways from sunday Do you use that same mouth to eat? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com >>because youll be signing a 1 or 2 year contract, you will be stuck >>with cingular and they can f.ck you 7 ways from sunday > >Do you use that same mouth to eat? f.ck yes > >Why would it be bad timing? What are you looking for besides free? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their phone numbers, you will be stuck unless you pay $150 to get out > of your contract with the devil. I love this idea that wireless companies, already slugging it out in a hyper-competitive marketplace with razor-thin profit margins, will suddenly throw out these super previously unheard of deals come Nov. 24th. As a friend of mine in the computer business used to joke, "sure we lose $100 on every sale, but we make it up with volume!" If wireless carriers were truly sh---ing bricks over WNP, wouldn't they be offering the killer deals NOW to lock both their prospective and existing customers into contracts so their hands would be tied come next month? The problem with giving away the farm come Nov. 24th, is that any super deal that you use to lure customers from other carriers can also backfire when your existing customer base "downgrades" into the deal. For example, back when I was a Cingular dealer shortly after the transition from analog to digital, Cingular offered a kiler rate plan (for it's day)- 350 minutes for $35, IIRC. While they did sign up a bunch of new customers, the plan backfired- they had far more existing customers "downgrade" from more profitable and higher-priced $50-80 plans to this $35 "special" than they had new customers signing up for it! > free now pay later. if you wait till > a month or 2 after nov 24 then there will more competition and > cingular and others will make new cheaper plans to keep/gain customers > and the guy who signed the $100 a month contract is stuck for the next > year or 2 and cingular WILL NOT cut them a deal just cause everyone > else is getting one. Yes they will- Cingular's policy is to allow rate plan changes during your contract. The only "catch" is that if you select a promotional plan that requires a two-year committment, you're required to extend your contract to the two-year requirement. This won't be an issue for the previous poster- if he signed a 2-year deal today, Oct. 23, and grabbed some new wunderplan on Nov. 25th, his contract end-date would simply change from 10/23/2005 to 11/25/2005, just like any new customer that signed up on 11/25. So, if you see a deal you like today, it won't hurt to grab it. > If wireless carriers were truly sh---ing bricks over WNP, wouldn't > they be offering the killer deals NOW to lock both their prospective > and existing customers into contracts so their hands would be tied > come next month? Not at all. How many people in the world outside of this group of 100 people here know anything about WLNP? Nobody. So the cell carriers are basing their actions on the ignorance of their customers. As far as 99.99999999999% of their customers know, they're locked into their current carrier if they want to keep their number. Many, many people have had their numbers for years, and wouldn't think of changing their numbers for many reasons. So the cell carriers are simply pushing "renew now" without much of a financial incentive, because as far as the customer knows there's no real downside at renewing now. The cell carriers will give out some new phones--that's the hook--and will lock these folks in at good rates--good rates for the cell carrier, that is. > The problem with giving away the farm come Nov. 24th, is that > any super deal that you use to lure customers from other carriers > can also backfire when your existing customer base "downgrades" > into the deal. "not for existing customers, for new customers only". Credit card companies do this all the time, as do cable TV companies. There's no reason for the cell companies to allow specials to apply to existing customers, not really. They'll all dance around and play the games and figure out to the Nth degree exactly how to work it all. > Yes they will- Cingular's policy is to allow rate plan changes during your > contract. That's true. I don't know how true it is of other companies. But remember, even Cingular has watered that down from times past. I remember when you could change your plan on a daily basis. Now it's only once a month, at billing time. > How many people in the world outside of this group of 100 > people here know anything about WLNP? Nobody. One hundred and ONE if you count my 88 year old grandmother that read about it in the newspaper and understood that it meant she could leave Sprint and take her number somewhere else. Uhh...make that one hundred and TWO. My sister heard about it on the radio and understood it. Opps...add two more. I overheard two guys in jeans and t-shirts talking about it while standing in line at Walmart. Darn...did I mention the lady I overheard talking to someone on her cellphone that she was going to wait until the end of next month to change companies and keep her number? Sounds like the media has done a fairly decent job of informing people. Some people are going to change because they want the better coverage a different company provides. Win some - loose some. But of course if you loose and don't win new subscribers because of a dysfuntional infrastructure, then someone needs to get moving. >If wireless carriers were truly sh---ing bricks over WNP, wouldn't >they be offering the killer deals NOW to lock both their prospective >and existing customers into contracts so their hands would be tied >come next month? when they see people jumping from them like rats off a sinking ship they will have to do something or go broke. >The problem with giving away the farm come Nov. 24th, is that >any super deal that you use to lure customers from other carriers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >profitable and higher-priced $50-80 plans to this $35 "special" >than they had new customers signing up for it! bad news for SINgular >Yes they will- Cingular's policy is to allow rate plan changes during your >contract. The only "catch" is that if you select a promotional plan that >requires a two-year committment, you're required to extend your >contract to the two-year requirement. and any new plans come nov 24 will ALL BE promotional requiring a 2 year contract/extention.... with number portability might come 0 year contracts, like your home phone, pay month by month no stupid multi year contract, wtf is with that anyways. > and any new plans come nov 24 will ALL BE promotional requiring a 2 > year contract/extention.... with number portability might come 0 year > contracts, like your home phone, pay month by month no stupid multi > year contract, wtf is with that anyways. Does anyone remember Aerial? The first of the digital companies, that broke out of the Side A/Side B mold, the beginning of the future--and they didn't require a contract. It was all month to month. That was my first cell phone, with Aerial. > >If wireless carriers were truly sh---ing bricks over WNP, wouldn't > >they be offering the killer deals NOW to lock both their prospective [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when they see people jumping from them like rats off a sinking ship > they will have to do something or go broke. The industry anylists already have estimated that about 25% more people will switch services next year vs. this year. Hardly "rats off a sinking ship." I think many people on this NG overestimate the number of folks who intend to switch due to WNP. The fact is, most people are more than willing to leave a cell provider they don't like the second their contract is up, even if it means switching numbers. > >Yes they will- Cingular's policy is to allow rate plan changes during your > >contract. The only "catch" is that if you select a promotional plan that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and any new plans come nov 24 will ALL BE promotional requiring a 2 > year contract/extention.... Of course. > with number portability might come 0 year > contracts, like your home phone, pay month by month no stupid multi > year contract, wtf is with that anyways. Huh? If anything, WNP (slightly) increases the need for contracts- there is even less of an incentive to remain with a carrier if you can "test" each one without changing numbers. For all of your ranting against Cingular, they are one of the few wireless carriers who do NOT require contracts! Most, if not all Cingular plans can be used month-to-month IF you supply your own compatible phone, or buy one from Cingular at full price. Pretty fair of them, IMHO. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that after 11/24 wireless carriers will start giving away phones AND stop requiring contracts on them as well. If that's what you're implying, it means you understand the wireless industry even less than I thought you did, and trust me- THAT'S pretty difficult to believe! > For all of your ranting against Cingular, they are one of the few > wireless carriers who do NOT require contracts! Huh? All carriers have no-contract options, and all carriers have contract options--including Cingular. >> For all of your ranting against Cingular, they are one of the few >> wireless carriers who do NOT require contracts! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >All carriers have no-contract options, and all carriers have contract >options--including Cingular. I guess you haven't checked out carriers lately. The only major US carrier that does not require a contract is cingular. All the others do. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com >> For all of your ranting against Cingular, they are one of the few >> wireless carriers who do NOT require contracts! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >All carriers have no-contract options, and all carriers have contract >options--including Cingular. but the thing with that is they probably require you to buy a $500 phone to get that, u have already have a cingular compatible phone? oh sorry we cant hook that type of phone up without a contract...u know how these people work, plus the plans are outrageously high if your not in a contract... i'm talking about month to month paying whatever u are paying now...u have a $45 a month plan with a 2 year contract? they should make it the same, drop the contract. the only gain they have by a contract is forcing you to stay with them for X amount of time, if u want to leave you pay them MORE money for not staying with them. the customer gains nothing by a contract, it is all one sided im hoping when 11/24 goes into effect it will be just like that, pay by month and keep your number so if your tired of SINgulars sh.t you can go elsewhere and people would be none the wiser. and as for the guy who said other carriers will come out with a "we will pay for cancellation fees" promo...it COULD happen but when cancellation charges are $150 it probably wont happen, but that would be one killer deal! then again if you cancel and pay the cancel charges they probably still report it to an agency, if not cause u cancelled then to "get you back" >they probably still report it to an agency, if not cause u >cancelled then to "get you back" There's nothing for them to report that's bad. If they pay their bills and they pay the ETF they are obeying the contract terms and it should not affect their credit at all. Do you know otherwise? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To send an email reply send to GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com >>they probably still report it to an agency, if not cause u >>cancelled then to "get you back" > >There's nothing for them to report that's bad. If they pay their >bills and they pay the ETF they are obeying the contract terms and it >should not affect their credit at all. Do you know otherwise? i know that if a company does report you to an agency there is diddly f.cking squat u can do about it. look at those people who get their identities stolen, some fuckwad runs their credit into the ground....this happened to a 68 year old woman, and it was all proven in court and what happened? nothing, she still has all this sh.t on her credit because the egencies will not remove it. i would not put it past a company like SINgular to do this to someone, then if it was to happen that they were taken to court etc all they have to say is "oops..." and all is well. >>>they probably still report it to an agency, if not cause u >>>cancelled then to "get you back" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > happen that they were taken to court etc all they have to say is > "oops..." and all is well. Except that this situation is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and heavy fines would follow for any cellular company stupid enough to report bad credit for a zero balance account. Even breaking the contract and paying the ETF would not be a reportable situation to any credit bureau. > >All carriers have no-contract options, and all carriers have contract > >options--including Cingular. > > but the thing with that is they probably require you to buy a $500 > phone to get that, No, without a contract, phones start around $200. > u have already have a cingular compatible phone? oh > sorry we cant hook that type of phone up without a contract... No, if you have a phone compatible with Cingular they'll sign you up month-to-month. > u know how these people work, Yes, I do. YOU, apparently do not. I used to be an independent Cingular dealer. We did lots of no-contract deals, and we used to stock used and refurb phones to minimize the startup costs. > plus the plans are outrageously high if your not in a contract... No, they're the same plans! > i'm talking about month to month paying whatever u are paying now...u > have a $45 a month plan with a 2 year contract? they should make it > the same, drop the contract. THEY DO! > the only gain they have by a contract is forcing you to stay with them > for X amount of time, if u want to leave > you pay them MORE money for not staying with them. The contract is a two-way street- they get you to stay for 1 or 2 years in return for a generous discount on a phone. > the customer gains nothing by a contract, it is all one sided No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for committing to a year or two of service. Cingular uses the contract for the purpose cellphone contracts were originally intended for- a quid pro quo- you get a discount on a phone in return for a service committment. No more, no less. > im hoping when 11/24 goes into effect it will be just like that, pay > by month and keep your number so if your tired of SINgulars sh.t you > can go elsewhere and people would be none the wiser. I hope on 11/24 cell carriers will give free lap dances with new lines of service. But guess what; neither of us are going to get what we hope for come November. > and as for the guy who said other carriers will come out with a "we > will pay for cancellation fees" promo...it COULD happen but when > cancellation charges are $150 it probably wont happen, but that would > be one killer deal! then again if you cancel and pay the cancel > charges they probably still report it to an agency, if not cause u > cancelled then to "get you back" Keep dreaming, Steve. Novermer 24th is going to be just like November 23rd, except we'll all be one day older. >No, without a contract, phones start around $200. ok, fair. >> plus the plans are outrageously high if your not in a contract... > >No, they're the same plans! then how in the f.ck do they recoup the cost of the "free phone" if they charge the same amount of money for the same plan if you bring in your own phone? they get their money back through the plan, and if you have your own phone and they are charging you the same as someone else they are recouping the cost of a phone from how good of a plan is it REALLY ? nice. >> i'm talking about month to month paying whatever u are paying now...u >> have a $45 a month plan with a 2 year contract? they should make it >> the same, drop the contract. > >THEY DO! refer to above. >> the only gain they have by a contract is forcing you to stay with them >> for X amount of time, if u want to leave >> you pay them MORE money for not staying with them. > >The contract is a two-way street- they get you to stay for 1 or 2 >years in return for a generous discount on a phone. not true, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone through the plan, SINgular told me this on the phone with that whole upgrade fiasco. there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can recoup the cost of the phone obviously. >> the customer gains nothing by a contract, it is all one sided > >No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for >committing to a year or two of service. once again it is NOT FREE, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone through the plan, it IS INDEED a one sided agreement. >Cingular uses the contract for the purpose cellphone contracts were >originally intended for- a quid pro quo- you get a discount on a phone >in return for a service committment. No more, no less. there is no discount to be had if your paying full price for it over time now is there? maybe the "little by little" is the discount....not having to pay for it up front....yeah thats it. >> im hoping when 11/24 goes into effect it will be just like that, pay >> by month and keep your number so if your tired of SINgulars sh.t you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of service. But guess what; neither of us are going to get what we >hope for come November. could happen, strippers do anything for a few bucks and in a bulk lapdance deal they could get them for cheap. >> and as for the guy who said other carriers will come out with a "we >> will pay for cancellation fees" promo...it COULD happen but when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Keep dreaming, Steve. Novermer 24th is going to be just like November >23rd, except we'll all be one day older. we will see.....we will see.... You have to remember the advantages of having no contract: you can cancel at any time without any early termination fees. Some states require that early termination fees be prorated, as a cell phone company will not lose $200.00 if a customer cancels one month early, but a company may lose close to $200.00 if a customer cancels 22 months early. I've heard rumours that California might require early terminations fees to be calculated based on the phone and plan you choose, and after that still be prorated. AD Most states the term fee is flat. In FL the fee is prorated. Most people don't know that when a cell company take a new customer that is an investment. It cost them about $300 - 500 to take on a customer. So that is why a contract is used. Guaranteed funds coming in. >You have to remember the advantages of having no contract: you can >cancel at any time without any early termination fees. Some states [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >AD > >No, without a contract, phones start around $200. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they are recouping the cost of a phone from how good of a plan is it > REALLY ? nice. Oh, I finally get where you're coming from- you mean the non-contract folks should pay less since there's no subsidy involved. I agree- to a point. While there is no subsidy involved, there is also no guarantee the customer will stick around. Think of the subsidy as a "perk" for committed customers, much like a magazine subscription costs less per issue than buying it on a newsstand. I guess my point is that at least Cingular allows customers to signup month-to-month without any penalty, unlike for example, Sprint PCS, who allowed month-to-month customers but charged them an EXTRA $10/month for the "no-contract" plan. (I don't know if they still do this, but they did at one time.) > >> i'm talking about month to month paying whatever u are paying now...u > >> have a $45 a month plan with a 2 year contract? they should make it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > refer to above. If I understand what you wrote- "month to month paying whatever u (sic) are paying now" then I stand by my statement. Cingular doesn't penalize MTM customers with HIGHER rates. They also don't reward them with lower rates. > >The contract is a two-way street- they get you to stay for 1 or 2 > >years in return for a generous discount on a phone. > > not true, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone through the plan, > SINgular told me this on the phone with that whole upgrade fiasco. Of course, where'd you THINK they money came from? > there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it > little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can > recoup the cost of the phone obviously. Right, a little bit at a time through your monthly service fees. My God, Steve, I think you finally figured out how cellular works! > >No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for > >committing to a year or two of service. > > once again it is NOT FREE, the carrier recoups the cost of the phone > through the plan, it IS INDEED a one sided agreement. NOTHING is really "free"! When Dominos pizza gives you a free small pizza with your full-priced large pizza because you used a coupon, who paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the large! They just made less profit on the coupon customer, but they'll make it up on volume, if you buy pizza twice a week using the coupons. Similarly, the cellphone provider is willing to make less profit on the contract customer because he's guaranteed to buy at least 12 or 24 months of service. The non-contract customer might buy only one or two months! Competition in the marketplace dictates the monthly service fees ("what the market will bear"), not the amount of subsidy. It actually works backwards from what you think- it's not like a carrier says "we COULD sell 200 anytime minutes for $19.99 a month, plus $10.00 for the monthly subsidy= a $29.99 rate plan." In reality, it's more like "crap- T-Mobile is giving 300 minutes for $29.99. We need to match it, despite the fact that only leaves us $10 profit per month. Since we subsidize a phone $200, our break-even point will now be 20-months instead of 16. Maybe we need THREE-year contracts..." > >Cingular uses the contract for the purpose cellphone contracts were > >originally intended for- a quid pro quo- you get a discount on a phone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time now is there? maybe the "little by little" is the > discount....not having to pay for it up front....yeah thats it. Well, if those who DON'T get a subsidy (a month-to-month customer) pay the same rate, then it IS a discount for contract customers isn't it? Here's some "duh" math: Contract customer pays $0 for phone, and $40/month for service for two years: total is ($40x24) or $960. Non-contract customer pays $200 for phone, and $40/month for the same rate plan and ALSO sticks around two years, because he likes the service: total is($200+$40x24) or $1160. Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it? >> >No, without a contract, phones start around $200. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Oh, I finally get where you're coming from- you mean the non-contract >folks should pay less since there's no subsidy involved. cool, usually im not too good at expressing my point... >I agree- to a point. While there is no subsidy involved, there is >also no guarantee the customer will stick around. Think of the >subsidy as a "perk" for committed customers, much like a magazine >subscription costs less per issue than buying it on a newsstand. so a wholesale price basically for buying in bulk so to speak right? >I guess my point is that at least Cingular allows customers to signup >month-to-month without any penalty, unlike for example, Sprint PCS, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Of course, where'd you THINK they money came from? then it isnt really free now is it? false advertising? when it gets down to it the phone isnt free.... for arguements sake if the phone really WAS free and you wanted to upgrade next week to a newer phone that just came out and is advertised as free then they should let u with no problem, cause its free...im just sayin... >> there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it >> little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can >> recoup the cost of the phone obviously. > >Right, a little bit at a time through your monthly service fees. yeah, so advertising the phones as free isnt really true, its free on a payment plan that they dont tell u about. >My God, Steve, I think you finally figured out how cellular works! not really, too much stuff about it i dont know, and asking about it usually doesnt work but if you come off as all pissed off about it and uneducated then people are more than happy to set u straight on it ;-) >> >No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for >> >committing to a year or two of service. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the >large! yeah, they just jack the price up on the large pizza. >They just made less profit on the coupon customer, but they'll >make it up on volume, if you buy pizza twice a week using the coupons. > Similarly, the cellphone provider is willing to make less profit on >the contract customer because he's guaranteed to buy at least 12 or 24 >months of service. The non-contract customer might buy only one or >two months! yeah but it still goes back to the whole thing about charging the same monthly rate for someone who owns their own phone as someone who makes payments on their phone through their plan, in effect the person who owns their phone is making payments on something they dont have if u want to look at it like that. >Competition in the marketplace dictates the monthly service fees >("what the market will bear"), not the amount of subsidy. It actually [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Well, if those who DON'T get a subsidy (a month-to-month customer) pay >the same rate, then it IS a discount for contract customers isn't it? for the contract customer, but then the contract customer is still paying for their phone through the plan and joe month-by-month is paying the same price but without the phone, so what just consider that a penalty for not being a contract customer? so it works both ways, its a good deal for mr month by month and a good deal for mr contract? maybe im just trying to expose the ripping off of customers and it aint working lol >Here's some "duh" math: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >rate plan and ALSO sticks around two years, because he likes the >service: total is($200+$40x24) or $1160. im not talking about buying the phone from the same carrier, im saying if u had your phone for a while/got it elsewhere/swap meet/ebay/whatever and u signed up for a month to month deal, your still paying $40x24=960 as the guy who is paying fopr the phone through the contract >Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it? yeah if u paid $200 for your phone, but if u got it for free from a friend, or for $10 off ebay your kinda getting the shaft i would think... maybe im just talking sh.t but it doesnt seem too fair. i kinda think of it as buying a new car, lets say the car is $20k...you put down $10k and your monthly payments/interest incured will be much less than the guy who put $0 down, the guy who put $0 down will pay more a month and incur more interest... same as the guy who puts $0 down on the cell phone, he should pay more through the plan to pay for the phone little by little, the guy who has his own phone shouldnt have to pay the same... maybe $5 less or something, whatever they are adding in for the phone...i think its around $6 to $8 depending on the phone u get, for a $200 phone on a 24 month plan its $8.33 a month to equal $200. im probably thinking too much or not enough....blah >>>>No, without a contract, phones start around $200. >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > so a wholesale price basically for buying in bulk so to speak right? He uses the analogy of a magazine and month of wireless service. However, because you need eyes to read the magazine (which you have and you are not required to purchase), you need not buy any further equipment. But because your brain cannot communicate directly with the wireless towers, you need to buy a wireless handset to use your monthly service. If you commit to a period of service, for example 12, 18, or 24 months, you will receive the phone at a discount. There is also a higher chance that will want to terminate your contract early, thus giving them either an early termination fee, or your credit a bad rating. If you meant a wholesale price for buying in bulk (in terms on months of service), then yes, it is similar. When you are contracted, you purchase a group of months, usually 24 now, and each month is slightly cheaper because you bought all 24 months at one time. You will only be billed for one month at a time, and you must pay a hefty fee to terminate service. Since you are getting the month cheaper, the extra money you pay each month is your discount on the wireless handset. Since you entered into a contract, you get the handset much cheaper than if you purchased it without a contract (i.e. My Motorola C331t cost me 4.99 with a 1 year contract with Cingular. If I opted to not get the contract, the same phone would have cost me [at the time] 249.99). >>I guess my point is that at least Cingular allows customers to signup >>month-to-month without any penalty, unlike for example, Sprint PCS, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > that just came out and is advertised as free then they should let u > with no problem, cause its free...im just sayin... No, it's not false advertising. It's free with the purchase of 24 months of service. If you don't buy the 24 months of service, they aren't required to give you the free phone (hence early termination fees). >>>there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it >>>little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yeah, so advertising the phones as free isnt really true, its free on > a payment plan that they dont tell u about. See above. >>My God, Steve, I think you finally figured out how cellular works! > > not really, too much stuff about it i dont know, and asking about it > usually doesnt work but if you come off as all pissed off about it and > uneducated then people are more than happy to set u straight on it ;-) If you really want to argue about it, you should call up Verizon Wireless, Sprint PCS, US Cellular, Cingular, T-Mobile, Nextel, AT&T Wireless Services, Criket, et al and argue the sales pitch with them. You could also try and argue with the Attorney General of your state. We as consumers didn't invent the system. >>>>No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for >>>>committing to a year or two of service. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the >>large! > yeah, they just jack the price up on the large pizza. Of course it's not actually free. If it was, I could walk up to any Verizon Wireless store and take a phone. No need to get service because it's free. I just want the phone because it can take pictures and I can put them on my computer with a cheap data cable. Plus, it's a camera that can call 911 if I'm in trouble. And it's free. It would be nice, wouldn't it? >>They just made less profit on the coupon customer, but they'll >>make it up on volume, if you buy pizza twice a week using the coupons. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > owns their phone is making payments on something they dont have if u > want to look at it like that. But again, the freedom to quit without penalty. >>Competition in the marketplace dictates the monthly service fees >>("what the market will bear"), not the amount of subsidy. It actually [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > contract? maybe im just trying to expose the ripping off of customers > and it aint working lol Again, no commitment. >>Here's some "duh" math: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > still paying $40x24=960 as the guy who is paying fopr the phone > through the contract But the idea is that you can cancel at any time without the hefty early termination fee. >>Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > its $8.33 a month to equal $200. im probably thinking too much or not > enough....blah Yeah, but if you get that phone of Ebay(R) for 10.00, you can activate it with Cingular, and after two months, if for example you get transferred to North Dakota with your job, you can terminate your service without the hefty early termination fee. Get it? >>>>>No, without a contract, phones start around $200. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >months of service. If you don't buy the 24 months of service, they >aren't required to give you the free phone (hence early termination fees). its not free with the purchase of 24 months, they add the cost of the phone in with the bill little by little every month, this is what cingular told me. >>>>there is no discount, the "free" phone is not free, you pay for it >>>>little by little through your plan, that is the ONLY way they can [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >You could also try and argue with the Attorney General of your state. >We as consumers didn't invent the system. theres no point in arguing it with them, why do they care wtf i think? it makes them billions so one guy having a problem with it isnt gonna do anything, no one else sees the ripoff scheme so why do anything about it if its working for them? nothing the attorney general can/will do about it either... >>>>>No, the customer gets a $200-300 phone for free, in return for >>>>>committing to a year or two of service. [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] >transferred to North Dakota with your job, you can terminate your >service without the hefty early termination fee. Get it? what does transfering jobs to north dakota have to do with the fact that cingular charges the same plan price for guy a - who owns his phone and guy B - who is paying monthly for his phone. i'd rather pay a termination fee than move to north dakota bro. the fact remains - bob - got his phone "free" but pays for it little by little through his plan - monthly plan? 400 minutes for $39.99 joe - owns his phone, got it for $10 from ebay - monthly plan? 400 minutes for $39.99 > what does transfering jobs to north dakota have to do with the fact > that cingular charges the same plan price for guy a - who owns his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > joe - owns his phone, got it for $10 from ebay - monthly plan? 400 > minutes for $39.99 Bob and Joe both cancel service tomorrow- Bob owes Cingular $200, Joe owes nothing. Joe is paying "extra" for his freedom... pure and simple. > the fact remains - > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > joe - owns his phone, got it for $10 from ebay - monthly plan? 400 > minutes for $39.99 So, over let's say two years, Bob pays 959.76 to Cingular for service. Joe pays 959.76 to Cingular for service. Both get 400 minutes a month, but Bob gets a phone without paying additional. That would make it 'free' to Bob. And the one thing to remember- Bob's money will get allocated by Cingular just the same as Joe's will- some for network, marketing, sales, support, advertising, and to subsidize all of the free and discounted phones Cingular sells, among other things. WHat I find amazing about this thread is that this is being pointed out as though it is uniques in the Corporate world. Every instance of a 'free' offer is ALWAYS absorbed through the sale of goods- it is a part of the entire pricing structure. And the more 'free' offers a company has, the higher the cost of paid services and goods are going to be to cover the expense of the 'free' item. Bob does get a 'free' phone, due to the fact that he pays no more than regualr service price to receive it. But in the end, every subscriber on the network helps Cingular recover the cost of that phone. >> the fact remains - >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >pays 959.76 to Cingular for service. Both get 400 minutes a month, but Bob >gets a phone without paying additional. That would make it 'free' to Bob. your looking at it backwards, or the other way around either one... you re saying that because they are the same price bob gets the better deal cause he gets a phone too, i'm saying its a bad deal for joe because he pays the same as bob who is paying monthly payments for the phone he got. what you are saying is like saying "oh it's not so bad, that guy didn't get a phone and he has to pay the same so i'll consider it a good deal" what kind of justification is that? the fact remains that cingular charges monthly for the phone they give u "free", but charge u the same if you didnt get a phone from them... so if you want to look at it the way u are then hell yeah its a good deal for the guy who got the "free" phone, cingular charges the guy who didnt get a phone the same price so the "well its gonna cost the same, might as well get a phone" mentality comes into play...and because it costs the same cingular can recoup even more cost because they are overcharging the guy who has his own phone. >And the one thing to remember- Bob's money will get allocated by Cingular >just the same as Joe's will- some for network, marketing, sales, support, >advertising, and to subsidize all of the free and discounted phones >Cingular sells, among other things. so it's ok to overcharge joe because its going towards expanding the ever growing empire? just like bobs money is? huh? >WHat I find amazing about this thread is that this is being pointed out as >though it is uniques in the Corporate world. Every instance of a 'free' >offer is ALWAYS absorbed through the sale of goods- it is a part of the >entire pricing structure. And the more 'free' offers a company has, the >higher the cost of paid services and goods are going to be to cover the >expense of the 'free' item. yeah... thats what i was trying to say, but instead of applying those higher costs to the person who took the offer they apply it to EVERYONE, its like car insurance...your neighbor is a retard and smashes into a schoolbus, not only does his insurance go up but so does yours...you only drive on sundays u say? too bad you have to pay for his fuckup too. i guess i think of it differently, everyone has to carry their own weight u know, i think the same on taxes too which puts me in a minority... everyone pays taxes on things even though certain people do not buy/use them but everyone has to pay for it, only those who use/buy such things should be taxed for them...THEY ARE THE ONES USING IT right? i think its called tarrifs or something... so just because cingular has to recoup the cost of the "free" phone they should be able to charge a guy who didnt takr the "free" phone the same price thus making it look like it was free because they are charging both guys the same even though theyb recoup the cost through the plan? wtf is that? nice marketing i agree but fair? not so. they can call it both free and recoup the cost, genius no doubt. >Bob does get a 'free' phone, due to the fact that he pays no more than >regualr service price to receive it. but in truth he is, it's just that they charge everyone else the same price as well to make it so he pays the same. its like saying "free chrome wheels with ferrari purchase" then someone comes in and says "i dont want chrome wheels, just the regular ones" and charging them the same even though they knowingly jacked up the price to cover the wheels, but apply the same jacked up price to the guy who didnt get the wheels, shouldnt you only apply the jacked up price to the guy who got the wheels? seems fair no? maybe im trippin. >But in the end, every subscriber on >the network helps Cingular recover the cost of that phone. so true...oh so true. thats what im trying to get at, i think only the guy who got the phone should be penalized with higher fees, but because the people with their own phones didn't pay cingular up front for a phone (thus making a profit for cingular) they must be penalized too. what the wireless carriers did with this free phone sh.t is really clever i must hand it to them but i see through it and unfortunately others fail to do so, i mean to be able to say "free phone" then raise the price to cover the cost and do it to even those who own their phone and call it "even" is indeed clever, even you think its fair because they are paying the same price... it can be seen like that, but thats just justifying the "free" phone, u do see that the price is unfairly applied to the guy with his own phone right? > so a wholesale price basically for buying in bulk so to speak right? You could look at it that way- maybe it's a "loyalty award" even though the "loyalty" is forced by the gunpoint of a contract! > then it isnt really free now is it? false advertising? That's pretty harsh. > when it gets > down to it the phone isnt free.... for arguements sake if the phone > really WAS free and you wanted to upgrade next week to a newer phone > that just came out and is advertised as free then they should let u > with no problem, cause its free...im just sayin... It's free ...with strings attached. I bought a car a few months back from a dealer who promises a "free full tank of gas" in every car. (No, that's not why I chose that dealer!) Should I expect to get my car filled there for free indefinitely? Of course not. Nor does the bank give me a free toaster EVERY month- just when I opened my account. Similarly, the cell company gives ONE free phone with EACH contract. > >Right, a little bit at a time through your monthly service fees. > > yeah, so advertising the phones as free isnt really true, its free on > a payment plan that they dont tell u about. What do you mean "they don't tell you about"? Are you suggesting that people get a free phone and don't know they have to pay monthly service fees? > >NOTHING is really "free"! When Dominos pizza gives you a free small > >pizza with your full-priced large pizza because you used a coupon, who > >paid for the free pizza? You did, with the money you spent for the > >large! > > yeah, they just jack the price up on the large pizza. Right. That's marketing, and is perfectly legit. > yeah but it still goes back to the whole thing about charging the same > monthly rate for someone who owns their own phone as someone who makes > payments on their phone through their plan, in effect the person who > owns their phone is making payments on something they dont have if u > want to look at it like that. You could look at it like that I guess, but it's not entirely correct- the cell company wants to give an incentive for contracts, so the contract customers get a better deal. > for the contract customer, but then the contract customer is still > paying for their phone through the plan and joe month-by-month is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contract? maybe im just trying to expose the ripping off of customers > and it aint working lol Maybe I'm just jaded from 10 years in the biz. I remember the days before contracts: $1200 phones and $19.99 for ten minutes a month! I even remember my first contract: 90 days! (You saved $5/month if you signed for a year.) > im not talking about buying the phone from the same carrier, im saying > if u had your phone for a while/got it elsewhere/swap > meet/ebay/whatever and u signed up for a month to month deal, your > still paying $40x24=960 as the guy who is paying fopr the phone > through the contract Right, but you have an old used eBay phone vs. a new one. More importantly, you had the ability to walk away at anytime without a $200 EFT penalty! > >Contract customer got a $200 discount- get it? > > yeah if u paid $200 for your phone, but if u got it for free from a > friend, or for $10 off ebay your kinda getting the shaft i would > think... maybe im just talking sh.t but it doesnt seem too fair. It would seem very fair if your job forced you to move six months after starting service and you could kiss thearrier goodbye without writing a big fat check! > i kinda think of it as buying a new car, lets say the car is > $20k...you put down $10k and your monthly payments/interest incured [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plan to pay for the phone little by little, the guy who has his own > phone shouldnt have to pay the same... That just illustrates my point- the contract guy isn't really buying a phone in installments, he's getting a "free toaster" for opening his cellular account. > maybe $5 less or something, > whatever they are adding in for the phone...i think its around $6 to > $8 depending on the phone u get, for a $200 phone on a 24 month plan > its $8.33 a month to equal $200. im probably thinking too much or not > enough....blah I'll agree with you IF the discount guy also signs a contract, to make the accounts truly even. > Unless, of course, you are suggesting that after 11/24 wireless > carriers will start giving away phones AND stop requiring contracts on > them as well. If that's what you're implying, it means you understand > the wireless industry even less than I thought you did, and trust me- > THAT'S pretty difficult to believe! They already give away phone (with one or two year contract), but they might offer higher end phones at less cost. At any rate, a newspaper article quoted a wireless exec say they will concentrate on winning back users that left them. Yeah, right...how are they going to have someone break a contract they just signed with a competing carrier? Pay for their ETF to win them back? >if you wait till >a month or 2 after nov 24 then there will more competition Since you brought it up tell me how an already EXTREMELY competitive market can become more competitive? Prices are not going to go down (none of the cellular companies are making money now) and phones are not suddenly going to be less than FREE. There is not going to be any more bandwidth released. Tell me how you think that there is going to be more comeptition. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message