 |
 | 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 / Fido / February 2004Fido is going "contract"
It's official! Beginning February 17th, Fido will begin to offer their phones with a 24-month contract, or "agreement," as they like to call it. The pricing structure will be slightly different, but you can still get a phone with no contract, if you so choose. Without a contract, a customer will pay a phone roughly the same price as on a 1-year contract with the competition. If you choose the 2-year contract, you will benefit from a reduction in price (usually an additional 100$), and some exclusive price plans (the 30$ Fido-to-Fido being one of them). What do you guys think about all this? CU > phone with no contract, if you so choose. Without a contract, a customer > will pay a phone roughly the same price as on a 1-year contract with the > competition. If you choose the 2-year contract, you will benefit from a > reduction in price (usually an additional 100$), and some exclusive price > plans (the 30$ Fido-to-Fido being one of them). What do you guys think > about all this? Terrible. I will have to wait to see the fine print. If the contract is more than just for the payment of the phone's subsidy (aka: renewed forever), then it is absolutely terrible, and the better coverage of the other networks then makes Fido much less competitive. If the contract is just for new customers who geta subsidized phone and after the 2 year period, the phone is unlocked and they doN't have to sign contracts anymore, then I would find this quite acceptable. Otherwise, not acceptable, especially if some of the airtime packages are only available to those on contracts. The dog needs to be punished if he really goes ahead with this. > The dog needs to be punished if he really goes ahead with this. Why? Customers (maybe not you) have been asking for less expensive nicer handsets for a long period of time, combined with the fido reward dollars (for prepaid, monthly, or term) this seems to be a fair offer. Competitive no-contract pricing on phones w/ an option to get something at a lower cost, your choice. It's just an option. : > phone with no contract, if you so choose. Without a contract, a customer : > will pay a phone roughly the same price as on a 1-year contract with the : > competition. If you choose the 2-year contract, you will benefit from a : > reduction in price (usually an additional 100$), and some exclusive price : > plans (the 30$ Fido-to-Fido being one of them). What do you guys think : > about all this? I'll probably go to Rogers. :-(. > I'll probably go to Rogers. :-(. Don't do it! There's so much to live for!  Signature"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice." > What do you guys think about all this? I recently got tired of screwed up billing, rude ignorant CSRs that can barely speak English, shoddy coverage (even in Toronto itself) and a pathetic lack of handsets and told Fido to shove it. What a great feeling. The fact that Fido is moving to a contract after spending years going on about how they're different/better because they don't require a contract is pretty damn funny. Sooner or later they're going to have to accept that they're the smallest dog (ugh) on the block and the only way for them to survive is to become a boutique vendor that offers a better product and service than their competitors. Until then, they're a joke. SignatureBjorn Nitmo <bjorn@deepsky.com> Yes, my name is Bjorn and no, I don't work at Ikea. > > What do you guys think about all this? > > I recently got tired of screwed up billing, rude ignorant CSRs > that can barely speak English, shoddy coverage (even in Toronto itself) > and a pathetic lack of handsets and told Fido to shove it. That's funny, exactly my experience w/ Rogers :-( > What a great feeling. It was when I left them... > The fact that Fido is moving to a contract after spending years > going on about how they're different/better because they don't require a > contract is pretty damn funny. A contract still isnt required, but if you want a cheap price on a good handset there's nothing wrong for an expectation of revenue to make the subsidy back. An optional contract in order for phone subsidies is not a bad idea. How many people paid Fido's price for a Nokia 8390 when they could get it for next to nothing with a two year contract on Rogers? Fido didn't discontinue the 8390 because they sold out of them so quickly. > An optional contract in order for phone subsidies > is not a bad idea. But Fido wants to offer monthly rates available only on contracts. That is what is bad. A contract should be only to protect a subsidized phone. Contract should not renew itself once the subsidy is paid. And note that as long as Fido locks its phones to its network, the need for a contract isn't so great. What Fido could do is simply charge $250 up front for a new customer, with all of that sum going as credit towards your phone service, so you then end up paying nothing for 11 or whatever number of months until that $250 credit is consumed. The $250 would not be refundable. > But Fido wants to offer monthly rates available only > on contracts. That is what is bad. Okay, that would suck. But do we know this is what Fido is going to do for sure? I will wait until they announce it. > A contract should be only to protect a subsidized > phone. Contract should not renew itself once the > subsidy is paid. > > And note that as long as Fido locks its phones to > its network, the need for a contract isn't so great. Yeah, I don't understand why Rogers still locks their phone even on contracts. But once again, I will wait to see what Fido actually announces instead of rampant rumours. > > But Fido wants to offer monthly rates available only > > on contracts. That is what is bad. > > Okay, that would suck. But do we know this is what > Fido is going to do for sure? I will wait until they > announce it. The only plan (as of Feb 17/04) that will need to be on a "24 month agreement" is the $30 Fido to Fido Canada plan. > Okay, that would suck. But do we know this is what > Fido is going to do for sure? I will wait until they > announce it. But if the original message was meant as a trial balloon to see how we would react. If you do not think cointract is a good idea, it is important to voice your opinion before Fido casts its plan in concrete. If Fido sees sufficient disapproval prior to announcing the plan, it allows Fido to rethink its plans. Once announced, Fido can't change it. : > And note that as long as Fido locks its phones to : > its network, the need for a contract isn't so great. : : Yeah, I don't understand why Rogers still locks : their phone even on contracts. Cuz it's the North American trend. If we paid $250 for a phone that is sold by Fido or Rogers for $5.00 then it would come unlocked. Come to think of it, if we buy a phone for retail, it SHOULD be fully unlocked free of charge. > : > And note that as long as Fido locks its phones to > : > its network, the need for a contract isn't so great. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to think of it, if we buy a phone for retail, it SHOULD be fully > unlocked free of charge. I much prefer the way most of the rest of the world does it: when you buy a phone you have a choice, locked or unlocked. If you choose locked your phone will be unlocked after you pay off the subsidy by keeping with the service for a specified amount of time, usually 1 year. After that you are free. No "automatically renewing" contract, no fighting to get the phone unlocked, it's just done. It's funny how the rest of the world is so much more "civilized" when it comes to cell phones... Another point: If Fido must drop one of its more recognizable features (no contracts), it gives the impression that its whole business plan isn't really viable and they must make radical changes to how they deal with customers. The thing about contracts is that if your customers are wishing to leave now, contracts will only delay this departure, because customers will then leave when their contract expire. I could see resellers of Microcell perhaps making some gains if Fido starts to impose contracts while the resellers continue to offer competitive rates without contracts. > If Fido must drop one of its more recognizable features (no contracts), it > gives the impression that its whole business plan isn't really viable and they > must make radical changes to how they deal with customers. The market spoke: We want cheap handsets w/ great priceplans.. It's hard to offer the least expensive handsets and the best price plans.. > I could see resellers of Microcell perhaps making some gains if Fido starts to > impose contracts while the resellers continue to offer competitive rates > without contracts. The thing is, they don't.. > The market spoke: We want cheap handsets w/ great priceplans.. > It's hard to offer the least expensive handsets and the best price plans.. Funny you mention that. That was all part of Fido's original mantra. When they started, they revolutionised pricing, no contracts and low handset costs. They forced the big bad guys to react and try to follow. But now, it seems that it is Fido doing the following by emaulting the big bad boys. Problem is that by losing its leadership, FIDO's smaller footprint becomes a real liability. Remember that Fido no longer has any technological advantage. Fido needs to upgrade its customer support so that those who answer the calls are better trained and more empowered to fix problems. Readers of this newsgroup know that one needs to call "retention" to get anything done at Fido, but average customers don't know that and can easily be turned off by calling *611 and getting bad service. This is especially true when they start messing with subscription options and customers have to call to get clarifications. Do you seriously think that CityFido would be a success if Fido tried to force customers to sign 2 year contracts with hefty cancellation charges ? Instead of contracts, Fido could have subsidy-repayments plans. If you get a $250 phone for free, you bill would initially show a subsidy repayment of $250. And every month, the balance would go down based on how much you spent.If you cancel before the balance is zero, then you ow Fido that amount. This would allow you to get a new phone before your old phone was fully repaid (your balance would simply be increased by value fo new phone.) If you join Fido with your own phone, then you wouldn't need any subsidized phone and would have a subsidy repayment balance of 0. (Yes, this could be construed as a contract since the customer engages to repay the remaining balance should he cancel service before it is repaid), however, it would be a contract tied to the phone, not to the subscription (once phone is repaid, there is no need for a contract). Such a scheme could also work if you wish Fido to unlock your Rogers phone. Fido could pay Rogers for the unlock codes and add that amount to your subsidy repayment value. There are lots of ways to ensure a subsidy is recuperated and Fido doesn't lose money on short term new subscribers without tying a subscribers to permanent contracts. And a big spender would be "free" of any repayment quicker than a $10 per month customer. Where Fido would have a problem is with prepaid. Can you really have a free phone with prepaid ? (perhaps you could get a free phone if you purchased $250 worth of airtime that would be valid for one year). Fido innovated when it started up. That is how the small dog was able to steal 1+ million customers from Cantel (At&T/Rogers) and Bell/Clearnet/Telus. With Clearnet gone, Fido is the sole network capable of innovating to attract customers. > Do you seriously think that CityFido would be a success if Fido tried to force > customers to sign 2 year contracts with hefty cancellation charges ? I have heard multiple people ask if the "could sign a contract for CityFido".. they wanted the value guaranteed. > Fido innovated when it started up. That is how the small dog was able to steal > 1+ million customers from Cantel (At&T/Rogers) and Bell/Clearnet/Telus. Fido didn't steal these customers from their competitors, the innovation that Fido/Clearnet brought to the market increased the overall size of the marketplace over the last 7-8 years. Check the growth experienced by Microcell's competitors over this period of time, it's as good or better than Microcell's. Check the Seaboard report that's been quoted in various news sources lately. http://news.google.com/news?q=seaboard+fido&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&scoring=d With the option of a contract Microcell isn't going the way of other carriers, it's accepting that with the demand for more expensive hardware has increased while the demand for better price plans has increased even more (typified and reported via the recent Microcell press release for Q4 results). > > What do you guys think about all this? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for them to survive is to become a boutique vendor that offers a better > product and service than their competitors. Until then, they're a joke. I think it was finally dawning on people that this "no contract" line was just that a line. It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. Anyway I'll be switching to Rogers soon, Fido still hasn't added coverage for transCanada in Alberta so I don't have much choice. Fido has the best Pay-as-you-go plans but their phones only work in Edmonton, Calgary, along highway 2 and Banff. It's Kind of to bad since I think Fido has the best sound quality of the bunch. > > > What do you guys think about all this? > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > highway 2 and Banff. It's Kind of to bad since I think Fido has the best > sound quality of the bunch. I don't know if I'd agree with the statement that Fido has the best pay as you go plan. While Rogers' regular pay as you go is pretty much more expensive then Fido's in every regard, their evening and weekend plan is very nice. Yes, you do pay airtime for people leaving you voicemails, but all incoming text messages are free, and $0.05/minute off peak is pretty damn inviting. In the end I am paying far less per month on Rogers prepaid then on Fido's prepaid, and this is ignoring the vastly superior coverage Rogers has in the areas I am in. TTYL > It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. Of course you can use it elsewhere. You just need to get it unlocked. With some new phones that's very inconsequential. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >> It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. > >Of course you can use it elsewhere. You just need to get it unlocked. >With some new phones that's very inconsequential. of course that's true. also, if you lose the phone or it gets broken, you can just cancel the agreement and move on. maybe get a new phone. or not. whatever you choose. try that with rogers. this is the prime reason i've been with fido for a few years. lately, however, the awkwardness of analog roaming has begun to bother me. i'm testing rogers reception in the outlying areas i go to regularly, and if it is good, i'll have to switch this year. ...thehick > > It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. > > Of course you can use it elsewhere. You just need to get it unlocked. > With some new phones that's very inconsequential. News to me...who EXACTLY will do this? If it was "inconsequential" why would the phones be locked in the first place? They lock the phones in the first place to stop you from going somewhere else. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >> > It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >would the phones be locked in the first place? They lock the phones in the >first place to stop you from going somewhere else. All I know is that the recent Nokia models you can get the unlock code either from a downloadable code generator or you can use on line code generators for DCT3 and DCT4 phones from Nokia. Other manufacturers I cannot vouch for. Do a google search for DCT4 unlock. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply > >> > It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > generators for DCT3 and DCT4 phones from Nokia. Other manufacturers I > cannot vouch for. This is the kind of answer I didn't want- that's why I said EXACTLY! My suspicion is this is all "grey" market in nature. Again if it was inconsequential to FIDO why would they do it in the first place? > > > It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would the phones be locked in the first place? They lock the phones in the > first place to stop you from going somewhere else. There's people advertising in this group regularly. You just have to keep your eyes open. As it is, I'm using a Rogers Nokia 3595 that I unlocked myself using a keycode generator some dude in Europe (I think in Europe) made. Just because you lock the door to your house, it does not mean someone else cannot unlock it. > > > > It's not like you could use your phone somewhere else. > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unlocked myself using a keycode generator some > dude in Europe (I think in Europe) made. Some "dude" in europe- gee that sounds legit. If you are unable or unwilling to answer the question...don't. > > > News to me...who EXACTLY will do this? If it was "inconsequential" why > > > would the phones be locked in the first place? They lock the phones in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > unlocked myself using a keycode generator some > > dude in Europe (I think in Europe) made. > Some "dude" in europe- gee that sounds legit. If you are unable or > unwilling to answer the question...don't. If you're too lazy to look for software keygenerators in a search engine or too lazy to scan topics titles in this group, no one is going to do it for you. Besides, I already answered your question. I said I unlocked the phone myself so how much more exact do you want? > > > > News to me...who EXACTLY will do this? If it was "inconsequential" why > > > > would the phones be locked in the first place? They lock the phones in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in a search engine or too lazy to scan topics titles > in this group, no one is going to do it for you. Again if you are unwilling or unable to answer the question...don't. > Besides, I already answered your question. I said I > unlocked the phone myself so how much more exact do > you want? The name of the company, it's phone number, it's location, or even it's web page address of who supplied this tech would be nice. > > Besides, I already answered your question. I said I > > unlocked the phone myself so how much more exact do > > you want? > > The name of the company, it's phone number, it's location, or even it's web > page address of who supplied this tech would be nice. That's easy: http://www.google.com, happy now? > > > News to me...who EXACTLY will do this? If it was "inconsequential" why > > > would the phones be locked in the first place? They lock the phones in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > unlocked myself using a keycode generator some > > dude in Europe (I think in Europe) made. > Some "dude" in europe- gee that sounds legit. If you are unable or > unwilling to answer the question...don't. By the way, there's nothing illegal about unlocking a phone if that is what you are getting at. You buy the phone. You own it. You can throw it in the fire if you want. This has been discussed before in this group also. > > > > News to me...who EXACTLY will do this? If it was "inconsequential" why > > > > would the phones be locked in the first place? They lock the phones in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you want. This has been discussed before in this > group also. And you can use it as a paper weight just not as a phone...this was a huge discussion years ago. Do you actually own a FIDO phone or not? Only in some ways? This is partly why FIDO couldn't hang on to subscribers they were very unclear in their marketing practices. They used to include with every phone a document stating they controlled the phone-you couldn't even sell it to another FIDO customer without their permission! Unless they wanted to use it as a paperweight. Grey market means just that. It is probably legal to unlock your own phone but it is probably illegal for a company to supply the means for doing so! Questions of software copyright and patents come to mind. In other words FIDO wouldn't sue you they would sue the company the supplied the technolgy for doing so. > And you can use it as a paper weight just not as a phone...this was a huge > discussion years ago. Do you actually own a FIDO phone or not? Only in > some ways? This is partly why FIDO couldn't hang on to subscribers they > were very unclear in their marketing practices. I agree. I'm sure there were people who bought Fido phones, unlock them, and resold them as new. Hmm, wonder why they have not been arrested ;-). Besides, I didn't buy any of my phones directly from Fido or from any other network. > They used to include with > every phone a document stating they controlled the phone-you couldn't even > sell it to another FIDO customer without their permission! Unless they > wanted to use it as a paperweight. Yeah, they USE to. Welcome to 2004. Maybe they stopped doing this because someone challenged them legally. I cannot see that condition standing up in a court of law. > Grey market means just that. It is probably legal to unlock your own phone > but it is probably illegal for a company to supply the means for doing so! > Questions of software copyright and patents come to mind. In other words > FIDO wouldn't sue you they would sue the company the supplied the technolgy > for doing so. Hmm, I don't think it is illegal to supply those electronic virus creating kits. Beside, this is the internet. What is illegal in one country is not necessarily illegal in another. You can keep arguing that it is illegal but until someone has been taken to court and proven guilty, you are wasting your time. sorry, misplaced a paragraph :-). here is the correct version of my entire post. > And you can use it as a paper weight just not as a phone...this was a huge > discussion years ago. Do you actually own a FIDO phone or not? Only in > some ways? This is partly why FIDO couldn't hang on to subscribers they > were very unclear in their marketing practices. I agree. I'm sure there were people who bought Fido phones, unlock them, and resold them as new. Hmm, wonder why they have not been arrested ;-). > They used to include with > every phone a document stating they controlled the phone-you couldn't even > sell it to another FIDO customer without their permission! Unless they > wanted to use it as a paperweight. Yeah, they USE to. Welcome to 2004. Maybe they stopped doing this because someone challenged them legally. I cannot see that condition standing up in a court of law. Besides, I didn't buy any of my phones directly from Fido or from any other network. > Grey market means just that. It is probably legal to unlock your own phone > but it is probably illegal for a company to supply the means for doing so! > Questions of software copyright and patents come to mind. In other words > FIDO wouldn't sue you they would sue the company the supplied the technolgy > for doing so. Hmm, I don't think it is illegal to supply those electronic virus creating kits. Beside, this is the internet. What is illegal in one country is not necessarily illegal in another. You can keep arguing that it is illegal but until someone has been taken to court and proven guilty, you are wasting your time. Spoke to a 4 legged furry rep today. Seems the contracts are for 2 years (intersting how they mention 24 months instead of 2 years, does it make it sound less bad ?) And how does this differ from any other carrier? Nobody is forced to sign a contract, or "service agreement" as Bell Mobility calls it. You sign a term and save money on the cost of the already subsidized phone. At least with Bell you save $150 for 24 month term, and they don't tell you that you can't have a good plan because you're not on term. Personally I think that Fido is eliminating the one image, real or perceived, that they have worked very hard to build; that they are different because everyone else makes you sign a contract. GM > It's official! Beginning February 17th, Fido will begin to offer their > phones with a 24-month contract, or "agreement," as they like to call it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > CU > And how does this differ from any other carrier? Nobody is forced to sign a > contract, or "service agreement" as Bell Mobility calls it. You sign a term > and save money on the cost of the already subsidized phone. True but how willing are CDMA networks to program a phone that they don't carry? |
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
|
©2008 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.