In alt.cellular.t-mobile Grant Edwards <grante@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-01-07, LHA <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> If the cellular companies provided the service and sup****t
>> that their customers desire and deserve, they would NOT need
>> to lock us in with long, expensive contracts.
>
> As long as they're giving you a $200-$300 phone for free,
> they're going to require that you guarantee future purchases in
> order to cover the cost of that phone.
>
But they don't. They give you a $150 phone for free. They give you a
$300
phone for $150 ... or sometimes if they have a sale on massive inventory
or
vendor pricing discounts, they will give you the $300 for $99 or less ...
but
the subsidy in this case is still $150 and the rest is money they discount
because of the manufacturer [i.e. Motorola pu****ng a KRZR] or to reduce
inventory on older models.
>> Why do we tolerate it?
>
> People tolerate it because they want a "free" phone.
>
Nothing is free in life and this especially applies to mobile phones.
I love Verizon, but if they don't implement the pro-rated early
termination
fees as they promised to do 15+ months ago, then I may take my chances
with
AT&T, because at least I can easily switch out phones via the card in the
back
of the phone without risking contract changes, albeit, Verizon is pretty
good
about not sneaking in contract renewals like Sprint PCS does.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.
|
