Lawmakers looking to deal with EFT & Handset locking

We either have Early Termination Fees and locked phones, or we have no discounts or subsidies. So it's just a matter of choosing your poison.

 

And with the iPhone we have both!

I have actually wondered if the iPhone could possibly be a beginning to impetus for change in the way things are done here. There are certainly plenty of consumers who are willing to purchase non-discounted phones - and apparently some will even go for be hog-tied in all directions.

 

If they take away all of the handset locking the iPhone would cost $1200. But of course, what else would you expect from a Massachusetts Democrat?

 

I'll happily sign a contract in exchange for service discounts or promo minutes or something like that. Heck, that's what I did with AT&T Wireless to get extra 450 minutes a month!

 

Couldn't agree with you more, you know at least they give us 15-30 days depending on the carrier to at least try the service out. I mean that is good enough if you ask me. If you dont know if it will work for you in that period of time then there is something wrong with you. IMO

 

Wirelessly posted (LGE-VX8300/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

Drive drunk of a peir and report it the next day and get off with killing a young lady like swim to safty ted

 

Even if you could take it to a faster network, the iPhone is only EDGE capable so it wouldn't matter anyway. If you got rid of ETF's the subsidies would go away too. Otherwise I could go out today and buy a new line of service, take the subsidized handset, and cancel my service - keeping my subsidized phone. I could literally upgrade anytime I wanted.

Lawmakers better stay out of this, I can only see it being more expensive for us in the long run if the Gov't gets involved.

-Jay

 

I only know how things work in Russia — I haven't seen any discounts, but the offerings are much broader, you can get handsets from $50 all the way up to about $1300.

 

it sure is looking that law makers are runing out of small things to do that has been keeping them away from apying their attention tot he larger more important things.

 

I will take the second one. Simply because then the manufactures will start making a twenty dollar unlocked phone (think Nokia 1100 or maybe even the 5160) to be sold without service at Wal-Mart. This does not happen now because there is no market for it. But there will be if the laws change. The problem comes down for CDMA users, in my opinion.

 

Source? Because I am showing it only costing around 300 dollars to manufacture (assuming fifty bucks to put the thing together.)


That $599 iPhone Costs $220 To Make


50-percent of your iPhone purchase to pad Apple's wallet? - Engadget

Oh, and you cannot tell me that apple is not getting a cut of the commission for each unit activated. How much is apple making off of each one sold?

 

I'd prefer the no-subsidy way, honestly. If people had shell out $400 for a phone they'd treat them a lot more nicely and they'd insist that they last longer than two years.

However, I would support forcing ETFs to be pro rata in line with the number of months left in the contract -- so a $240 ETF over a 2yr contract would mean that if you cancel in month 22, you pay $20 ETF, but if you cancel in month 2 you pay $220 ETF.

 

I'd much prefer a non-subsidized arrangement as well. It provides better transparency to the consumer as to their actual cost for the equipment, as well as forcing the manufacturers and the carriers to each be more competitive on their own merits.

If service providers want to contractually ensure an annuity revenue stream for themselves, they should offer some type of discount on that piece of the pie instead.

 

One little known fact is that Apple does not own the rights to the name iPhone, so they have to pay a liscencing fee to the trademark owner. If I remember correctly I think Cisco owns it. I think they had a networking product years ago they called the iphone.



-Jay

 

I know Cisco owns it, but I thought they worked that out for future interoperability, not money. Huh. Interesting tidbit of information.

 

Why the contract if there is no subsidy? Customer acquisition will be nothing. I hope no one brings up that advertising and credit check BS cost. Its called an activation fee. Wal-Mart does not charge a per transaction fee for advertising, nor a fee to recoup their loss for credit card transactions.

I think the only law that needs to go into effect is a law prohibiting ETF's for services and utility's. Cable, Satellite, VOIP, Internet, WIRELESS. The rest of the market will adjust to make it more fair because then they have to EARN business.