Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Google All Respond to FCC's ETF Inquiry

I really don't understand why this ETF stuff needs to be so complicated. It's just simple math. For example:

Let's say if you sign a 12-month contract with a provider, they will give you -$120 off any new phone. If you decide to exit your contract after 6 months, you should have to pay an ETF of $60 because that's the part of the phone subsidy you still owe.

...wasn't that simple? Can anyone explain why it takes mountains of paperwork and armies of lawyers to solve this? :headscrat

 

This is America - everybody wants something for free. They want a free phone and then want the ability to cancel in 6 months, just because. We have become spoiled.

 

I am glad the FCC is getting involved.

Sprint is especially irritating in that even if you pay full price from them or get your phone from a 3rd party, they still make you sign a 2yr contract because all of their plans (but 1) are considered "promotional", and therefore require a contract..

I have no problem with ETFs as penalty for breaking a contract, but they need to be prorated. If you fulfill half your contract, your ETF should be cut in half, not the crap $5/mo reduction most companies have in store now.

 

I agree. The ETF should be the amount of the subsidy. Each month it goes down accordingly. When the contract is over, the ETF should be 0 and not some BS amount like VZW has it implemented. Also, if you buy a phone at full retail, the price plans should be cheaper. I like how T-Mobile has their plans setup like that.

 

I took it that the inquiry was as much re: how they communicate with customers which phones are subject to the higher ETF amounts as anything. lol. And I thought it was an important inquiry since all the carriers are now resorting to device specific differences, not just re: ETFs - but also in their pricing for monthly service.

 

Not all carriers are resorting to higher ETF's. Tmobile is still at 200 for all devices and yes it prorates at 18 months for those who choose the contracted route.

 

That's true - as neither has at&t - it's still $175 regardless of device type. And I'm probably just thinking of the FCC's initial inquiry of Verizon - but it seemed to be as much about "how" they communicate the ETF to customers, esp. re: those phones which are subject to an even higher ETF amount.

It just struck me as an important question - especially in light of the major carriers now requiring a mandatory data plan for their smartphones as part of the monthly service package. Some carriers are presenting all inclusive service pricing for their smartphones, but at&t makes no reference on their "plans" webpage to the fact that for the majority of their device offerings a customer will actually have to spend significantly more/month if particular devices are chosen - $30/month more for a smartphone; $20 more/month if a QMD is chosen, although there is still more flexibility re: the QMD options.

 

In that case, everybody should go to Cuba.