Discussion in 'Verizon' started by droidism, Dec 4, 2009.
FCC Examines Verizon's Doubling of Early Termination Fees - PC World Business Center
Good post but it belongs in the Verizon carrier forum. Moved.
Last time I checked, you have to agree to the terms of the contract and then sign it (electronically now).
So what's the issue, if you don't agree, don't sign. What is there to investigate, they aren't doing this to existing contracts, only when people upgrade into new smartphones/data devices.
Don't like it, don't buy it, don't sign it. Pay full retail. Oh, btw, paying the full retail price for those devices, that'll be about the same as the ETF, Verizon can conduct and dictate the terms of their contracts however they see fit, last time I checked.
So what's the hoopla for?
Don't want to pay a high ETF, don't sign a contract and then cancel it after you buy a $500 device for $200.
I agree with the FCC...this was just a way for them to earn way more money. I mean if they just wanted to make up for the cost of the phone they could have had it where at month 23 you only had a little left to pay off.
I agree, you know what the terms are so if you don't want to sign; don't. by the way, you do have an alternative. For about $30 more at beginning of contract, you can opt for a one year deal. Most anyone can stand the phone for one year.
Good point. I also agree with DankyDroid. Why does everyone need the government to look over their shoulder all the time? Why not take some responsibility for what you put your signature to?
I'll start by saying that if you don't like the terms of a contract, don't sign it. If you do sign it, live with the terms. However...
If an ETF is exclusively about recovering the cost of the carrier subsidy for a device, the ETF would be prorated, and could vary on a per-device basis. Although ETFs are often reduced over time, they are not "prorated". Strictly speaking, a prorated ETF would be reduced an equal amount each month, with the reduction in the final month resulting in an ETF of $0.
Additionally, when a device is purchased at full retail price, there is no subsidy to recover, and monthly recurring charge would then be reduced so that the savings over a typical contract term would equal the subsidy that the consumer chose not to accept in the first place.
In Verizon's defense, I think the device-specific ETFs would unreasonably complicate the decision making process for many consumers. This could be avoided by subsidizing all devices within a given class (i.e. advanced devices vs. "regular" devices) an equal amount, and set contract pricing on devices accordingly. They might already be doing something like this, but I doubt the contract price plus the subsidy equals the retail price in all cases.
I'll end where I started - if you don't like the contract terms, don't sign the contract.