Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Requiring a data plan
If you are signing a contract for a subsidized phone
by minimalist - 9/1/09 8:42 PM In reply to: Required Data Plans are ridiculous by prbergI'm pretty sure carriers can require whatever services they want to require as a part of that contract.
If you bring your own smartphone to the table though with no subsidies on their part I don;t think they can (or should be able to) force you to get a data plan. Something tells me a court would side with consumers on this and the carriers know it.
It's that they don't offer any in-between option
by DangMI - 9/3/09 5:12 AM In reply to: If you are signing a contract for a subsidized phone by minimalistFine, sell me the phone for $100 if I sign up for a 2 year data plan, $300 or whatever if no data plan but regular 2 year service contract, and $500 to buy it outright.
Could even toss in an incentive--if I switch to a data plan, give me a month or two free--to keep trying to suck me into their extra profit zone. But, as they stand now, they aren't getting my money at all--kind of too greedy--if they can't have it all then they don't want any?
I'm certainly not arguing that its a good deal.
by minimalist - 9/3/09 6:18 AM In reply to: It's that they don't offer any in-between option by DangMII'm just saying that when you get in bed with a carrier via a subsidy and/or a contract you don;t really "own" your hardware in the way you do when you buy it outright. There are strings attached when you want the cheap hardware.
I think you could successfully threaten Verizon or AT&T or whoever with a big fat lawsuit and a lot of nasty PR and get that data free plan if you brought your own hardware to the table. The last thing they want right now is more scrutiny from the FCC or the news media. But when you are beholden to them via a contract and subsidy they can pretty much require whatever they want.
But they do here
by Nicholas Buenk - 9/4/09 8:07 PM In reply to: It's that they don't offer any in-between option by DangMICheap voice plans include tiny amount of data.
they can but if they require data on top they should give mo
by robstak - 9/4/09 9:55 AM In reply to: If you are signing a contract for a subsidized phone by minimalistthe subsidy should be greater if the contract required will be greater!
the internal workings of the subsidy is up to the carrier.
by minimalist - 9/5/09 9:26 AM In reply to: they can but if they require data on top they should give mo by robstakIf they need you to have a voice and data plan to pay back the subsidy then so be it.
I just wish there was more transparency in the system so consumers could arm themselves with the figures. The whole business of subsidization and phone-locking is really shady. Its being used to keep consumers beholden to carriers. The "choice" of going on or off contract is a false one because the system has been rigged by the carriers to off contract plans to be way more expensive.
covering the subsidy is a joke.
by robstak - 9/6/09 3:38 PM In reply to: the internal workings of the subsidy is up to the carrier. by minimalistthey make sooooo much more off your contract... check the math for iphone, its laughable. lol they require data because they are greedy. PERIOD.
how do you know this?
by minimalist - 9/7/09 12:21 PM In reply to: covering the subsidy is a joke. by robstakThere is no way to know how carriers account for their subsidies. The onloy thing we know is non subsidy customers are not getting the discount they should.
If carriers want to require a data plan for subsidized smartphones that is their business. Those kinds of conditions come with contracts all the time. However they have to offer a reduced price for service to people who choose to pay full price their smart phones or bring their own to the table. Since they don;t do that they need some consumer friendly regulations slapped on them by the FCC so that we can have a real choice.
I think the subisidy is a rip off
by Nicholas Buenk - 9/7/09 5:17 PM In reply to: how do you know this? by minimalistLets see. $300 plus minimum of $1680 over the contract on AT&T. That means they're getting to keep $1280 after paying Apple for the phone.
Compare that to optus here, at a minimum of $0 and $1296($1106USD), they're only getting to keep $406 after payng Apple over the 2 years. Go figure. AT&T is clearly gauging and taking advantage of their monopoly on iPhone sales.
You know, that doesn't really bother me
by DangMI - 9/8/09 5:26 AM In reply to: I think the subisidy is a rip off by Nicholas Buenkas it all comes under free market forces. If they offer too little incentive/subsidy for me to commit to the contract, then I won't. They either won't miss me or they'll drop their prices till I come in. The fact that they are making great weeping gobs of money in their current setup is their business--either I feel I am getting sufficient value that I am willing to pay or not. How many people in this audience drink the kool-aid and pay the huge prices for Monster cables? For us, they priced themselves out of the market. Apparently tho they find enough other people that they aren't missing us enough to drop their prices.
Have you ever looked at the rent-to-own places? People end up paying 3-4 times more than the item actually costs. But, if people are willing to do that rather than save the money first, then I have to say good for the company that saw a market and went and met its need. But they won't see me darkening their doorways either.
My point in starting this thread was not that the mobile companies were making too much money, but that their all-or-nothing pricing structure was costing them the chance to get some of my money.
Its not really a free market in the US.
by minimalist - 9/8/09 6:23 AM In reply to: You know, that doesn't really bother me by DangMIThe market is just them and three other carriers who have purchased the rights to operate across public airwaves. Everybody else is locked out. In many rural markets you only have the choice of 2 or 3.
I don't believe for a second that cell phone prices (plans, texts, and data) is anywhere near as low as it would go if these guys were forced to operated in a true free market. (In fact I think the across the board increasers in texting prices might just be an example of collusion) between the big 4 carriers.
Since forcing the network to open up (a la AT&T's lock on the landline world in the early 80's) would likely cause chaos and set us back into the confusing, fractured world where you never knew if your cell phone was going to work while traveling or how expensive roaming charges would be, I propose a compromise. The FCC regulates these carriers a bit to make sure they become a little more consumer friendly (off-subsidy lower prices for plans, greater transparency in their bills, requiring carriers them to unlock you phone when you are done with a contract and to sell unlocked versions to people who don;t want a contract, etc) It would at least help people become a bit more aware of the traps that are set for them by the carriers and their contracts.
contracts are rent to own
by Maarek Stele - 9/8/09 6:40 AM In reply to: Its not really a free market in the US. by minimalistA cell phone in the US costs a consumer the unit price +$200 without contract. the $200 is taken out when signing the 2-yr contract. Most Smartphones are around $600. The Nokia N97 is a contract-less phone.
The data plan is high due to the bandwidth you are using amongst the towers. Also, the plans are high due to the US's large land mass compared to Japan or Korea. You are paying for the maintenance of the towers and rental costs. You can't get more bars in more places, more like dropped calls because towers are placed strategically where there's more use than in rural areas.
If you were to get a new phone, go with Verizon/Alltel. The CDMA signal reaches farther than GSM and is currently more reliable. if you want the iPhone, than go ahead and enjoy the spotty network. it's Short range and was only designed for Europe and the different carriers over there.
Well actually..
by Nicholas Buenk - 9/8/09 7:47 AM In reply to: contracts are rent to own by Maarek SteleThe data plan is high due to the bandwidth you are using amongst the towers. Also, the plans are high due to the US's large land mass compared to Japan or Korea. You are paying for the maintenance of the towers and rental costs. You can't get more bars in more places, more like dropped calls because towers are placed strategically where there's more use than in rural areas.
Australia has a land mass of same size of the US, infact if anything the situation here is worse. There is such low population density in the outback, yet carriers like Telstra for example, still endeavour to cover above 90% of the rural population. Telstra uses 850mhz 3G, and covers a ground area equal to 3 times the size of texas, that is the world's largest 3G network in ground coverage! It's also 21mbit, one of it's important roles is to provide broadband to people in the outback.
Granted however, Telstra is extremely expensive for this quality of service, but they're still significantly cheaper than AT&T, at least for voice. They charge through the nose for a decent data quota, however that is optional.
If you were to get a new phone, go with Verizon/Alltel. The CDMA signal reaches farther than GSM and is currently more reliable. if you want the iPhone, than go ahead and enjoy the spotty network. it's Short range and was only designed for Europe and the different carriers over there.
Well, you're not wrong your information is just obsolete. GSM networks use W-CDMA for 3G, wideband CDMA. AT&T needs to role out 850mhz 3G networks to rural areas as Telstra has done here, it performs just as well as CDMA if not better.
iPhone is perfect on Telstra, never drops a call and nearly always 5 bars. But few aussies are willing to pay the premium, and settle with Optus or Vodafone on GSM/2100mhz 3G networks, standards that don't work very well in this country, designed for europe.
There's so many people I know on Optus, that sound exactly like Americans on AT&T. Problem with AT&T is most of their network is GSM and 1900mhz 3G, they've got to get that 850mhz 3G rolled out!
Not quite sure how it could be different
by Nicholas Buenk - 9/8/09 6:41 AM In reply to: Its not really a free market in the US. by minimalistCell phone networks are expensive infrastructure, the market simply could not support more than a handful in one country.
Only real alternative would be a larger bunch of smaller companies that cooperate together to build and share the infrastructure. But a single big company network is probably going to win out as usual, due to marketing and brand name advantage.
I think the main thing the FCC needs to do, is push that anti-trust laws are actually enforced, ie phone exclusivity.
Not so....
by skellener - 9/8/09 5:41 PM In reply to: Not quite sure how it could be different by Nicholas Buenk> Cell phone networks are expensive infrastructure, the market simply
> could not support more than a handful in one country.
B.S.
We used to. Remember MCI? How about AirTouch? What about Nextel? Or even the original company that made the deal with Apple for the iPhone, Cingular? There's nothing wrong with having lots of choices out there. We would be much better off with more carriers. You'd probably be able to get that smartphone without a data plan!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
