Verizon comes through with month-to-month plans

As expected, Verizon has announced today that its customers (and would-be customers) are welcome to sign up for month-to-month plans with no contract -- and thus, no early-termination fee -- involved, mimicking a move by AT&T earlier in the year. Of course, anyone taking advantage of the new plans won't be able to get in on carrier subsidies, but the trade-off is that if you decide to bolt for greener pastures, you won't be slapped with one of those nasty prorated charges. Oh, and before you give customer service a ring, take note: you'll need to fulfill the terms of your existing contract before jumping, natch.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:45PM]

Meanwhile, I'm happily on the Verizon ETF class-action lawsuit.

I haven't yet decided how to spend the $2.37 I'm likely to 'win'.

But it's definitely BS that they made a big PR announcement about pro-rating ETF charges before I ever signed up with them... and then when I ditch them after 15 months I still had to pay the full $175.

Money well spent, but I'll happily take whatever I can get out of the suit.

[Hold McGroin @ Sep 23rd 2008 9:28AM]

The problem isn't offering month-to-month, the problem is that they'll still give you better rates for signing a contract. Still a non-story until they offer fair plans.

[John H. @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:54PM]

tsrif

[John H. @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:55PM]

This is nice, since most people hate contracts.

[Phil @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:00PM]

How is this news?
T-Mobile has been doing this for over a year, they call it FlexPay.

Must be a slow news day...

[Chris Ziegler @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:01PM]

It's news because Verizon != T-Mobile.

[Reader @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:19PM]

Haha, owned by the author.

[LA Smog @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:02PM]

This isn't completely new, although a nice feature for new subscribers to be sure.

I have been with Verizon for years (happy enough with em), and basically if you don't re-up to a new plan you default to a month to month. At least, that is what they have done for me the past few years since I don't see a need to upgrade to something that isn't a phone first and foremost.

[iEye @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:37PM]

I have never used anything but Prepaid... the thought of getting billed $10,000 for 2MB of data scared me off... not to mention that carriers refuse to block long distance calls incase I lose the phone...

Plus Prepaid is just great... no worries, then again I just really used my 1st Gen iPhone for show, sort of like a muscle car... for the week-end only... no way it could ever be a daily driver... now the Motorolas are the chevrolet of phones...ugh

[tiuk @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:37PM]

Over here in Canada none of the good phone plans are available without at least a two year contract, with most carriers. Month-to-month is available, but the plans suck.

[Simon @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:41PM]

I laugh at this, every other country has had 'no contract' month to month plans with no handset subsidy for many years, including the UK, France, Australia, Germany etc etc etc

[Paul @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:15PM]

You're not implying other countries might be ahead of the U.S. in cell phone usage/technology are you? Cause if you are... duh.

[Valicore @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:56PM]

And I laugh at the availability of inexpensive data packages in Europe. Tell me where in Europe I can make calls inside my network, to fixed phones, and to other cellular providers for 16 U.S. cents, along with having unlimited 3G data and texting, unlimited calls to anyone on my network, unlimited calls on the weekend, unlimited calls starting at 6:00pm (18:00), etc...

[cibrlx01 @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:40PM]

I never really understood why people do not like contracts. Most of the time the person is getting a 200+ phone for free, or a 250+ phone for 50 bucks. If they leave, they are charged 200 dollars which means they end up paying the retail price for the phone.

I can understand if people don't like it because companies like Sprint keep changing the rules. But from what i have seen lately, a contract is not such an evil thing anymore.

FYI, i sell cell phones for Verizon, and i am also out of contract because i prefer to buy unlocked phones under AT&T.

[BCre8v @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:07PM]

Wow.. that's a potential catchy tongue-twister:

I sell cell phones for unsuspecting...._____________ (fill in the blank)

[cibrlx01 @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:40PM]

I never really understood why people do not like contracts. Most of the time the person is getting a 200+ phone for free, or a 250+ phone for 50 bucks. If they leave, they are charged 200 dollars which means they end up paying the retail price for the phone.

I can understand if people don't like it because companies like Sprint keep changing the rules. But from what i have seen lately, a contract is not such an evil thing anymore.

FYI, i sell cell phones for Verizon, and i am also out of contract because i prefer to buy unlocked phones under AT&T.

[cibrlx01 @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:41PM]

sorry for double post

[hungry @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:05PM]

wow wow wubzie

[chefgon_ign @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:08PM]

I honestly had no idea that you couldn't already do this. I thought the contracts were for cheap phones only? I've never tried to sign up for NEW service without signing, but I always assumed it was possible.

Good to see the industry is catching up with common sense.

[strdust @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:24PM]

What's the big deal? Even if you bolt from Verizon there isn't any way for you to switch to another carrier except for the one that rent the network from Verizon. You can't even change your phone to Sprint due to the differences between the network, and for sure you can't use your old phone on ATT / T mobile / any of the GSM network anyway. So in the end Verizon isn't really loosing anything if you decide to bolt then all you loose is what ever you spend on your phone. Sure you can ebay or craigslist your phone, but end up loosing a good chunk of money in the process.

[Snitch @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:27PM]

A total rippoff, all they're doing is charging you the ETFs upfront, that's why the phones cost more, if you think about it this doesn't make any freggin sense maybe if you got cheap plans for paying full price upfront it would, how about if you stay around for more than 2 year then what? you just flush $175 down the toilet

[shaniac @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:12AM]

Sprint has had this for years, and it is even more beefed up in the last year with access to all plans. In the end as wireless carriers see that less and less funny math is needed to sell customers this will become the norm.

Say Carrier X buys a particular phone for say $70 and invests $15 across each handset to "test" it. They then want to make it a free phone, since free phones are only with a 2 year contract and those "give" you a rebate of $150 then the minimum price must be $150. This is a mark up of $60 most because that is the marketing but also because the standard systems that all the US carriers use can't figure out a rebate less than the full amount and they would hate to give you a credit. So low and behold you want to pay outright and have no contract but you can't buy the phone for its real cost.

Don't get me started on the crazy commissions given when a new contract is sold. Or how the extra cash earned from some handsets is then used as a slush fund for others that just can't make back the investment but some exec just loves them.

Soon carriers will be just like your utilities but the price wars will drag the quality of service and price down with them. If the wireless companies want to be successful they need to prep for the utility model now so they can be ready when it comes. Or they will just be forced into it, with some dual mode device and multinetwork MVNO that can just pit them against each other.

But in the blog world, Apple, At&t, or Verizon put out a press release there is no real journalism or fact checking to make sure that one day a great site like this one (and i am not being sarcastic) doesn't post the press release stating "Verizon now selling phones" when they could be lampooning them for drumming up business with old news and nothing original in the market place.

[Romelle @ Sep 23rd 2008 2:58AM]

Assholes

[Jamie @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:27PM]

Now if only the handsets were interoperable.

BTW, Zeigler owning Phil's post FTW. It's about time I see some author retribution for trolls who try to beat down stories posted here.

Hey douchebag (Phil), I just bought a domain called, philgotpwnedbychris.com you self-absorbed sonofabitch. Check it daily for stories YOU'LL like.




















don't waste your time, I really didn't buy it. This is a vacuous statement made to point to Phil's doucheyness.

[Lynn @ Oct 22nd 2008 5:52PM]

All I've ever wanted from Verizon are decent phones. Oh yea, and to retain my cell number. What bugs is that they don't offer newest, best phones, or trendy on the market, not that contract I'm no longer obligated to outside of month to month payments now. I hang onto old technology phones forever as a result.

Is it too much to ask that we could use iPhones, or G1's on the Verizon network??? This is the only thing that makes me want to switch, not that this is an option as we only have Verizon in our area and a single repeater to this day between us and our only town, thus some of the worst service Verizon has to offer. I'd like to be allowed to buy any phone from anywhere, and Verizon offer service for it. It's the biggest assault cell service made on it's customers, not being open and universal. Granted, I'm no expert on the subject, but this surely has to do with being stuck on Verizon since the beginning of cellular. :-)