FCC extends deadline on Verizon's ETF response, lets it enjoy the weekend
By Chris Ziegler 
posted December 18th 2009 9:23AM
posted December 18th 2009 9:23AM
posted December 18th 2009 9:23AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Verizon's response to this is going to be the funniest thing I've read in months.
That is, if they don't opt to keep it private.
Which they will, because they know what the public reaction will be if they don't.
@Konrad. I don't have a problem with the fee. Provided they really are paying $350 or more of the upfront device cost on all the applicable devices. In fact, if they are the hike is more than fair.
my problem is the pro-rating. the law was made that since the argument is that we (as users) pay back said cost a bit at a time over the course of the contract, the provider must pro-rate. sounds fair again yes. but the rules about pro-rating are too vague. The rule should be that the pro-rate is 1/24th of the ETF (or 1/12th for a one year contract).
Verizon is dropping $10 dollars a month. so at 23 months you've got a discount of $230, leaving you with an ETF of $120. Even up to one day before your anniversary date you'd pay that money. HOWEVER, using Verizon et al's argument, the cost of the device is spread out evenly over the two years. so at 23 months that would be (assuming the price difference is $350) $335, leaving you with $15 left to go (actually $14 and some change). Something ain't right with that $105 extra.
I say, make a new rule. the ETF is device specific and can not be more than the upfront money the carrier paid. That amount must be in writing on your contract. The prorating much be 1/24th, 1/12th, etc as applicable for the terms of your contract and is also spelled out on the your contract. Deducted if they wish upon receipt of your monthly payment and must be included on all online payment amount information from the time you sign up.
And if they are going to use some 'new math' that since you are paying more a month you are paying off your device earlier so you can upgrade again before month 24 then the prorating must reflect this. If I can upgrade at 16 months with a full subsidy on my new phone then they must have calculated my payback at 1/16th of the cost. so after month 16 why would I have to pay an ETF. Since no way are they going to lose money on devices. that's why they argued for an ETF at all.
In other words, carriers should not be allowed to make a huge profit off an ETF. Especially not when they can charge me $20 a month on a service that costs them perhaps 25 cents to run
@(Unverified) I wholeheartedly agree. In addition, I think that carriers should have to remove that fee after the contract is up if I don't resign for another phone.
For example if I bought a new phone on contract today, my monthly fee would be the cost of service and the amount of money it takes to pay for my phone. Then in two years time, the cost of the phone should be taken off my bill and I will be left with only the cost service until I get another phone.
Can the FCC fine Verizon if they don't respond? Or will they just be a bitch to them in the future?
Meh, the FCC is the Business equivalent of the boogieman. Seems all scary when you're little, but there's nothing to be afraid of. Until Congress gives the FCC to power to actually REGULATE Cell Phone companies and not just slap them on the wrist, we're screwed.
Someone has to pay the royalties to Lucas for using the Driod(TM) name.
@StinkyPete hehe could be a valid argument. Maybe it is because of the Touch Pro 2 as well. It is now $199.... you stay a few months, then cancel the contract... say 6 months so the previous ETF would be (175 - 60 = 115 ). Total cost of ownership: $314 (not including service). You then have a $314 Touch Pro 2 that can be unlocked and used with any GSM EDGE provider in the galaxy. And with a 3.5 MM headset jack. and Yes, the TP2 unlocked can use TMO and ATT SIM and it has been confirmed you can use data as well (not 3G though)
I was really close to buying a Touch Pro 2 from Verizon yesterday
(switching from T-Mobile as I am really really sick of having a paperweight smartphone; on my area, inside many buildings I get no reception at all, I put my SIM card on a Nokia regular phone and not even like that I got one bar :S )
but after seeing the new $350 ETF I got turned off and now I am looking to test Sprint :S ... I know their customer service stinks... but I have no options. AT&T is a greater evil than Sprint I think - now with all those rumors of tiered data usage and all that jazz.
@TikiTeko
Oh or better yet just make all the carriers dumb pipes so they focus on bettering their network to gain customers and not phones (AT&T im looking at you). Just like ISP's don't sell computers and cable companies don't sell TV's.
My bad that was supposed to be @ skotm but he decided to get down-ranked into oblivion.
It amazes me that people don't understand how an ETF works, and they have to go begging the government to "protect" them from their OWN stupidity. If you have a BASIC understanding of economics and READ THE CONTRACT YOU ARE SIGNING!!!!!!!!! It's justifiable ANY way you look at it.
BTW, Simple solution, buy the phone outright and pay month to month. NO CONTRACT, NO ETF.
@skotm
That's cute but Verizon's network is very locked down and unfortunately it is the one with the most coverage. I personally don't have them but if you go with Verizon you are forced to buy their phones at full retail or cheaper and get in a contract, and unfortunately most americans are inclined to the latter.
@skotm
which is also a suckers bet because basically how the USA wireless system is set up you are always paying for a phone in your service fees. It is not like the cell company will give you a cheaper rate because they didn't have to subsidize your phone.
@Eternity
That is personal choice, no need to punish a company for offering a subsided price. If you can't afford the expensive phone, don't buy it. All you are going to do is force companies to start charging full price for the phones. If you attack ETFs (subsidies), all the phone companies have to do is stop offering them and force people to live within their means.
@zeekle. that's another thing I forgot to put earlier. Monthly fees should be spelled out as service, plus the device cost added on. no device fee, cheaper bill. and if you don't upgrade your phone after you paid it off, your bill goes down because they can't charge you that device fee once your device is paid off.
@skotm
Right, and if they did this then it would cut their new customers by more than half, as well as their phone sales. They may have the best coverage, but if people can't afford to use them then it wont matter. I don't see anything wrong with an ETF, as long as it is justified. A phone that cost you $100 and is $300 unlocked should not have a $350 ETF. What would make more sense is if it was kind of like a credit card. Say you buy a Droid for $200, the phone unlocked is $600. You should be able to buy the phone with a 2 year contract for $200 and then pay $10 extra per month until the $400 is paid off, with no interest. If you feel like paying more than the $10 then fine, and then once its paid for your bill just gets cheaper. This would also assume that they lower the monthly fees some, because we all know that some of that goes to subsidizing phones... whether you paid full price or not.
@skotm
How bout they switch to GSM so we can buy our *cheaper than full retail priced* unlocked phones that utilize the Verizon spectrum?
@skotm
Why cant they offer a payment plan for a phone that is tacked onto the monthly bill so you know how much you are paying for the phone. That way if you cancel your plan you just keep paying off the phone and for the people who buy unsubsidized phones or keep their old phones while extending their plan don't have to pay more for the people who buy subsidized ones.
Seems like a pretty simple way to get rid of all this BS and keep the customer happy by not screwing them over with overpriced ETFs while at the same time not losing money on people canceling their contracts.
@daniel142005
Look at TikiTeko's comment above:
Touch Pro 2
On Verizon
(http://www.verizonwireless.com:80/b2c/store/controller?item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=4998)
with 2 year contract the phone is $199
Month to month it is $489
online without any carrier it is $550+++++++++++
Suggested retail price: $1328
(http://www.htc.com/www/press.aspx?id=92374&lang=1033)
While I can agree with you on the fact that the ETF should be adjusted to the price of the phone. the extra $60 dollars you are paying could be considered a finance fee or something close to that; intrest, etc..... after all, the phone company is buying the phone for you then spreading the cost (they already spent on the phone) out monthly to help you afford the luxury. Don't forget this would be adjusted higher for more expensive phones. I would also agree that this should be a different item on your bill. but if you cancel your service before your contract has expired. you either pay the rest of the balance or give the phone back. And, the phone companies should have a BYOP option, month to month is close, but they don't make it easy to bring your own phone. Thought this has more to do with network compatibility than ETFs.
You could just contact HTC and pay their full suggested retail price of $1328 and use it on any network that is compatible. No more ETFs.
All in all, it should be up to the customers on what the phone companies do, not the government. Vote with your wallets, not your liberties. Start a consumer group or setup a petition. Get more people to help change the phone companies, don't rely on an already unreliable government to do it for you.
Yeah, I'm sure Verizon's lawyers are going to be enjoying the weekend putting the finishing touches on the response.
Lets it enjoy the snowy weekend*
if the government care so much about consumers, get rid of the B.S 25,000$ to daytrade! isnt this discrimination? if you rich, you can daytrades as many as u wish! but if you poor, and dont have 25000$, you only allow 3 daytrades in 1 week?? it' my fucking money, y am i not allow to sell my stocks more then 3 times (daytrades) in 1 week if i under 25000$? that is like going to casino, if u dont have 25,000$, u not allow to leave the gaming table until u played 24 hours??
@(Unverified)
Please, use some of that money and take an English class.
fool! if i care about English, i will!
i just care about money! haha
having good English wont make you rich, dumbass!
so, are you rich yet? haha
@(Unverified)
What good is money if you can't communicate.
what good is communicate when u dont have a brain! haha
wait, my money can buy your sisters and that one! haha