http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 7:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
$375 ETF FTL.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 11:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 7:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/I'm fine with ETFs too, but what I don't get is why carriers locking phones is fair, after the contract term, it is established that you own the phone, you should be allowed to use it with any other compatible carrier]]>Feb 23rd 2010 10:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 24th 2010 6:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/When the N1 costs under $180, Google isn't losing money when it sell the phone for $150. Google expects to make money from ads and personal information collection no matter where the phone is used.The loser here is T-Mobile. There is no reason for Google to charge an ETF if they expect to continue making money.]]>Feb 24th 2010 9:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 7:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
I sign up at T-Mob and they pay Google $150 commission. If I then cancel my contract, instead of just giving the commission back, Google collects from me and pockets the original?

Imagine if retailers worked that way. I buy a flat screen TV, sales guy gets $20 commission. If I then return the TV I owe this guy $20 for the commission he had to give back to his employer?

That's FUBAR reasoning, Google.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 7:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Google sells the Nexus One at 180 at T-Mobile contract. They pay for the subsidized price with the commission they get from T-Mobile. If you cancel your contract T-Mobile asks for it's commission back from Google and Google asks you to pay for it as if you bought it unsubsidized without contract.

$180+$200+$150=$529 unsubsidized price.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
If I'm understanding this right, Google pays T-Mobile. You cancel, T-Mobile demands the money back from Google, and Google then wants money from the only one in the equation that would exit better than they entered: the customer.

Either way, you can return the handset. What this set up does is make sure that you will pay the full unsubsidized price, and I've no problems with that. Do you expect to be able to break a contract and get /rewarded/?]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
If Google does not collect, are they down $150? Or is this just a way, as you said, of making sure the customer doesn't benefit?

So, T-Mob pays Google commission, which Google then uses to subsidize the price, since they get the hardware profits anyway? Why does T-Mob not just sell for the reduced price and cut out Google entirely?]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Someone somewhere will be down $150. I'm not 100% sure if it would be T-Mobile or Google, but my logic tells me that since Google handles the handsets, the storefront, and shipping, Google is trying to recoup costs.

Even if that $150 is pure profit, that's money Google could have made had they sold the phone to someone who would have kept the handset.

I will admit, this is a confusing situation, but IMO if you buy a $520 phone, you should have to pay the full $520.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
I agree. I'd rather pay up front and skip the ETFs and potential complications. I still have a bad taste in my mouth over the EFT Verizon wanted to charge me for terminating a contract on a phone I already owned. I like knowing the real costs before signing the contract.

I'd love an iPhone, but I'm just not down with the costs of the contract. If I could get a more reasonably priced contract by forgoing the financing of the device, I just might go for it.]]>Mar 9th 2010 6:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Up here the ETF for an iPhone is $500 not $200, and the contract is 3 years not 2.

We are getting boned big time.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 7:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 9:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Canada's health care system isn't as good as it sounds. The grass is always greener on the other side (of the border). I'm a medical student and have studied this. This video illustrates some of the problems with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw]]>Feb 24th 2010 12:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
So, in essence, you paid 450 for the handset and then 1200 for the service... on a handset that costs about 185.

I don't understand why phone just aren't set at what the carriers pay for them, then they offer 150 off that price and if u cancel before 2 years you pay that 150 back to them. that seems the most fair way to do it right?
]]>Feb 23rd 2010 7:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
This logic still doesn't make sense. You buy a complete phone. Not parts. I'd like to see you buy bare parts and try and use it as a phone.

A company has to research and develop the phone, send it through testing, pay people to mass produce it, etc. Just because the parts total $150 doesn't mean the phone costs $150 to produce.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
And don't forget these businesses are in business to turn a profit. They can't do that if they only break even.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/they are using similar technology to what already exists. its not like they put billions into creating some breaking technology. they redesigned something else that already existed. and if they cant make back their money and a substantial profit by charging just $20 over production cost when they sell MILLIONS upon millions of these units... then they are paying their employees way too much.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
I understand that, and thats why im saying what the CARRIER pays for the phone, not what the manufacturer does. read before you argue. The carriers make plenty off of the plans.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Regardless, you still have to undergo testing. How do you make sure this phone will behave properly? Look at the N1 right now. It's having 3G problems.

Let's not forget that the longer you wait to release a product the more it will cost. You have to keep paying those same employees to do the same work when they could be working on other things. Not to mention the fact that they could pull a SE and wait so long to release phones everyone loses interest. You would be able to release a phone that was relatively bug-free, but then no one would care about your product anymore.

Look at the PS3. On parts alone I'm sure it cost somewhere around $300. But even at release when they were selling for $700, they were still LOSING money per console. Game consoles can afford to do that because they will then make their money up on game sales. Cell phones don't have that benefit. Some cost is made up in app sales, but many people (most people I know anyway) refuse to spend money on apps.

Regardless, that phone still probably cost north of $300 or $400 when it rolled off the lines.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
And people still pay those prices don't they? That's the market system at work. If the prices were really too high, sales would be extremely low.

Learn economics before you argue.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
and again im not suggesting we bankrupt the manufacturer, im saying that if the carrier wants to subsidize the phone, then the ETF should match what the carrier took off of their cost of the phone.
For example:
Env3... manufacturer charges verizon 200 for the phone. Verizon charges the customer 120. if you end the contract early, 80 should be the termination fee.

I'm not suggesting the manufacturers sell their phones for less. I'm working on becoming a computer engineer, my future depends on manufacturers making their profits. I'm simply talking about carriers charging 350ETF on a phone they only reduced by lets say 100 dollars. And then if you break the phone you have to pay typically 200 more than what the carrier paid for it.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
The PS3 is not a relevant argument. Cost to manufacture (probably parts + R&D) was more than the MSRP (I'm talking about the original 60 GB, which I own).

The reason I say it's not relevant is because Sony created a BRAND NEW TECH: The Cell CPU and the Blu-Ray drive.

Mobile phone manufacturers are just putting together parts created by electronics companies that have been in business for awhile, producing these parts. They are reusing a lot of the same chips, reusing infrastructure. Mobile phone retail prices are inflated.

How much is up for debate, but I think we can agree that they are to some degree. I mean, these smartphones cost almost as much as netbooks. They cost more the the basic components for a desktop PC. I understand smaller circuitry usually is more expensive but come on...]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
It is a relevant and accurate argument. The point still remains if you were to (could) walk into a store and buy all the parts necessary to build a PS3 at home at the same cost Sony could buy them at, it would be cheaper than if you bought a PS3.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 9:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Thanks for making my point.]]>Feb 24th 2010 12:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
I say let the free market work. Fair price is set by the market, and the cost is currently at the market will bear. There is no reason / justification for the government to bud it's nose into my business (transaction). The government need not bother trying to legislate or regulate these fees... too much regulation / big government / government involvement in unnecessary places is ruining our country. Let the businesses operate as they see fit and the market will correct itself when the businesses step out of line.

I love my ETF and the fair market price that the carrier has set for me. No need to bother with this, FCC. Maybe you should go dissolve yourself.

Hello, can you hear me now? ;) ]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
I forgive you. But IMO, you're wrong.

The consumer needs /some/ protection from companies becoming too large. If companies were allowed to do like they wanted, you can be sure every carrier would pull an OPEC. All that would result is price fixing, and all around the consumer would most definitely not benefit. Pure capitalism isn't the answer. ]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Republican's shouldn't be included. If so we'd get a "no phone left behind act" where every phone must web-browse at a 6th grade level and have a calculator that can function at the stock iphone app level. Republicans have lost their small government mantra. ]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 8:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Guys, I hope you know I was kidding around. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy... On the one hand, some people want free market capitalism... the market will determine what is correct... on the other hand, every time there is a corporation / sector of the market taking monopolistic advantage of the populace, people cry out for oversight. I don't think a free market would ever be good for people, because the correction might occur, but it might not be timely or pleasant, and would likely result in death, loss of home, etc. Also, capital has a tendency to eliminate competition, a la mergers / acquisitions, not to breed more. In many cases, the leverage needed to enter the market is so great, it's prohibitive. Anyway.

I'm much more of a socialist. No, the economies of the east were not socialism / communism, they were state run capitalism (the state collected the profits but it was not primarily for the benefit of the populace). I know, some people here will want to shoot me, but some of the best minds believe socialism is the better system so I'd die knowing I was in good company (the intellectuals, not you rabble.) ;)]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
Yeah but as you see with OPEC, none of the members follow the rules. Someone will break the rules and reduce their price, and grow in the market. Price fixing is inherently unstable.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
I forgive you..for using Republican logic]]>Feb 24th 2010 1:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/oh and i knew i wasnt the only person (alive) who thought socialism is a good thing]]>Feb 24th 2010 2:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
That can't be legal]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
The govt. has no business in this. You don't like the ETF, don't buy the phone. No one is forcing anyone to buy the phone or the service. If you think the ETF is unfair, speak with your wallet. Bottom line, you sign a contract that says you agree to pay the fee if you end the contract early. I wish the carriers would make a point and start suing customers taht don't pay. They signed a legally binding contract.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 8:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
I thought the same thing +1]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
why do they have to get into the financial life of these companies...

they dont control the phone service as it is, they dont set the prices, they dont distribute the service, and they certainly dont own the company. So why is it that they force these companys to set a price for their devices. Who are they to tell them what to do and not do.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 8:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
If they limited the ETF then your monthly bill will go up, it's that simple.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/
You do have a point. In fairness to what you're saying, it's true, how does the FCC know that $350 is too much? What does it matter really if the ETF is not linked to a phone price, but to a service contract? I mean, if it really was unreasonable, people would chose not to get cell service, and the companies would have to make adjustments, or other companies could enter the market to lower the cost of the ETF.

Problem is really that:
1. You would either be paying what the carriers demanded or you would be out of service and no cell phone.
2. The competitive pressure to reduce cost of the ETF may never arrive because the cost to operate a cell phone business is so great, people don't just enter these things. You might be waiting a long time for another company to open up shop from which you can buy service.

But you're right... does the government set fair price for anything else? Cars? Tolls? Movie tickets? Sporting events? Airline tickets? Medicines? Medical procedures? If they don't set the pricing or regulations on pricing for those, then the cell carriers are being unfairly restricted. Truthfully.]]>Feb 23rd 2010 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 8:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 9:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/verizon-atandt-sprint-t-mobile-and-google-all-respond-to-fccs/Feb 23rd 2010 9:55PM