This is a hoot!:Verizon Wireless responds to FCC complaint
3G Talk & Surf at the same time with AT&T
termination fee and Mobile Web charges
from Boy Genius Report by Kelly Hodgkins
On Friday afternoon, Verizon Wireless issued its response to the FCC
complaint which investigated the carrier’s increased early termination
fees for advanced devices and the spurious charges some customers
incur when accidentally accessing the Mobile Web. As expected, Verizon
defended the increased ETF and dismissed the accusation that it
charges customers $1.99 for accidentally connecting to the Mobile Web.
Verizon justifies its increased ETF by claiming that the fee is not
limited to the recovery of the wholesale purchase price of the device.
The fee is also necessary to partially offset the cost of running a
smartphone network. There is a cost to sell the device (advertising,
commission, store costs, device subsidy), a cost to technically
support the device, and a cost associated with maintaining a broadband
network. Verizon also reminds the FCC that the number of advanced
devices is increasing and “the overall cost to the company for
providing and supporting devices to customers at low up-front cost
has increased substantially”. When asked why a person canceling in the
23rd month of a 24 month contract still has to pay a $120 ETF, Verizon
responded by claiming that it “still incurs a financial loss from
early terminations, even with the $350 ETF”. If the ETF was prorated to
$0 at the end of the contract, Verizon would be forced to charge a
higher starting ETF and customers would be worse off. When you
consider what Verizon has said about its need to increase its ETF,
also consider the fact that Verizon’s revenue from its data services
grew to $4.1 billion in Q3 2009, up 48.1 percent and up 28.9percent on
a pro forma basis. In the midst of all this talk about expenses,
Verizon conveniently left that information out. Now that we have seen
what Verizon thinks about its ETF, let’s examine what it said about
its erroneous $1.99 Mobile web charges. Hit the jump for all the
details.
Rather than admit any culpability for the numerous reports of
erroneous Mobile Web data charges, Verizon denied that any error
exists. Repeatedly in the report, Verizon stated that they do not
charge usage fees ” when a customer simply launches the Internet
browser and lands on the Verizon Wireless Mobile Web homepage”. Usage
fees of $1.99 per megabyte are only charged when a customer navigates
away from this launch page. Verizon explained that phones can be
programmed to prevent the accidental launch of the web browser and
confirmed that customers can place a data block on their account.
Unfortunately, Verizon’s explanation does not jibe with the numerous
reports of incorrect Mobile Web charges from both Verizon Wireless
customers and Verizon Wireless employees. The FCC is currently
reviewing Verizon’s response, let’s hope they are thorough.
--
How could anyone write that stuff with a straight face?
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/12/19/193258/Carriers-Manufacturers-Are-Strangling-Android
Whoops that was today's Android is doomed link from Slashdot.
Here is the Boy Genius link
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheBoyGeniusReport/~3/eZ5NzqgqXe0/
ste...@my-deja.com
time with AT&T" <vic.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Verizon justifies its increased ETF by claiming that the fee is not
>limited to the recovery of the wholesale purchase price of the device.
>The fee is also necessary to partially offset the cost of running a
>smartphone network. There is a cost to sell the device (advertising,
>commission, store costs, device subsidy), a cost to technically
>support the device, and a cost associated with maintaining a broadband
>network. Verizon also reminds the FCC that the number of advanced
>devices is increasing and �the overall cost to the company for
>providing and supporting devices to customers at low up-front cost
>has increased substantially�. When asked why a person canceling in the
>23rd month of a 24 month contract still has to pay a $120 ETF, Verizon
>responded by claiming that it �still incurs a financial loss from
>early terminations, even with the $350 ETF
The real solution to the problem of ETFs is to prohibit carriers from
trafficking in equipment at all.
They should be charging what they can get for the service and
supporting the equipment the customer wants to use.
Phones and advanced devices would then be sold retail, like on the
wall at Walmart, and there would be much more competition for the
equipment and prices would decline.
Phone carriers would then be free to compete with each other on their
service offerings for all the customers, and you wouldn't need to buy
a new phone to switch carriers so you could do what was best for you.
Service would improve since without a contract and ETF phone carriers
would have to satisfy their customers or customers would go elsewhere.
You don't keep going to a restaurant or auto repair firm that has bad
service, do you? Nope.
tlvp
> ... [snip] ...
> You don't keep going to a restaurant or auto repair firm that has bad
> service, do you? Nope.
Well, actually, if you're a college student whose tuition and fees
included several grand (non-refundable) for meals in the college's
dining room ... well ... you do. Yep. Grudgingly, but you do.
You might call it the moral equivalent of an ETF.
But your point is well taken. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Steve Sobol
mPiOsUcB...@att.net says...
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:05:27 -0500, Ste...@my-deja.com <ste...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > ... [snip] ...
> > You don't keep going to a restaurant or auto repair firm that has bad
> > service, do you? Nope.
>
> Well, actually, if you're a college student whose tuition and fees
> included several grand (non-refundable) for meals in the college's
> dining room ... well ... you do. Yep. Grudgingly, but you do.
Often, you won't be the one buying the meal plan. But even if it was
your parents that bought it, the choice still existed not to buy it.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjs...@JustThe.net
NotMe
"Steve Sobol" <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2598949ca...@news.justthe.net...
> In article <op.u49ok...@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
> mPiOsUcB...@att.net says...
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:05:27 -0500, Ste...@my-deja.com
>> <ste...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ... [snip] ...
>> > You don't keep going to a restaurant or auto repair firm that has bad
>> > service, do you? Nope.
>>
>> Well, actually, if you're a college student whose tuition and fees
>> included several grand (non-refundable) for meals in the college's
>> dining room ... well ... you do. Yep. Grudgingly, but you do.
>
> Often, you won't be the one buying the meal plan. But even if it was
> your parents that bought it, the choice still existed not to buy it.
>
Not necessarily. I've kids in various schools that are forced to buy
tickets to sporting events that they can't give away.
Richard B. Gilbert
How are they "forced"? Are they expelled if they refuse?
Steve Sobol
says...
>
> Not necessarily. I've kids in various schools that are forced to buy
> tickets to sporting events that they can't give away.
We weren't talking about sporting events.
NotMe
"Steve Sobol" <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> In article <hgmuo4$465$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, m...@privacy.net
> says...
>
>
>>
>> Not necessarily. I've kids in various schools that are forced to buy
>> tickets to sporting events that they can't give away.
>
> We weren't talking about sporting events.
>
Same principle. An aside if they stay in the dorm (often required for first
year) they do have to enroll in the meal plan.
NotMe
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4qCdnWawIeCc5bLW...@giganews.com...
Part of the bill from the schools and if not paid they are not allowed to
attend class so in a sense they are expelled.
3G Talk & Surf at the same time with AT&T
I think it is hilarious that everyone who has read the Verizon
response to the FCC has noticed the same thing I did.
Well I see I am not the only one who noticed that Verizon treats their
customers as a bunch of mushrooms. Are you a mushroom?
Anyone who leaves AT&T for Verizon has got to be a blooming idiot,
period.
Check out this New York Times piece which is basically the same
thought.
--
December 21, 2009, 2:26 pm
Verizon Responds to Consumer Complaints
A few weeks ago, I wrote about two particularly nasty Verizon Wireless
practices.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/verizon-responds-to-consumer-complaints/