Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phone Discounts vs Lower Monthly Rates

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:13:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Just throwing this out, but do any of you out there think it would be better
to get a lower monthly rate than an occasional break on a phone ???

Seems like we are free phone driven, we can't see the forest for the trees.
But we do pay for those "free" phones in higher monthly charges, and
probably more than if we just bought our devices like we do with any other
utility. I don't expect my electric company to give me a free fridge, damn,
I can't afford them now, how could I afford them after that ?? My
understanding is that in Europe they don't discount the phones, but the
service rates are much less than here.

Anyway, what do you all think ????
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:13:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I think that the company would rather spend the money on marketing to get
more customers and rates would be the same if phones were not discounted.
But it would be nice to let the customer pick first 2 months free and no
activation fee or a cheap phone.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:27:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"let_it_ride" <vzeegk9p@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mVehe.79$4d6.62@trndny04...
> Just throwing this out, but do any of you out there think it would be
better
> to get a lower monthly rate than an occasional break on a phone ???
>
> Seems like we are free phone driven, we can't see the forest for the
trees.
> But we do pay for those "free" phones in higher monthly charges, and
> probably more than if we just bought our devices like we do with any
other
> utility.

Higher monthly charges? How so? Unless you have to bump up to $35/mo. plan
for taking the $150 minute plan, nothing changes on one plan.

> I don't expect my electric company to give me a free fridge, damn,
> I can't afford them now, how could I afford them after that ?? My
> understanding is that in Europe they don't discount the phones, but the
> service rates are much less than here.
>
> Anyway, what do you all think ????

I don't know whether those plans in Europe are that much cheaper. Especially
when converting the local currency to US dollars.

Bob
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 12:27:50 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I don't know whether those plans in Europe are that much cheaper. Especially
>when converting the local currency to US dollars.

Exactly. I have a friend in Switzerland who once told me what she paid
for cellular.. I was shocked! I don't recall how much, but more than
what I paid.
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:08:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:16:35 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
<steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:

>By keeping a stranglehold on the phone supply the only way for you to
>get one is from *the carrier*. And the only way they will give you
>one is if you sign a contract to pay them monthly for 2 years (except
>Tmobile, 1-year). So they give you a phone that probably costs them
>less than $50 <...>

I'd sure love to see some facts backing up the claim of these
so-called low cost handsets. I have a feeling the actual cost to the
carrier is far more than $50 on average (across all current models),
and WAY more than $50 for the high end models, probably as much as 10x
that amount.

>If Motorola, Samsung, LG and Nokia were
>duking it out in the market you would see great innovation and much
>lower prices. I bet a very nice phone would cost $99 at retail with
>the store markup. How much do you think it costs to make a 3.5 oz
>phone in a factory in Mexico? $15? $25? Maybe. Not more than that
>I assure you. Remember, the volume is HUGE. Maybe phone manufacturers
>would sell you a phone with a years service included. Heh.

What does the weight, 3.5 oz in your example, have to do with it? And
where do these "$15" and "$25" figures come from?

--
Paul Miner
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:43:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:49:57 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
wrote:

>
>EVERY TIME someone has "assured" that the cost of these phones is much
>cheaper than the industry claims, there has been a complete lack of facts to
>support the statement- it has always been nothing more than an opinion.
>After the hundreds (if not thousands) of claims just like yours, we still
>have yet to see a single bit of proof to back the claim. Do you actually
>have facts to support your claim, or do you simply represent today's best
>guess

Prepaid phones are not sold at a loss. Maybe no carrier profit but
there is surely retailer margin or they wouldn't be there.

Prepaid color phones at Target, $79. CDMA chip installed. Virgin
Mobile.

You can't get anything at Sprint for that, not without signing an
agreement to give them at least $863 for service over two years,
probably lots more.

If you think Sprint is actually giving you a *free* phone you are
naive. They might give you one, or sell you one and make you send for
a rebate (so they can get some "slippage"). But only for signing a
contract. Phones are not free, and they are not losing money on them.
That would be bad business.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:52:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 03:08:46 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:16:35 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
><steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>By keeping a stranglehold on the phone supply the only way for you to
>>get one is from *the carrier*. And the only way they will give you
>>one is if you sign a contract to pay them monthly for 2 years (except
>>Tmobile, 1-year). So they give you a phone that probably costs them
>>less than $50 <...>
>
>I'd sure love to see some facts backing up the claim of these
>so-called low cost handsets. I have a feeling the actual cost to the
>carrier is far more than $50 on average (across all current models),
>and WAY more than $50 for the high end models, probably as much as 10x
>that amount.

I'm sure it is. I am sure they have some models that cost them $50 or
$75 to buy. But if they put a $400 price on it and give you a $150
rebate for signing a 2 year contract they are *not* losing money.
That $400 phone certainly cost them less than the $250 YOU are paying
THEM. Heh.

All I am saying is they are keeping the prices of equipment
artificially high to keep their customers under contract, and unlike
how it was 2 years ago at Sprint current customers now have fairly
poor options compared to new customers-as far as equipment is
concerned.

With all the phones being carrier branded and sold only through the
carrier it results in artificially high prices and they are using that
fact to their advantage. By making you sign a contract to pay them
money for 2 years.

If the manufacturers were competing with each other on the equipment
you would see a natural decline in prices due to competition.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:27:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:52:05 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
<steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2005 03:08:46 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:16:35 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
>><steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>By keeping a stranglehold on the phone supply the only way for you to
>>>get one is from *the carrier*. And the only way they will give you
>>>one is if you sign a contract to pay them monthly for 2 years (except
>>>Tmobile, 1-year). So they give you a phone that probably costs them
>>>less than $50 <...>
>>
>>I'd sure love to see some facts backing up the claim of these
>>so-called low cost handsets. I have a feeling the actual cost to the
>>carrier is far more than $50 on average (across all current models),
>>and WAY more than $50 for the high end models, probably as much as 10x
>>that amount.
>
>I'm sure it is. I am sure they have some models that cost them $50 or
>$75 to buy. But if they put a $400 price on it and give you a $150
>rebate for signing a 2 year contract they are *not* losing money.
>That $400 phone certainly cost them less than the $250 YOU are paying
>THEM. Heh.

I thought it was common knowledge that carriers sell handsets at a
loss with the assumption that they will make up that loss (and more)
over the life of the contract. So yes, they ARE losing money on the
sale of the handset, at least from what I can see.


>All I am saying is they are keeping the prices of equipment
>artificially high to keep their customers under contract, and unlike
>how it was 2 years ago at Sprint current customers now have fairly
>poor options compared to new customers-as far as equipment is
>concerned.

What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. It should be obvious that
no one is keeping handset prices artificially high, but even if
someone was, how would that equate to keeping customers under
contract?

>With all the phones being carrier branded and sold only through the
>carrier it results in artificially high prices and they are using that
>fact to their advantage. By making you sign a contract to pay them
>money for 2 years.
>
>If the manufacturers were competing with each other on the equipment
>you would see a natural decline in prices due to competition.

Manufacturers DO compete with each other (within each of the carrier
spaces) and you DO see a decline in prices. It may not look like it
because so much more functionality is continually being crammed
inside.

BTW, I'd still love to see some facts backing up the claim of cheap
handsets and artificially high prices.

--
Paul Miner
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:31:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:49:57 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
wrote:

>EVERY TIME someone has "assured" that the cost of these phones is much
>cheaper than the industry claims, there has been a complete lack of facts to
>support the statement- it has always been nothing more than an opinion.
>After the hundreds (if not thousands) of claims just like yours, we still
>have yet to see a single bit of proof to back the claim. Do you actually
>have facts to support your claim, or do you simply represent today's best
>guess?

Thanks, you said it much better than I did.

--
Paul Miner
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 9:11:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ia3k81lelbmii64ptpmdnmbu1fiskuhcdn@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:49:57 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >EVERY TIME someone has "assured" that the cost of these phones is much
> >cheaper than the industry claims, there has been a complete lack of facts
to
> >support the statement- it has always been nothing more than an opinion.
> >After the hundreds (if not thousands) of claims just like yours, we still
> >have yet to see a single bit of proof to back the claim. Do you actually
> >have facts to support your claim, or do you simply represent today's best
> >guess
>
> Prepaid phones are not sold at a loss. Maybe no carrier profit but
> there is surely retailer margin or they wouldn't be there.
>
> Prepaid color phones at Target, $79. CDMA chip installed. Virgin
> Mobile.

So, what's your point? Do you know for sure that these phones aren't
subsidized by Virgin Mobile, to Target ... or off Virgin's website as well?

Just where is your proof as to the actual cost of the phone? I don't see it
here ...
>
> You can't get anything at Sprint for that, not without signing an
> agreement to give them at least $863 for service over two years,
> probably lots more.
>
> If you think Sprint is actually giving you a *free* phone you are
> naive. They might give you one, or sell you one and make you send for
> a rebate (so they can get some "slippage"). But only for signing a
> contract. Phones are not free, and they are not losing money on them.
> That would be bad business.

Uh, yes, they are losing money on them initially. They hope to recap the
actual difference within 10 months of service.

Bob
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 9:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ia3k81lelbmii64ptpmdnmbu1fiskuhcdn@4ax.com...

>
> Prepaid phones are not sold at a loss. Maybe no carrier profit but
> there is surely retailer margin or they wouldn't be there.

Again, where's the proof? The more likely scenario is that the carrier pays
the retailer x dollars for each phone sold, just as they do for the calling
cards.

>
> Prepaid color phones at Target, $79. CDMA chip installed. Virgin
> Mobile.

And Sprint currently has 11 on their website priced cheaper than that with
many more features. Nothing has been proved.

>
> You can't get anything at Sprint for that, not without signing an
> agreement to give them at least $863 for service over two years,
> probably lots more.
>
> If you think Sprint is actually giving you a *free* phone you are
> naive. They might give you one, or sell you one and make you send for
> a rebate (so they can get some "slippage"). But only for signing a
> contract. Phones are not free, and they are not losing money on them.


Then let me spell it out to you. On their 1st quarter financial report, as
filed with the FCC and FTC, Sprint reports equipment COSTS of $652M and
equipment REVENUES (not profits) of $328M. This is far from secret
information, as it is available from both the FTC and Sprint itself. Don't
believe it?

http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/1q05.pdf

Go to the last page- they are line items #3 & #5. In this age of uncovering
the great Corporate Monsters of the world and the perpetual notion that
cellular companies are evil, I sincerely doubt that the media, consumer
groups, disgruntled ex-employees or the various state AG's would allow this
to fly if it weren't indeed accurate. The link I provided gives proof of
what I say. I'll be more than happy to research anything you have that
proves otherwise.

> That would be bad business.
>

Actually, it would appear to be good business, because the $324M loss pales
in comparison to the $3.867B in revenue that they reported for the same time
period. They spent a little to make a lot. But they still lost money on
the phones.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:33:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:50:37 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
wrote:

>Then let me spell it out to you. On their 1st quarter financial report, as
>filed with the FCC and FTC, Sprint reports equipment COSTS of $652M and
>equipment REVENUES (not profits) of $328M. This is far from secret
>information, as it is available from both the FTC and Sprint itself. Don't
>believe it?
>
>http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/1q05.pdf
>
>Go to the last page- they are line items #3 & #5. In this age of uncovering
>the great Corporate Monsters of the world and the perpetual notion that
>cellular companies are evil, I sincerely doubt that the media, consumer
>groups, disgruntled ex-employees or the various state AG's would allow this
>to fly if it weren't indeed accurate. The link I provided gives proof of
>what I say. I'll be more than happy to research anything you have that
>proves otherwise.

Huh? Cellular phones in stores to sell are not equipment.

Equipment is computers for the office, desks, chairs, cellsites, stuff
like that.

Not items bought for resale, stock.

That item would be in the line with a title like "cost of goods sold".
But it's not broken out. It's on page 2. All lumped together. $1.8
Billion.

But that includes cost of services and products, so includes store
rent, office rent, cellsite rent, cost of running the network, telecom
costs, T1 lines, maintenance, etc.. You can't analyze profit or loss
on items sold in stores with that information.

Call their investor relations up and ask if you really want to know.


Find
May 18, 2005 9:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:50:37 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Then let me spell it out to you. On their 1st quarter financial
>> report, as filed with the FCC and FTC, Sprint reports equipment
>> COSTS of $652M and equipment REVENUES (not profits) of $328M. This
>> is far from secret information, as it is available from both the FTC
>> and Sprint itself. Don't believe it?
>>
>> http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/1q05.pdf
>>
>> Go to the last page- they are line items #3 & #5. In this age of
>> uncovering the great Corporate Monsters of the world and the
>> perpetual notion that cellular companies are evil, I sincerely doubt
>> that the media, consumer groups, disgruntled ex-employees or the
>> various state AG's would allow this to fly if it weren't indeed
>> accurate. The link I provided gives proof of what I say. I'll be
>> more than happy to research anything you have that proves otherwise.
>
> Huh? Cellular phones in stores to sell are not equipment.
>
> Equipment is computers for the office, desks, chairs, cellsites, stuff
> like that.
>
> Not items bought for resale, stock.
>
> That item would be in the line with a title like "cost of goods sold".
> But it's not broken out. It's on page 2. All lumped together. $1.8
> Billion.
>
> But that includes cost of services and products, so includes store
> rent, office rent, cellsite rent, cost of running the network, telecom
> costs, T1 lines, maintenance, etc.. You can't analyze profit or loss
> on items sold in stores with that information.
>
> Call their investor relations up and ask if you really want to know.
>

While I do agree with you that I'd rather see handsets sold in a true
competitive market, I don't agree with the numbers you have provided
regarding the price paid by SPCS for handsets. There is little doubt
they are more expensive than you think. Here's a quote from Sprint's
2003 Annual Report (10-K):

====================
Revenues from sales of handsets and accessories, including new customers
and upgrades, were approximately 9.0% of net operating revenues in 2003,
10.0% in 2002 and 11.8% in 2001. These declines were mainly due to
higher rebates and lower gross additions. As part of the PCS Group's
marketing plans, handsets, net of rebates,
are usually sold at prices below cost.
====================
http://www4.sprint.com/03ar/downloads/sprint03arForm10K...
(On page 39.)

So there you have it; the smoking gun.

My concern is if those handsets are over-priced due to lack of open
competition (to end users). In the absence of such a market I can't
definitively say they are.


--
Mike
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 9:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:08um81lak7uh54sqp85ndajibn9vf40quf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:50:37 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Then let me spell it out to you. On their 1st quarter financial report,
as
> >filed with the FCC and FTC, Sprint reports equipment COSTS of $652M and
> >equipment REVENUES (not profits) of $328M. This is far from secret
> >information, as it is available from both the FTC and Sprint itself.
Don't
> >believe it?
> >
> >http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/1q05.pdf
> >
> >Go to the last page- they are line items #3 & #5. In this age of
uncovering
> >the great Corporate Monsters of the world and the perpetual notion that
> >cellular companies are evil, I sincerely doubt that the media, consumer
> >groups, disgruntled ex-employees or the various state AG's would allow
this
> >to fly if it weren't indeed accurate. The link I provided gives proof of
> >what I say. I'll be more than happy to research anything you have that
> >proves otherwise.
>
> Huh? Cellular phones in stores to sell are not equipment.

Maybe not in your vernacular, but in the business world, they are most
certainly consumer equipment necessary to access and use the network.

>
> Equipment is computers for the office, desks, chairs, cellsites, stuff
> like that.

And none of those generate revenue, so again, the equipment mentioned is
indeed phones. The items that you mention are in the Capital Expenditure
line, where they belong. You missed the entire reason for the page you were
looking at. It is not a detailed financial statement, but a statistical
page of key metrics inportant to the industry that are not used in the
standard accounting. THe cost of computers is not one of those metrics.


>
> Not items bought for resale, stock.

Again, read above- those are Capital Expenditures.

>
> That item would be in the line with a title like "cost of goods sold".
> But it's not broken out. It's on page 2. All lumped together. $1.8
> Billion.

See above.

>
> But that includes cost of services and products, so includes store
> rent, office rent, cellsite rent, cost of running the network, telecom
> costs, T1 lines, maintenance, etc.. You can't analyze profit or loss
> on items sold in stores with that information.
>
> Call their investor relations up and ask if you really want to know.

Or instead of calling them, I can use the knowledge of reading these
financials that I have as an investor in the industry.

I'm still waiting for facts contrary to the numbers and have yet to see any.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 11:20:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 12:03:13 -0700, "Tinman"
<mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote:
>
>While I do agree with you that I'd rather see handsets sold in a true
>competitive market, I don't agree with the numbers you have provided
>regarding the price paid by SPCS for handsets. There is little doubt
>they are more expensive than you think. Here's a quote from Sprint's
>2003 Annual Report (10-K):
>
>====================
>Revenues from sales of handsets and accessories, including new customers
>and upgrades, were approximately 9.0% of net operating revenues in 2003,
>10.0% in 2002 and 11.8% in 2001. These declines were mainly due to
>higher rebates and lower gross additions. As part of the PCS Group's
>marketing plans, handsets, net of rebates,
>are usually sold at prices below cost.
>====================
>http://www4.sprint.com/03ar/downloads/sprint03arForm10K...
>(On page 39.)
>
>So there you have it; the smoking gun.

Yeah, well the question is how much less. $2? They didn't say. In
some cases I imagine that is the amount less. Completely offset by
the contract revenue which is why they do it.

For current customers I am pretty sure that is not the case. They
probably make some amount on current customers who need equipment. I
am sure it's not a whole lot, but it is not a loss, or not much loss.
The more expensive the phone the more they make on it since the rebate
is the same.

They would surely recognize sales and marketing expenses, support
expenses, cost of the activation process so as to make those be a net
loss, tax deductible for them, it would be ridiculous not to.

>My concern is if those handsets are over-priced due to lack of open
>competition (to end users). In the absence of such a market I can't
>definitively say they are.

Yeah, well I am sure they are much higher than they would be were
there competition.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 11:20:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

> Yeah, well the question is how much less. $2? They didn't say. In
> some cases I imagine that is the amount less. Completely offset by
> the contract revenue which is why they do it.

Yes.

But at most, they're sold at just below cost, otherwise Sprint is lying, which
isn't generally a good idea when you're filing papers with the SEC. I like to
think Sprint is smarter than some of the other telecomm outfits that have
gotten spanked by the SEC lately. (Although sometimes I wonder) :) 

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 11:23:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Tinman" <mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote in message
news:3f1hsmF5i71nU1@individual.net...
<snipped>

> ====================
> Revenues from sales of handsets and accessories, including new customers
> and upgrades, were approximately 9.0% of net operating revenues in 2003,
> 10.0% in 2002 and 11.8% in 2001. These declines were mainly due to
> higher rebates and lower gross additions. As part of the PCS Group's
> marketing plans, handsets, net of rebates,
> are usually sold at prices below cost.
> ====================
> http://www4.sprint.com/03ar/downloads/sprint03arForm10K...
> (On page 39.)
>
> So there you have it; the smoking gun.
>
> My concern is if those handsets are over-priced due to lack of open
> competition (to end users). In the absence of such a market I can't
> definitively say they are.

There is that Mike. Certain phone manufacturers only deal with one wireless
provider, like Sanyo ... when it comes to CDMA providers, so it's hard to
compare costs between providers. In saying that, I'm sure that Sanyo prices
out their phones to SPCS at the lowest mark up as possible, so that their
phones will sell @ SPCS stores, affiliates and retail stores.

Bob
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:35:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:20:35 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
<steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2005 12:03:13 -0700, "Tinman"
><mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>While I do agree with you that I'd rather see handsets sold in a true
>>competitive market, I don't agree with the numbers you have provided
>>regarding the price paid by SPCS for handsets. There is little doubt
>>they are more expensive than you think. Here's a quote from Sprint's
>>2003 Annual Report (10-K):
>>
>>====================
>>Revenues from sales of handsets and accessories, including new customers
>>and upgrades, were approximately 9.0% of net operating revenues in 2003,
>>10.0% in 2002 and 11.8% in 2001. These declines were mainly due to
>>higher rebates and lower gross additions. As part of the PCS Group's
>>marketing plans, handsets, net of rebates,
>>are usually sold at prices below cost.
>>====================
>>http://www4.sprint.com/03ar/downloads/sprint03arForm10K...
>>(On page 39.)
>>
>>So there you have it; the smoking gun.
>
>Yeah, well the question is how much less.

Maybe the NEW question is "how much less", but the original claim made
by you was that handsets typically cost ~$15 to $25 or so and
therefore SPCS is absolutely NOT selling handsets at a loss as most
everyone believes. Now that you've conceded the first question I
suppose it's pointless to wait for you to provide facts backing up
your claims.

>$2? They didn't say. In
>some cases I imagine that is the amount less. Completely offset by
>the contract revenue which is why they do it.
>
>For current customers I am pretty sure that is not the case. They
>probably make some amount on current customers who need equipment. I
>am sure it's not a whole lot, but it is not a loss, or not much loss.
>The more expensive the phone the more they make on it since the rebate
>is the same.
>
>They would surely recognize sales and marketing expenses, support
>expenses, cost of the activation process so as to make those be a net
>loss, tax deductible for them, it would be ridiculous not to.
>
>>My concern is if those handsets are over-priced due to lack of open
>>competition (to end users). In the absence of such a market I can't
>>definitively say they are.
>
>Yeah, well I am sure they are much higher than they would be were
>there competition.

You claiming to be "sure" is not all that comforting. I was hoping to
see something more substantive.

--
Paul Miner
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:46:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:19 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
wrote:

>Maybe the NEW question is "how much less", but the original claim made
>by you was that handsets typically cost ~$15 to $25 or so and
>therefore SPCS is absolutely NOT selling handsets at a loss as most
>everyone believes. Now that you've conceded the first question I
>suppose it's pointless to wait for you to provide facts backing up
>your claims.

Heh. Typical usenet. I never said Sprint paid $15 or $25.

I said that was what it cost to make them in a factory in Mexico or
maybe Korea. Maybe less.

I imagine Sprint has to buy those branded handsets in custom packaging
for a lot more than they cost Motorola to make in Mexico, or Motorola
wouldn't be making them. Probably some are $50 or so- those V180s
look pretty cheap to make. Some are probably more, maybe up to $150.
Sprint sells very few handsets for anything like that.

Now if Motorola were selling us those handsets, and competing with the
Korean and Japanese and Chinese manufacturers the prices would decline
due to competition.

Face it, the rebates and inflated prices are caused by the carriers
keeping the equipment all under control. The "free phone" signs you
see outside every phone store in the country (even the Sprint store)
are not for current customers. Only new ones. Current customers can
just whistle dixie.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:46:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:q7rn81dm9rh7dbr5vv658o20714d4rdl58@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:19 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Maybe the NEW question is "how much less", but the original claim made
> >by you was that handsets typically cost ~$15 to $25 or so and
> >therefore SPCS is absolutely NOT selling handsets at a loss as most
> >everyone believes. Now that you've conceded the first question I
> >suppose it's pointless to wait for you to provide facts backing up
> >your claims.
>
> Heh. Typical usenet. I never said Sprint paid $15 or $25.
>
> I said that was what it cost to make them in a factory in Mexico or
> maybe Korea. Maybe less.

Heh. Typical Usenet. No facts, just opinions.

>
> I imagine Sprint has to buy those branded handsets in custom packaging
> for a lot more than they cost Motorola to make in Mexico, or Motorola
> wouldn't be making them. Probably some are $50 or so- those V180s
> look pretty cheap to make. Some are probably more, maybe up to $150.
> Sprint sells very few handsets for anything like that.

Again, just an opinion. I posted FACTS that indicate that they are sold at
a loss.

>
> Now if Motorola were selling us those handsets, and competing with the
> Korean and Japanese and Chinese manufacturers the prices would decline
> due to competition.

So, you are saying that if they were selling against Sanyo, Samsung or
others there would be a price decline. Wait a minute- they are already are
competing with them. I guess that means that prices have already declined,
according to you.

>
> Face it, the rebates and inflated prices are caused by the carriers
> keeping the equipment all under control.

Where's the proof, Stevie?

>The "free phone" signs you
> see outside every phone store in the country (even the Sprint store)
> are not for current customers. Only new ones. Current customers can
> just whistle dixie.
>

Well, we could always take the approach used by all other countries- no
subsidized phones. None. Zero. Zilch. But, then you would have nothing
to complain about.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:48:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:27:14 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
wrote:

>> Now if Motorola were selling us those handsets, and competing with the
>> Korean and Japanese and Chinese manufacturers the prices would decline
>> due to competition.
>
>So, you are saying that if they were selling against Sanyo, Samsung or
>others there would be a price decline. Wait a minute- they are already are
>competing with them. I guess that means that prices have already declined,
>according to you.

No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.

So the customer can dictate terms and prices.

Ya know there were no Motorola products at Sprint for a couple of
years. Why would Motorola have let that happen? They only have one
customer for Sprint phones. Sprint had them over a barrel for a
time. Then they made a deal.

Now when Sprint dropped Motorola (which they did) and Motorola could
have sold them to users directly and the users could then have used
them on the Sprint network, would the prices be higher, or would they
be lower? It's obvious. You tell me the answer.

Would you buy a Motorola product for $300 or a Sprint one for $300
with a $150 rebate? But Motorola would then have to compete. They
would be selling those things for $99. Or less.

That is the competition that has been stifled by the carrier being in
control of all the equipment.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:48:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

> No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.
> So the customer can dictate terms and prices.

No, they don't, they sell to other carriers too.


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:07:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Motorola could have tried to sell them directly to users, but would
Sprint PCS activate them? I don't think so.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:26:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

>>====================
>>Revenues from sales of handsets and accessories, including new customers
>>and upgrades, were approximately 9.0% of net operating revenues in 2003,
>>10.0% in 2002 and 11.8% in 2001. These declines were mainly due to
>>higher rebates and lower gross additions. As part of the PCS Group's
>>marketing plans, handsets, net of rebates,
>>are usually sold at prices below cost.
>>====================
>>http://www4.sprint.com/03ar/downloads/sprint03arForm10K...
>>(On page 39.)
>>
>>So there you have it; the smoking gun.
>
>
> Yeah, well the question is how much less. $2? They didn't say.

Now you're just being facetious. Common sense dictates that most users
wouold accept a $2 additional margin, making it pointless to discount a
phone by $2.

On the other hand, we have a very clear reason to beleive that the
subsidy is AT LEAST $150, if not more. This is based on the simple fact
that new signups (and elligible re-signs) get a $150 mardown.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:35:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

>>>Now if Motorola were selling us those handsets, and competing with the
>>>Korean and Japanese and Chinese manufacturers the prices would decline
>>>due to competition.
>>
>>So, you are saying that if they were selling against Sanyo, Samsung or
>>others there would be a price decline. Wait a minute- they are already are
>>competing with them. I guess that means that prices have already declined,
>>according to you.
>
>
> No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.

so Verizon, T-Mobile, Cingular, Alltel, Western Wireless, and various
other Tier Two and Tier Three operations don't exist, huh?

In fact, the only carrier with a one-one relationsip is Nextel, which
only sells Motorola.

> Ya know there were no Motorola products at Sprint for a couple of
> years. Why would Motorola have let that happen? They only have one
> customer for Sprint phones. Sprint had them over a barrel for a
> time. Then they made a deal.

Sprint had no one over a barrel. Motorola got along just fine selling
iDen phones to Nextel, CDMA phones to Verizon, and GSM phones to
T-Mobile, CIngular and until recently, AT&T.

> Now when Sprint dropped Motorola (which they did) and Motorola could
> have sold them to users directly and the users could then have used
> them on the Sprint network, would the prices be higher, or would they
> be lower? It's obvious. You tell me the answer.

You are operating under the short-sighted and clearly flawed assumption
that Sprint is the only carrier out there. If someone absolutely had to
have a Motorola phone, there were plenty of other carriers to pick from,
and they could have taken their number with them, too. If they were
still under contract, many times selling the old phone on eBay will help
recover the cost of the termination fee.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:52:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:h26o811nnvego7ec7fqvnk04fratbbiss9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:27:14 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now if Motorola were selling us those handsets, and competing with the
> >> Korean and Japanese and Chinese manufacturers the prices would decline
> >> due to competition.
> >
> >So, you are saying that if they were selling against Sanyo, Samsung or
> >others there would be a price decline. Wait a minute- they are already
are
> >competing with them. I guess that means that prices have already
declined,
> >according to you.
>
> No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.

Absolutely incorrect. Motorola sells / sold their phones to all the other
world wide wireless carriers. What's more, the number of Motorola phone
models that were sold to SPCS were insignificant, and there were more
warranty returns on their phones, than any other phone manufacturer.
>
> So the customer can dictate terms and prices.
>
> Ya know there were no Motorola products at Sprint for a couple of
> years. Why would Motorola have let that happen? They only have one
> customer for Sprint phones. Sprint had them over a barrel for a
> time. Then they made a deal.
>
> Now when Sprint dropped Motorola (which they did) and Motorola could
> have sold them to users directly and the users could then have used
> them on the Sprint network, would the prices be higher, or would they
> be lower? It's obvious. You tell me the answer.
>
> Would you buy a Motorola product for $300 or a Sprint one for $300
> with a $150 rebate? But Motorola would then have to compete. They
> would be selling those things for $99. Or less.
>
> That is the competition that has been stifled by the carrier being in
> control of all the equipment.

Only in your mind. As stated, SPCS cancelled their contract with Moto, as
too many customers were returning their phones because of hand set problems.

Bob

PS: One more thing. I remember someone who had the same argument about phone
subsidies 3 or 4 years ago in this and other news groups. At that time, Moto
was showing their list price on their phones on the web, and their sales
price was far higher, than the same handsets offered through SPCS, Verizon,
and the GSM wireless providers.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:53:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:23:03 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.
>> So the customer can dictate terms and prices.
>
>No, they don't, they sell to other carriers too.
They have only one customer for sprint phones. Sprint.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:53:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:23:03 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.
>>>So the customer can dictate terms and prices.
>>
>>No, they don't, they sell to other carriers too.
>
> They have only one customer for sprint phones. Sprint.

I call Bullshit.

The V60v sold by Sprint is essentially identical to the V60 models sold by
Verizon, T-Mobile and others. With Sprint-specific firmware, yes; but most
other cellular carriers have the handset manufacturers do custom firmware too.

Plus, Sprint isn't the only company in the market for Sprint phones; there's no
reason Virgin Mobile (or other SPCS resellers, but I chose them because they're
the biggest) couldn't buy the V60v from Moto. Same technology, same network.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:59:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5s9p81tda1dpp9nok6n35gee9oittpmhtr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:23:03 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.
> >> So the customer can dictate terms and prices.
> >
> >No, they don't, they sell to other carriers too.
> They have only one customer for sprint phones. Sprint.

Now you are just being silly. Moto sold the same phone models to SPCS,
Verizon & Alltel. The only thing different was the software, which was
programmed for each carrier's needs and possibly the transreceiver, tuned to
1900 or 800.

Bob
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 10:21:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:h26o811nnvego7ec7fqvnk04fratbbiss9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:27:14 -0600, "SS" <nospam1336479852@wopdj.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now if Motorola were selling us those handsets, and competing with the
> >> Korean and Japanese and Chinese manufacturers the prices would decline
> >> due to competition.
> >
> >So, you are saying that if they were selling against Sanyo, Samsung or
> >others there would be a price decline. Wait a minute- they are already
are
> >competing with them. I guess that means that prices have already
declined,
> >according to you.
>
> No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.

Maybe on your planet, but here in US there are at least 10 carriers with a
million subscribers and with the exception of Nextel, every one of them uses
multiple phone suppliers.

>
> So the customer can dictate terms and prices.

Now you're getting off the subject. You claimed that the carriers were
inflating prices and were proven wrong. Kind of late in the game to try
anddeflect criticism by changing the subject (even though you're wrong
again).

>
> Ya know there were no Motorola products at Sprint for a couple of
> years. Why would Motorola have let that happen? They only have one
> customer for Sprint phones. Sprint had them over a barrel for a
> time. Then they made a deal.

No- they sold the same model phone, with different firmware and a different
name on the cover, to different carriers.

>
> Now when Sprint dropped Motorola (which they did) and Motorola could
> have sold them to users directly and the users could then have used
> them on the Sprint network, would the prices be higher, or would they
> be lower? It's obvious. You tell me the answer.

Simple- Motorola doesn't have the permission from Sprint to simply use their
name on Motorola products. Only those licensed by and authorized for use on
the Sprint network can carry the Sprint name, and there is no legal or
business reason that they have to allow other phones on their network.

You really need to go to a few of the phone makers' sites and check out the
retail prices they have listed for their phones- they make full retail
through Sprint seem like a bargain.

>
> Would you buy a Motorola product for $300 or a Sprint one for $300
> with a $150 rebate? But Motorola would then have to compete. They
> would be selling those things for $99. Or less.

Except as I've already stated, you are assuming that the phone cost less
than $150 to produce. I've already shown that this is not the case. What
would motivate Motorola to sell at a loss when they can recoup their cost
from Sprint and have them write off the loss?

>
> That is the competition that has been stifled by the carrier being in
> control of all the equipment.

Again, go to the websites. Many of the manufacturers do sell phones- for a
hell of a lot more than the carriers. Nothing has been stifled.

>
>
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:20:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

>>>No, they aren't. They only have one customer. Sprint.
>>>So the customer can dictate terms and prices.
>>
>>No, they don't, they sell to other carriers too.
>
> They have only one customer for sprint phones. Sprint.


And as I've said numerous times (and you've conveniently ignored),
Sprint isn't the only carrier in the US.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:02:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:29:36 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>> They have only one customer for sprint phones. Sprint.
>
>I call Bullshit.
>
>The V60v sold by Sprint is essentially identical to the V60 models sold by
>Verizon, T-Mobile and others. With Sprint-specific firmware, yes; but most
>other cellular carriers have the handset manufacturers do custom firmware too.

The phone manufacturers only sell to carriers. You guys know full
well what I meant.

Wouldn't it be better for competition on equipment if Walmart had a
big selection of phones that could be used on Sprint but that Sprint
didn't have any involvement with?

They'd be having those price rollbacks, like they do on pants and
toaster ovens. Circuit city would be price guaranteeing them, as
would Staples and Office Depot.

As it is you can go nearly anywhere and with a very few exceptions
(Best Buy has 10% off coupons) there is little or no difference in
prices.

As it is the price of those phones is tightly controlled.

A retailer can only buy Sprint phones from Sprint and nowhere else.
A manufacturer can only sell to carriers, not to retailers. Not to
the public. Not to online sellers. The number of customers is very
small. Competition is largely stifled.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:02:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

> A retailer can only buy Sprint phones from Sprint and nowhere else.
> A manufacturer can only sell to carriers, not to retailers. Not to
> the public. Not to online sellers. The number of customers is very
> small. Competition is largely stifled.

I don't believe you're correct. In fact, I'm 99% sure that the carrier's
authorized retail agents buy their own phones. Hm. Think about it - does Virgin
Mobile sell any phone models that Sprint also sells? Sprint has to approve them
for use on the SPCS network. But Sprint doesn't sell most of them themselves.

Some big nationwide chains only sell the same models the carriers do. However,
I know of smaller retail agents who sell models the carriers don't.

I really think you ought to give it a rest.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:02:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>>I call Bullshit.
>>
>>The V60v sold by Sprint is essentially identical to the V60 models sold by
>>Verizon, T-Mobile and others. With Sprint-specific firmware, yes; but most
>>other cellular carriers have the handset manufacturers do custom firmware too.
>
>
> The phone manufacturers only sell to carriers. You guys know full
> well what I meant.


Yes we did, and as soon as we found gaping holes in your argument, you
decided to change its parameters.


> Wouldn't it be better for competition on equipment if Walmart had a
> big selection of phones that could be used on Sprint but that Sprint
> didn't have any involvement with?

Actually no. Without tight integration, you don't get things like
Vision access, PRL updates, or firwmare over the air updates. 1xRTT
data provisioning can't really happen, because the carrier has no idea
what phone a customer might be using on their network or its capabilities.

Being able to buy any phone and plug it in the socket worked just fine
in the days when the phone company provided just a dial tone, but we've
gone way beyond that now. Customers are demanding ringtones, Java apps
and data services, some of which only operate on certain phones and for
which no unified standard exists. THAT is why the integration is there.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:43:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:25:26 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> A retailer can only buy Sprint phones from Sprint and nowhere else.
>> A manufacturer can only sell to carriers, not to retailers. Not to
>> the public. Not to online sellers. The number of customers is very
>> small. Competition is largely stifled.
>
>I don't believe you're correct. In fact, I'm 99% sure that the carrier's
>authorized retail agents buy their own phones.

I doubt it. I think all Sprint branded phones are sold to Sprint, and
distributed by them to their retailers. They might be shipped from
the manufacturer, but the paperwork and the sale surely goes through
the carrier.

You can't get a Verizon phone activated on Sprint under any
circumstances.

>Hm. Think about it - does Virgin
>Mobile sell any phone models that Sprint also sells?
I don't think so. They are all different. I don't think there is any
way to use a Virgin Mobile on a Sprint plan either.
>
>Sprint has to approve them
>for use on the SPCS network. But Sprint doesn't sell most of them themselves.
>
>Some big nationwide chains only sell the same models the carriers do. However,
>I know of smaller retail agents who sell models the carriers don't.
In GSM, sure. I have seen that too. But not on CDMA. AFAIK.
>
>I really think you ought to give it a rest.
Yeah, getting pretty circular!

I just said it would be *better for competition* if all the handsets
weren't filtered through Sprint, and branded that way. If things were
unbundled and you could buy whatever compatible phone you want.
Competition would be enhanced. Surely you agree that would lead to
more choice and more players.

Here in the US we have CDMA, TDMA and GSM. Of those GSM is the only
network you can buy any compatible handset anywhere you like and put
your carrier SIM in.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

> I doubt it. I think all Sprint branded phones are sold to Sprint, and
> distributed by them to their retailers. They might be shipped from
> the manufacturer, but the paperwork and the sale surely goes through
> the carrier.

In that case, Radio Shack (for example) is paying a ton more than they should
for the phones.

I know people in regional management at CompUSA, a Sprint and T-Mobile
retailer, and if you want, I can ask them whether they get the phones from
Sprint or not.

> You can't get a Verizon phone activated on Sprint under any
> circumstances.

But you can move phones between carriers in some cases. Verizon and Alltel
allow phones they didn't sell on their network, as long as the technology is
compatible.

> I don't think so. They are all different. I don't think there is any
> way to use a Virgin Mobile on a Sprint plan either.

Technically, there is a way. Unfortunately, Sprint's *policy* is not to allow
it (I say "unfortunately" because VM has some cool phones).

>>Some big nationwide chains only sell the same models the carriers do. However,
>>I know of smaller retail agents who sell models the carriers don't.
>
> In GSM, sure. I have seen that too. But not on CDMA. AFAIK.

Saw it when I lived in the Cleveland area, with a couple Verizon agents at my
local mall... and check over in alt.cellular.verizon, and you'll find some
people who have bought Motorola 270c's to use on Verizon, and Verizon never
sold the 270c.

>>I really think you ought to give it a rest.
>
> Yeah, getting pretty circular!

Yes. We keep on saying the same thing over and over.

> I just said it would be *better for competition* if all the handsets
> weren't filtered through Sprint, and branded that way.

And we said that that isn't what happens. But I think it's probably time to let
the matter drop.


>If things were
> unbundled and you could buy whatever compatible phone you want.
> Competition would be enhanced. Surely you agree that would lead to
> more choice and more players.

I'd like to see it happen. I'd like to see *none* of the carriers locking
phones. I'd like to see fewer restrictions. It isn't going to happen. :( 


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:50:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Yes, competition is good. Who was that was saying that we have too
many wireless carriers in this country?
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:59:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

There are not many who would want a verizon phone activated on Sprint
PCS. It would only make and receive calls. Vision would not work.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 5:03:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

If I remember correctly, there were a few Sprint PCS phones that were
sold at RadioShack, but not at Sprint PCS stores.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 5:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

RadioShack does pay a ton for Sprint PCS and verizon phones. They get
reimbursed for any instant rebates after the sale.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:11:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:59:44 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
<jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

> There are not many who would want a verizon phone activated on Sprint
>PCS. It would only make and receive calls. Vision would not work.
Maybe, but lots of the phones being sold by Verizon now have OTA
programming. Not sure the extent of that programming, but if the load
on the phone can be completely changed that way there is no reason why
phones should not be carrier independent within technologies.

I agree, VZW has a great selection. The best. So many it is pretty
hard to make a decision. Heh.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 3:11:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I would not say verizon has the best selection. Sprint PCS does not do
over the air programming. They don't have many people going to the
stores to have their phones reprogrammed either.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:59:44 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
> <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> There are not many who would want a verizon phone activated on Sprint
>>PCS. It would only make and receive calls. Vision would not work.
>
> Maybe, but lots of the phones being sold by Verizon now have OTA
> programming.

But a large number of phones sold by Sprint aren't sold by Verizon and Verizon
couldn't flash those phones with VZW firmware, because VZW firmware doesn't
*exist* for those phones, so you'd be stuck with whatever you can get.

The best example is the Sanyo phones. Sprint is the only US carrier that sells
Sanyo.

There are some phones that would probably work. The Samsung VI660 and the
Verizon Samsung A650 are the same phone. But even then, there are some features
Sprint enables in the 660 that Verizon doesn't in the 650, so *if* Verizon is
willing to flash your 660, you'll lose functionality.

> I agree, VZW has a great selection. The best. So many it is pretty
> hard to make a decision. Heh.

I hope that was sarcasm. Verizon has a solid network, and IMHO their customer
service is the best in the cellular industry, but they are known for releasing
phones at a glacially slow pace.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:32:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:23:45 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:59:44 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
>> <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> There are not many who would want a verizon phone activated on Sprint
>>>PCS. It would only make and receive calls. Vision would not work.
>>
>> Maybe, but lots of the phones being sold by Verizon now have OTA
>> programming.
>
>But a large number of phones sold by Sprint aren't sold by Verizon and Verizon
>couldn't flash those phones with VZW firmware, because VZW firmware doesn't
>*exist* for those phones, so you'd be stuck with whatever you can get.
>
>The best example is the Sanyo phones. Sprint is the only US carrier that sells
>Sanyo.
>
>There are some phones that would probably work. The Samsung VI660 and the
>Verizon Samsung A650 are the same phone. But even then, there are some features
>Sprint enables in the 660 that Verizon doesn't in the 650, so *if* Verizon is
>willing to flash your 660, you'll lose functionality.

But if the phones were unbundled the OTA capability would be used by
the carriers to activate the phones their customers have, so they can
make money as carriers. I would bet the OTA capability would emerge,
and pretty fast.

>> I agree, VZW has a great selection. The best. So many it is pretty
>> hard to make a decision. Heh.
>
>I hope that was sarcasm. Verizon has a solid network, and IMHO their customer
>service is the best in the cellular industry, but they are known for releasing
>phones at a glacially slow pace.
No, it wasn't sarcasm. The Verizon store in Brea must have over 50
phone models on display. Maybe lots more. It's unbelievable.

VZW does have some weird things they do. Like those Moto V710s, where
they disabled features Motorola put in the phone so they can charge
for them. After people own them! Not good karma on their part.

A friend of mine just went from Sprint to VZW, he says they are trying
to nickel-and-dime him all the time.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:32:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

> But if the phones were unbundled the OTA capability would be used by
> the carriers to activate the phones their customers have, so they can
> make money as carriers. I would bet the OTA capability would emerge,
> and pretty fast.

Probably, but it won't happen.

>>>I agree, VZW has a great selection. The best. So many it is pretty
>>>hard to make a decision. Heh.
>>
>>I hope that was sarcasm. Verizon has a solid network, and IMHO their customer
>>service is the best in the cellular industry, but they are known for releasing
>>phones at a glacially slow pace.
>
> No, it wasn't sarcasm. The Verizon store in Brea must have over 50
> phone models on display. Maybe lots more. It's unbelievable.

Come up to Victorville. The last time I was there, they had around 15. That's
more typical of a VZW corporate store.

> VZW does have some weird things they do. Like those Moto V710s, where
> they disabled features Motorola put in the phone so they can charge
> for them. After people own them! Not good karma on their part.
>
> A friend of mine just went from Sprint to VZW, he says they are trying
> to nickel-and-dime him all the time.

Yes. Which is never acceptable, but is somewhat less obnoxious when you aren't
already paying top dollar. VZW's coverage is often worth the extra price that
you will pay for it, but to nickel-and-dime on top of that is ridiculous.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:35:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:08:51 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
<jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> RadioShack does pay a ton for Sprint PCS and verizon phones. They get
>reimbursed for any instant rebates after the sale.

Radio Shack manager told me yesterday that they are charged $120 for
Sanyo 8200s, that they then sell for $229. After 2 weeks they get
paid $200 more for the activation.

Sprint ships them to them, they don't get any Sprint phones in their
regular shipment, all from Sprint direct. Sprint controls the retail
prices completely.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:31:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:10:49 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>>
>> No, it wasn't sarcasm. The Verizon store in Brea must have over 50
>> phone models on display. Maybe lots more. It's unbelievable.
>
>Come up to Victorville. The last time I was there, they had around 15. That's
>more typical of a VZW corporate store.

Probably. That particular store is very chaotic. Customers wall to
wall, employees too. My friend who just switched to VZW got mad at
them when I took him in there. The place is very noisy and active.
Hard to look at phones or even think.

He had to switch to VZW, his wife is on Verizon and she has a year or
more left on her contract.

I bet she would save $40 a month with F&F on Sprint however. She is
on the phone all the time.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:31:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 19:10:49 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>No, it wasn't sarcasm. The Verizon store in Brea must have over 50
>>>phone models on display. Maybe lots more. It's unbelievable.
>>
>>Come up to Victorville. The last time I was there, they had around 15. That's
>>more typical of a VZW corporate store.
>
> Probably. That particular store is very chaotic. Customers wall to
> wall, employees too.

Brea, you mean?

Thing is, Verizon doesn't *sell* 50 different phone models. I've noticed up
here, they have more than 15 total display models, but there are certain
handsets that you can find in more than one place on the display. That seems to
be independent of how busy the store is or where it's located.

> I bet she would save $40 a month with F&F on Sprint however. She is
> on the phone all the time.

F&F saves you money in certain specific situations. You really would have to
analyze her calling patterns to make an educated decision.


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:33:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:36:59 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>
>> I bet she would save $40 a month with F&F on Sprint however. She is
>> on the phone all the time.
>
>F&F saves you money in certain specific situations. You really would have to
>analyze her calling patterns to make an educated decision.
I have been looking into it.
I agree, analysis is necessary. But it encourages you to get a lower
plan than you expect to use, and extra minutes are 5 cents.
There are few plans with 5 cent minutes, so you want to use as many
extra as possible.

It's a far cry from most carriers where extra minutes are 45 cents. I
can't see where it would ever get that bad.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:33:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:36:59 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>I bet she would save $40 a month with F&F on Sprint however. She is
>>>on the phone all the time.
>>
>>F&F saves you money in certain specific situations. You really would have to
>>analyze her calling patterns to make an educated decision.
>
> I have been looking into it.
> I agree, analysis is necessary. But it encourages you to get a lower
> plan than you expect to use, and extra minutes are 5 cents.
> There are few plans with 5 cent minutes, so you want to use as many
> extra as possible.

Yeah, I'm on F&F 700, but I've stopped using my phone as much, so even though
700 minutes is the smallest amount that gives you 5c/minute overages (the lower
packages are 10c/min), I might drop down anyhow...

> It's a far cry from most carriers where extra minutes are 45 cents. I
> can't see where it would ever get that bad.

Yeah, but here's the thing. Go 99 minutes over, and it's about 5c per minute.
Go one minute over and it still cost you $5.00 -- that's $5/minute, two minutes
is $2.50/minute, etc. I think Sprint is correct in marketing it as a plan that
will help you avoid nasty surprises. They advertise that they'll bump you
another 100 minutes for $5. They don't necessarily market it as saving money.
But I like the idea of not having nasty surprises, so I switched anyhow... :) 


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
!