[Macworld]

Post your comments for FCC examines mobile termination fees here

[danviento]

ETFs are, as the article stated, are another part of the cost that subsidizes the total cost of a handset. The problem is, when we don't know what handsets are really worth, we don't know how far beyond simple subsidization these tacked on fees go. Most people could do the math and see whether the cost was worth it.

ETFs are a status quo for many carriers. I'd prefer the simple Pay-Go system and maybe finance the cost of the phone for x-number of the first months of my contract.
ETFs are part of a legal contract you signed. If you didn't think it the phone deal was worth the risk of a preference to switch carriers, then you shouldn't have signed the contract. There are other providers out there that don't have plans with ETFs, and you could have chosen them instead.
Carriers are getting smarter and dropping these, albeit slowly. This is a matter of the market, not something the gov't should meddle with. If one carrier starts stealing customers from others by not including a ETF clause, then its success will drive others to do the same. Just look at what iPhone's unlimited data plan did to others prices. It was mere weeks before they offered a similar price point.
The one anecdote of a man not signing a contract, but being hit with penalties of an ETF and those resulting from not paying it is not illustrative of the situation in general. I his instance, he could seek damages. For the rest of us, honor your contract and switch to someone else later if you don't like it. Don't go whining to Nanny FCC and the Senate because you don't like the results of your previous decision. Further regulation is just going to drive companies to other hidden costs. Those that are open with the entire cost of plans up front will eventually win out by getting more customers.
Regulations never solve the problem, only slow it before prodding it to surge again. People would be better off learning to be patient and let markets correct mistakes like these.
Keep in mind that as I say this, I too am a VZW customer who wants out so I can get an iPhone, but will gladly wait the remainder of the 2 years (couple of mos. left) before demanding someone sacrifice our liberty for simpler contracts. Children demand what the want now. Adults can wait for the payoff later.

[TheBum]

I understand the need to subsidize phones and the fact that the consumer is essentially doing time payments on the subsidized portion of the phone as part of the plan fees.
What irks me is that, once the contract term is up, the carriers continue to charge the same rates and don't offer any unsubsidized plans. Why should I continue to be charged subsidization fees after I've already paid off the phone? I think the carriers should be required to have an unsubsidized fee structure and automatically transition plans to that structure when the contract expires.

[rickcarl]

Unfortunately this child came with a setup fee from the hospital, a usage fee from IRS and an ETF at the funeral home because my adult parents couldn't wait. :^0
> Children demand what the want now. Adults can wait for the payoff later.

[Martian]

Generations ago, the FCC broke the landline phone companies’ lock on equipment by requiring the utilities to allow customer purchased handsets, answering machines and fax machines. I think the term was “interconnection”.
Let’s repeat that success for the current generation — ban locked phones and require full interconnection. We don’t buy our landline phone equipment from the phone company, we don’t buy our TV’s from the cable company, we don’t buy our computers from the ISP’s, and we shouldn’t buy our cell phones from the cell service providers.

[flybynight]

Martian said:

>We don’t buy our landline phone equipment from the phone company, we don’t buy our TV’s from the cable company, we don’t buy our computers from the ISP’s, and we shouldn’t buy our cell phones from the cell service providers.
But we DO buy our cable/satellite boxes (or dish) from the provider and we DO buy our DSL or cable modems from our ISP's. I'm not saying that I don't agree that it would be nice if your proposal worked that way... just that your examples fall short.

[flybynight]

Quote

{quote:title=danviento}{quote}

Well said! Yes, people... vote with your dollar! If the government forces the end of ETF's, then your phones will no longer be free (or at least cheap). Or the cell provider will find some other way to charge you more. Do you think they will just voluntarily give up a revenue source without replacing it with something else?
If you want to know the real price of your phone, lose or break it before your contract is up and go try to buy a new one. Then, you'll find out how much the phone SHOULD have cost you. Government just needs to stay out of the free market or they'll screw it up. Sure, it sounds lofty to say that we are going to tax the "windfall profits" of the oil companies (keep in mind that ~8.5% margin is hardly a windfall profit in any other industry), but that just means that their cost of doing business will go up and it will cost all of us more at the pump. Why don't people get this? Capitalism is a GOOD thing, at least here in the USA.
Personally, I'd rather pay more upfront for the iPhone 3G than have my monthly data plan go up. I'll probably wait this one out and enjoy the benefits of the software update on my existing iPhone.

[folklore]

Historically speaking, some carriers have tried not having ETFs. My first Sprint phone did not have a contract. This would have been back in the late 1990's or early 2000's. Sprint was marketing their no-contract plans quite heavily at the time. They eventually followed the rest of the industry, however, presumably because the increased subscribers weren't worth the lost fees.

While I love the market, there certainly are areas where regulation is needed and does solve problems. Unregulated capitalism isn't all its cracked up to be, particularly when an industry is comprised of a very few players. Oligarchical markets are actually anti-competitive markets. There isn't enough competition in the market, leaving consumers with far too little real choices for a market economy to work. When all the providers have the same (non-negotiable) rules, consumers really can't vote with their wallets and buy a different product. Different products simply don't exist.

Consumers basically have three options in this sort of situation: 1) Simply not use whatever product/service is being offered; 2) Start their own company that fills the perceived gap in the market; 3) Ask government to regulate. Given the general usefulness of cell phones and the huge start-up costs associated with a fledgling cell company, it seems rational to ask for regulation.

[Martian]

bq. flybynight wrote:
bq.
bq. bq. Martian wrote: We don’t buy our landline phone equipment from the phone company, we don’t buy our TV’s from the cable company, we don’t buy our computers from the ISP’s, and we shouldn’t buy our cell phones from the cell service providers.
bq.
bq. But we DO buy our cable/satellite boxes (or dish) from the provider and we DO buy our DSL or cable modems from our ISP's. I'm not saying that I don't agree that it would be nice if your proposal worked that way... just that your examples fall short.
Good point. But perhaps you would agree that the cable/satellite boxes and especially the modems are more like interchangeable generic commodities — thus immaterial — than are the new cell phones with their infinite and ever changing permutation of features.
Regarding capitalism vs government interference. Capitalism’s supply and demand free market actually works best when the occasional monopoly or oligarchy is restrained. Absolutes, are often not the best course, and laissez faire capitalism is one of those lousy absolutes.
“User pay” is certainly a capitalistic concept and an efficient market concept. Mandatory unlocked phones bought from third party retailers would allow the user to pay for the phone of his choice, and the pure cell carrier would be charging a “user pay” price for the monthly service.

[leicaman]

[quote name='flybynight']
>

Martian said:

>We don’t buy our landline phone equipment from the phone company, we don’t buy our TV’s from the cable company, we don’t buy our computers from the ISP’s, and we shouldn’t buy our cell phones from the cell service providers.
But we DO buy our cable/satellite boxes (or dish) from the provider and we DO buy our DSL or cable modems from our ISP's. I'm not saying that I don't agree that it would be nice if your proposal worked that way... just that your examples fall short.

No, actually we don't. My TiVO HD is mine, and as of last July, the cable company is required by law to let me have cable cards to use it. Now they have made them work poorly (Time Warner has that is) so they punish me for not paying for an HD DVR every month.

And cable modems have been optional as well. You can pick them up at any electronics store for minimal cost.

So in the same way we should be able to use our phones with whatever services we want that supports them. And phone makers, if they were smart, would not restrict themselves to single carriers. But it's their way of keeping the competition out. Monopolistic, predatory ways are the ways of cable, FIOS, telephone, cellular and other communications companies. Maybe we should turn them into utilities and regulate prices. Have one system that works with all phones.

The only problem with that idea is it would do away with what little competition we have now. And thus we would lose the miniscule innovation from all the cell makers (other than Apple obviously). And we're already way behind most of the rest of the world.

So we are stuck.
Message was edited by: leicaman

[IsleHdwGuy]

I was kind of hoping that Apple was changing the cell phone market with the original iPhone and it's Non-subsidized pricing but alas even they have been sucked into carriers mindset with the "new" subsidized iPhone 3G.
All I want is to buy the best handset for me and take it to the best network for me. Why is that so difficult for these guy to understand? If an unsubsidized handset is too expensive, that should be the manufacturer's problem, not the carrier's. It's called a free market!

[dcingram]

I have refused to sign these agreements and have a pay-as-you-go phone from Virgin/Sprint.

I want to "graduate" to an iphone but I cannot have an iphone without a two year agreement according to Apple and AT&T, so, I cannot have an iphone.