backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by pakotlar.. on Dec 31 at 8:49 PM


U.S. Federal Communications Commission member Mignon Clyburn has written a response to Verizon essentially calling it a liar about its mobile internet fines and saying that its response about early termination fees being used for advertising and other purposes was "troubling".  (Source: Radio Facts)

  (Source: FCC via Gizmodo)
Investigation will continue in the new year, action may be forthcoming

For all the flak that AT&T has been getting lately, this time it's Verizon that's at the center of a growing controversy.  Verizon recently doubled its early termination fees from $175 to a hulking $350 on "advanced devices" (smartphones).  While it does prorate the fine, as other carriers do, this is the highest ETF of any major U.S. carrier (most charge between $150 and $200).  In other words, feel free to join the nation's largest wireless network -- but don't leave it, or you'll be sorry.

It wasn't just customers that were offended by this new policy.  The U.S. Federal Communications Commission launched an inquiry into why the carrier had bumped its ETFs.  The FCC was probably tired of hearing consumer complaints -- according to the Government Accountability Office, since 2004 ETFs have been a leading source of complaints to the FCC about cell phones.

Verizon responded, defending its tactics by explaining that without the fines customers could potentially sell its discounted smart phones at a profit (after cancellation).  It also revealed, though, that unlike most carriers, it was applying ETFs to other purposes such as advertising expenses.

Now Mignon Clyburn, one of the FCC's five board members has sent a letter to Verizon, criticizing the response.  She writes that the carrier's response was "unsatisfying and, in some cases, troubling".  She says that customers already pay "high" fees and that the public interest isn't served by slamming them with big fines.

She also essentially called Verizon out when it comes to the company's web services fees.  In addition to the ETF debacle, the FCC is also investigating claims that Verizon has been slapping fines on customers that press the web service button.  Verizon, in its letter to the FCC claimed that this was untrue and that any fees were billing errors.  Ms. Clyburn comments that the "press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise."  She says that she is "alarmed" by the fact that customers "have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones launching Verizon's Wireless mobile internet service."

She states ominously, "I look forward to exploring this issue in greater depth with my colleagues in the New Year."

The FCC has the right to impose fines on carriers it finds to be violating consumer protection laws or the reasonable practice guidelines it sets out.  Though it seldom uses this privilege, it does command a good deal of clout in the telecommunications industry.  If nothing else, an FCC investigation and ruling against a company like Verizon spawns a long trail of bad press, something most company would like to avoid, if possible.

The FCC has published a series of guidelines about early termination fees, which Verizon may be violating.  One thing that weakens the carrier's argument is that many of its rival carriers like T-Mobile have actually lowered early termination fees, even on discounted smart phones.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Anti-competitive?
By BigPeen on 12/24/2009 12:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
When are they gonna stop beating around the bush and rule that bundling discounted phones is anti-competitive and illegal. It's the only way to bring down prices of phones and phone plans.




RE: Anti-competitive?
By TheRequiem on 12/24/2009 12:59:30 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree with this assessment, most companies offer discounts and bundles for advertisement and new contracts. Also is the fact that if a particular company is having a harder time of competing with a larger entity, they have every right to offer more affordable solutions to build their subscriber base. However, in the end, they always get their money by their outrageous fees, early termination fees and millions of other little charges they squeeze in there. Sometimes I feel like buying a cell phone is like buying a car.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By mcnabney on 12/24/2009 4:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
You do understand that they are selling devices that cost them $400-$550 for just $50 to $200, right?

Think back to the earlier Blackberrys, Treos, and original iPhone... Those devices cost customers $300 to $450 with a contract.

All Verizon is doing is bundling two discounts onto a single device sale and adding ETFs for both. When you buy a smartphone they are taking off about $150-200 for the required voice service and $150-200 for the required data service. The ETF is needed to protect the subsidy. Since the subsidy and service contracts have essentially doubled, so has the ETF.

You are lucky there is even a termination fee. They could hold you to your contract and continue to bill you for service, even if you don't use it. Two years of the minimum voice and data service at Verizon will cost $1560 - so paying a $350 fee is a huge break.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By BigPeen on 12/24/2009 5:33:24 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize that bundling items is incredibly anti-competetive? And has been proven as such in MANY other industries? The whole point of bundling phones and 2 year contracts is to make it impossible to get carriers to compete on service price. They lock customers in so they can't move easily and quickly between carriers. That would push prices down. If consumers were actually footing the bill for the phones, that would drive the price of phones down too.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Bateluer on 12/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Anti-competitive?
By chagrinnin on 12/24/2009 1:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ewwww,...I dont know what a Veyron is but I want one. :D


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Patrese on 12/25/2009 8:08:25 AM , Rating: 1
This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron

His post still sucks though. :)


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Bremen7000 on 12/24/2009 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 5
I think the point is that without the forced bundling, the companies would have to rely on good old-fashioned price wars to compete for consumers that aren't locked into whichever carrier they chose 18 months ago. The US cell phone industry is really a joke.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By ChristopherO on 12/24/2009 3:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize T-Mobile has this option... Pay more for your phone, plans are cheaper by $10/mo, and there is no contract whatsoever. The catch, the phones are usually a lot more. The cheapies, no, but a smartphone... You can pay almost double without their incentives. I have bought nothing but unlocked free-market GSM devices in the last few purchases, so I'm enjoying cheaper plans. Plus, if you have a smart phone, if you buy an unlocked one from somewhere else, they don't know you have a smart phone, and thus you don't actually need to buy a data plan if you don't need it (which defeats the purpose, but I guess some people would like a wi-fi phone that doesn't need constant data communications).


RE: Anti-competitive?
By zxern on 12/24/2009 4:03:10 PM , Rating: 4
You can thank the carriers and their bundling practices for the stupidly high retail price.

The prices wouldn't be nearly so high if they had to sell directly to the consumer.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Bateluer on 12/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Anti-competitive?
By davej420 on 12/25/2009 1:36:38 AM , Rating: 3
ever heard of supply and demand?


RE: Anti-competitive?
By TSS on 12/25/2009 9:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
He's got a point though. My friend is much more into mobile phones then me and a few weeks back he showed me the latest model phone, which featured a dual core.

I guess i'm a bit old fashioned but i was like "you need a dual core to call somebody up these days?"


RE: Anti-competitive?
By omnicronx on 12/24/2009 1:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
How is it anti competitive or illegal? I don't mind the idea of ETF's just not this high. They should be capped at the price they pay for the phone plus some small markup.

Otherwise people would just sign on for a phone plan, cancel and keep the phone. Like it or not this is the sad reality, people will take advantage if given the opportunity.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By mcnabney on 12/24/2009 5:03:50 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, that is exactly what they are doing.

The Droid is sold to Verizon from Motorola for about $500 each. Verizon is currently selling them to new customers for $200 after rebate. Existing customers might get them for as little as $100. Now do you understand?


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Uncle on 12/26/2009 3:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
Motorola must have forgotten to lower the price to Verizon after they made the sale to the Army. Same as the $500 dollar hammers.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By amanojaku on 12/24/2009 1:09:18 PM , Rating: 5
I want to see phones that work on all carriers. THAT will drive down prices since the playing field will be leveled. The only advantages carriers would have would be service quality, customer service quality, and pricing. If the iPhone existed everywhere AT&T would be f*cked.

I agree that people should buy their phones separately from the plans, and that carriers should not subsidize them. I'm not aware of any landlines that come with phones, so you have the option of buying the cheapest PoS or an expensive handset like a Bang & Olufsen. You aren't locked into whatever the carrier offers.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Oregonian2 on 12/24/2009 2:20:56 PM , Rating: 4
Landlines USED to come with phones. In fact you weren't allowed to connect a user-owned phone to it. You could ONLY rent the phone(s) which still belonged to the phone company.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By DM0407 on 12/24/2009 3:37:59 PM , Rating: 1
How old are you?


RE: Anti-competitive?
By ChristopherO on 12/24/2009 3:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
He's right. That was just as recent as the 70s. The modular phone jack really helped do away with that practice. Some older homes still have hardwired rotaries in them.

However a couple posts up... That guy has a pipe dream. Phone companies will not be forced to run the same technology. If they want to offer GSM/CDMA/iDEN, then alas you'll have incompatible crap... The only thing that could change that would be federal law mandating GSM and derivatives, but hundreds of millions of lobbying cash will make sure nothing is ever made into a national standard.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By mcnabney on 12/24/2009 5:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that would be a CDMA/GSM/TDMA/iDEN/EVDO/HSDPA/HSPA/LTE/WIMAXX device. It could be built and would be a pretty large phone. It would also cost at least double the price of an equivalent device due to all of the extra licensed chips inside. No carrier would sell it, so you would pay full retail for it - probably $1000. However, carriers would likely activate it for you since it would have both a SIM card and an MEID number.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Bateluer on 12/24/2009 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
Aren't AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon all moving to LTE based networks in the near future? The device would just need to be capable of tx/rx on the carrier's frequencies.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By abhaxus on 12/28/2009 8:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
The sprint blackberry world tour gets on CDMA and GSM I believe. Enough that it works anywhere. No larger than the regular tour. At the very least, the old 8830 had a world edition, and it was the same as as regular 8830.

Wouldn't be too hard to combine the two, methinks.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Jalek on 12/24/2009 8:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
There are school districts and other institutions still using those phones installed in the 60's and 70's. As long as they have phone switching gear that can handle rotaries, those things will never die.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By HrilL on 12/25/2009 2:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Unless the school district got smart and realized how much they could save with a VoIP option using an open source system like FreeSwitch. Then all you need to get is a SIP provider for you to pipe FreeSwitch into. 100 lines = ~600 a month bill and that includes the cost of renting a medium instance size from AWS. Then all you need is an internet connection and every schools got that now days... You would also have the upfront cost of some PoE swicthes and phones but that is a one time cost.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Oregonian2 on 12/25/2009 3:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think all systems still are required to be "rotary compatible" (and it's trivial to do so). Even my FiOS termination box probably accepts a rotary phone. Note that phone interfaces still have the same voltage/current characteristics as well as the same ringing voltage (pretty high), etc. I've an (updated, modular connector) Erica-phone complete with the rotary dial on the bottom that I pull out of the closet once in a while, and it still worked the last time I tried it (albeit before FiOS a year or two ago).


RE: Anti-competitive?
By delphinus100 on 12/26/2009 10:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm almost 56, and he's right. Google 'carterfone decision'


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Chernobyl68 on 12/28/2009 4:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
check out the movie "War Games" and Matthew Broderick's modem...


RE: Anti-competitive?
By Targon on 12/24/2009 11:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see a problem with a carrier offering a discount on a new device, even to the point where they lose money on the initial sale of the device in exchange for a two year contract which WOULD result in profits. That is a fair trade-off in my opinion. On the flip side, it would be nice for those who buy an unlocked phone to get some sort of discount on the cost of the service, but I don't expect to EVER see that.


RE: Anti-competitive?
By fox12789 on 12/30/2009 9:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.brand-bar.com
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping
http://www.brand-bar.com


RE: Anti-competitive?
By fox12789 on 12/30/2009 9:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.brand-bar.com
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping
http://www.brand-bar.com


RE: Anti-competitive?
By fox12789 on 12/30/2009 9:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.brand-bar.com
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping
http://www.brand-bar.com


Hah
By TheRequiem on 12/24/2009 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with this statement. I think the FCC should represent the people and send a clear message across the industry and if they do, they will deserve our praise.

This should have never been in their budget to begin with.




RE: Hah
By TheRequiem on 12/24/2009 1:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
Btw, I still feel like a telco company should "never" include early termination fee's to produce income for upgrading their network and whatever else they desire to do... it should simply be there to impose a penalty to make up for the cost of the phone. I hardly agree that 6 months of service (for example) and a $700 phone you got for $200 makes an excsue for $350. We are going to get raped if we let this happen because then every other company will follow suite.

Every month, Sprint extracts $200+ from my account and they are one of the more affordable companies. All I have is 2 unlimited lines and a 4G card.


RE: Hah
By Oregonian2 on 12/24/2009 2:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, with our AT&T account with my wife and I both having phones with pragmatically unlimited minutes of use, we pay around $65/month. Depends what you sign up for.


RE: Hah
By Solandri on 12/24/2009 5:29:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Btw, I still feel like a telco company should "never" include early termination fee's to produce income for upgrading their network and whatever else they desire to do... it should simply be there to impose a penalty to make up for the cost of the phone. I hardly agree that 6 months of service (for example) and a $700 phone you got for $200 makes an excsue for $350. We are going to get raped if we let this happen because then every other company will follow suite.

That's precisely the problem with the ETF fees. This whole system of selling the phone for less than cost, subsidizing its cost with higher monthly fees, and charging people an ETF fee for canceling service early, it all muddles up the transparency of what exactly your money is paying for.

The monthly fee should be for service. That's it. If they want to sell you a $500 phone for $200, they should structure it as a loan for $300 amortized into monthly payments spread over the 2-year contract. Your monthly bill would then have a monthly service fee + a monthly loan repayment charge. If you drop the service early, the remaining balance on the loan becomes due. The system they're using right now lets them rape millions of subscribers who are out of contract or don't get the most expensive phone, in the form of monthly service fees which are higher than they need to be.


RE: Hah
By cmdrdredd on 12/26/2009 9:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
Why won't people read the contract before signing it? If you think you might want to cancel then don't sign up for 2 years. The grass isn't always greener on the other side you know. If you wanted an iPhone instead of that Droid or vice versa, then you should have made that decision in your mind first.

I think this is pathetic, blaming a company for your buyers remorse. Nobody forced you to sign up if you really didn't want to. Plus, you understand that subsidizing the phone cost and offering it to you cheaply provided you sign up with a contract is the only way to get most people to purchase a "smart phone". Do you really think every 13-14 year old would have an iPhone if they had to pay the $400-$600 for it? I don't think so.

It's very simple, consumers need to take personal responsibility for their purchases. This went back to the housing market as well. Someone was offered a loan for a home they clearely couldn't afford, they don't read the contract and don't even attempt to calculate their payments and whether they really can afford it. They just sign their name and are stuck. You can try to push blame around all you want, you have every opportunity to read the contract and figure out how much it would cost. If you don't, that's your problem.

If everyone would get off this bandwagon of "I must have the newest and best phones" this wouldn't even matter.


RE: Hah
By protosv on 12/27/2009 2:16:24 AM , Rating: 3
I don't understand the issue you have with the post you are replying to. Nobody is blaming the company for buyer's remorse. In fact, he's saying that phone companies should be allowed to recoup their investment costs on the device itself over the term of the contract, and that early termination of that contract would require the customer to pay the balance of the cost of the device. The issue is that once your contract is up and the phone company has already recovered their costs on the device, they still continue to charge you a higher monthly rate which factors in a certain amount for the phone itself even though you already paid it off!!!

Also, the issue the FCC commissioner has here is not with the ETFs as cost-recovery mechanisms for the phones themselves, but that Verizon has also justified their use as a mechanism of recovering costs associated with advertising etc, something that ETFs should not be charged for. To quote her directly (emphasis mine),

"I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs ," she wrote. "No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used foot the bill for 'advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs' ."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/fc...


RE: Hah
By cmdrdredd on 12/27/2009 12:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
A company is there to make money. This government is hell bent on killing free market and destroying any reason a company would have to attempt to make money.


RE: Hah
By jdietz on 12/27/2009 3:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's why everyone should switch to T-Mobile, who offers an unsubsidized no ETF contract. To the best of my knowlege, only they and per-minute carriers like TracFone offer this type of contract. Note: T-Mobile offers subsidized contracts as well.

Or, everyone will continue to do as they please and sign up for ETF contracts. Contract simplification is desperately needed in all industries. The Comcast internet service contract is a 50-page book!


RE: Hah
By pakotlar on 12/31/2009 8:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong: isn't the combination of ETF's AND increased usage fees a blatant form of double billing for the same cost?

Look at it this way: Say that on a new phone ATT & Verizon really give you a $400 break. You lock into a 2 year contract, with an amortized ETF "charge" that is added to your bill, at a rate of $400/24 or about 15 dollars a month.

And carriers will compete on cost this way: only certain carriers will get "amortized" phones, while the rest of us will have to pay full retail if we desire that model. Sounds fair to me.

Now outside of that "amortized" exclusivity (like is happening with the Tmobile plan), every carrier has to compete on PRICE. No cop-outs with artificially inflated service fees for "discounted" phones. Every discounted phone simply adds a nominal fee of 10-20 dollars to your bill each month, and if you cancel you either return the phone or pay the rest of the balance (remaining on your discount bill).

Full transparency, no bullshit. Why isn't this happening.


RE: Hah
By Suntan on 12/29/2009 11:06:37 AM , Rating: 2
I would rather see the people using their brain (and a little backbone) to show the companies what they really want. Don’t sign a contract if you don’t like the terms. Then tell your cell phone company that you want a service plan that isn’t chained to a 2 yr contract.

Just stop being pussies about it. Signing the contract then go crying to the FCC that you don’t like it… Entirely too much of that mentality around here now-a-days, whinging to the government when you find out you are unhappy about the (dumb) choices you have made.

-Suntan


RE: Hah
By wempa on 12/29/2009 12:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, seriously. Don't sign a 2 year contract if you don't like the terms. Now, I'm sure the phone companies share some of the blame though because I never hear them mention the ETF when offering a customer a "great" deal on a new cell phone plan. They should be required to make sure the customer understands the penalty should they break the contract. A detail like that shouldn't be buried in the paperwork. You can get a decent discount on a phone with only a 1 year contract or you can pay regular price for the phone and have no contract. I don't see what the major issue is here, unless they were trying to get like $1000 for the ETF.


Troubling behavior
By stimudent on 12/24/2009 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
The way Verizon has been conducting itself in the marketplace in general lately is troubling. Did they recently get a new management team??
Personally, I used to think of Verizon as clean and trouble free as Tiger Woods. Could this possibly be another fall from grace?




RE: Troubling behavior
By mcnabney on 12/24/2009 5:16:58 PM , Rating: 3
No, this appeared when people would buy two Blackberrys for $50 and pay two ETFs for $350. Then they turned around and sold them, brand new in box, for $250 each without a contract. So the 'customer' could actually make money buying and reselling the devices because the secondary market price was higher than the original sale price plus ETF.

The other option is to raise their device pricing. If you want lower device pricing in general, make exclusive deals illegal (iPhone, Pre, Storm, Droid...) But that isn't American. Do you know what else isn't American? Breaking your damn contract!


At least..
By omnicronx on 12/24/2009 1:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Its not 400 dollars like mine =P

I'll never go on an long term contract again because of such regardless of how cheap the phone is. Lost my phone with 1 1/2 years left and had to pay 240 dollars as I was not going to pay for a new phone on a locked CDMA network (would have cost me an arm and a leg).

Funny thing is they told me the best solution would be to pay the ETF and sign back up with them to get a free phone. I laughed and immediately asked to cancel.

Thank god for craigslist, I just went to all 3 major phone companies in my area and started asking for the best deal i could get as I would already have a phone. You can really get an amazing phone plan this way, I now save over 200 year/year compared to my old plan which I thought was pretty good in the first place.




RE: At least..
By Jalek on 12/24/2009 8:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
I tried that a few years ago, and nobody would play along. It was the same rate with or without a contract, so of course they could pitch that you might as well take a "free" phone since you'd be paying the same.


It's the bite that hurts, not the bark ...
By pjs on 12/25/2009 3:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
... so the FTC should stop barking (wimpy fines that are much less than what the illegal action has brought in $$$-wises) and start biting. A bite that will make stockholders sit up and say that this management "team" needs to be replaced and no golden parachutes.

Get some cahones, FTC!




By HrilL on 12/25/2009 2:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
We're talking about the FCC Federal Communications Commission. The FTC is the Federal Trade Commission. They don't exactly do the same thing but some areas could overlap.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki