Re: New every Two - Downgrade
- From: "Win Grant" <wingrant@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:58:52 -0400
This notion of the carriers subsidizing phones is largely a myth that they
want to perpetuate. While it was true in the early days that the carriers
paid more for the phones than they sold them for, that is rarely the case
today, but it is an excuse for the carriers to make a substantial profit
whenever the customer wants to upgrade a phone.
For example, the Motorola SLVR L7, unlocked, can be purchased for $211 or
less, yet Cingular charges $199 for a locked version with a 2 year
commitment. Some subsidy: save $12 on a locked phone that comes with a
$175 ETF if you cancel in less than 2 years.
Since all the CDMA phones are locked, we VZW customers have no option but to
pay Verizon's high profit prices if we want to upgrade. GSM users have lots
"al" <Sorry_Spammers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Larry <larry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As others have said, there is nothing wrong (IMO) with the requirement
that you are committed to a 2-year contract to get a subsidized new
phone ... and this is not a change from way it's always been.
I'd be curious to know how the other major wireless vendors compare.
No there's not.And all the rest of the "major wireless vendors" have
There will always be people who feel the cell providers should simply give
away $200-$300 cellphones for trying their service for a few weeks.
- Prev by Date: Re: New software update for 700W
- Next by Date: Re: New every Two - Downgrade
- Previous by thread: Re: New every Two - Downgrade
- Next by thread: Re: New every Two - Downgrade