This is splitting hairs at a level the attorneys I know would be embarrassed to be a part of.
Kevin Dean writes: >On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Robert Taylor ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Kevin Dean wrote: >>> I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious" >>> that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service >>> (cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no >>> matter what phone you have. >>> >>> In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of >>> PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the >>> service contract doesn't. >>> >>> >> Which part of "a portion of the contract pays for you phone ... phone >> ISN'T FREE, YOU ARE FINANCING THE PURCHASE OF THE PHONE VIA THE >> CONTRACT" is hard to understand? > >I understand that statement ENTIRELY. Now that we're done beating down >straw men, where have I ONCE mentioned anything about a "free phone" >(with the exception of the use of quoting a previous poster, in >responce to his use of the term) ? > >I have not. > >The average person walks into a cellular retailer, purchases a phone >(A phone that is clearly marked as costing, say $199) signs up for the >two year contract and recieves a discount on the phone and begins a >service subscription. So far, so good. >To say that he's getting a free phone is stupid - he got a $199 phone When I signed up with T-Mobile, the market value of the phone they "gave" me wasn't displayed anywhere. It was described as a *free* phone. I did read the contract; if it said it anywhere, it was written in 1/2 point type around the margin like the "Santa clause". >as a bonus for signing up for a contractual service (a voluntary >service, by the way!). Did he pay for the phone? No. What he did was >reduce the phone company's profit margin by making them expend more >money in order to gain him as a customer of the recurring subscription >for vioce/data services. "Making"? I don't think so. I would have been happier if they'd reduced their profit margin the same amount by letting me walk out of the store with a naked SIM card and a lower monthly bill. Not allowing me that choice was entirely their decision. >If I walk into a retail outlet for my mobile service provider, I can >pay for a phone WITHOUT service - I get no credits or refunds from the >cellular provider. I pay for the phone. Haven't tried it. The local stores sure don't advertise that option, and it doesn't really address whether I can buy a plan without a phone (and not pay for the phone). >I can also have my OWN phone and walk into a cellular service provider >and sign up for a contract of video/data service. The price I pay for >that service is the same as the price paid by the person who took the >discount on the phone. I am simply creating a higher profit revenue >for that company in the process. And you see this as something other than being forced* to pay for the subsidized phone, without getting the phone? Your logic escapes me. *Using the term loosely. I realize nobody is forcing me to have the contract at all -- but given that I want the contract, paying the phone subsidy isn't optional. _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
