28 replies to this topic

[Prymaldark]

If you bought your phone full price there is no reason why they should do this, it is just lies and misinformation to keep your contract...I have heard giving a valid excuse such as "where I work gets terrible reception and I need to switch networks" might help. They are just giving you the run around. Pretty lame..

I worked in a call center at one point, it was independently owned, but the calls I was receiving were billing questions regarding VZ landline services. Part of the problem is that the reps receive minimal training necessary to start fielding calls, much of the time when they tell you that something can not be done, it really means that they have no idea how to do it, or do not have the authority to do it.

There is tremendous pressure on the reps to resolve every call they receive, in a very short time frame, and with minimal to no hold time (which is used to research questions they do not know the answer to already). The reps are also under sales quotas, their main reason for taking your call would seem to be to resolve your issue, but that is only half of it, they must also find a way to sell you something that you will not immediately deactivate. Their pay is based upon an hourly wage, but the commissions can pay much more than the hourly rate, especially for the reps that the company considers to be model employees.

Personally, I feel that replacing customer service representatives with customer sales representatives is a bad idea, and may be the reason for such high dissatisfaction with network operators in this country. I do not know how the customer support systems are set up elsewhere, so I do not have any concrete evidence, but to me it seems like a common sense issue.

The majority of my incoming calls were basically complaints that the bill was too much, and yet I was expected to sell them something else, and generally something more. Sure 49.99/mo for phone/net/TV sounds great, but by the time the bill is due it is suddenly 80+. Oh, you have had the service for more than three months, well now the 49.99 is actually 99.99, and the bill gets upwards of 130 by the time the bill is due. The pricing schemes need to stop, but who will stop them?

When I was calling them and started mentioning the FCC regulations, I was immediately transferred to a higher level representative. Even then, there are certain things that VZ does not want done, therefore no reps are ever trained in how to do those things.

[cdavid469]

Actually, I don't completely agree with the part about paying for the phone. The carrier subsidizes the price in order to get a multi-year service plan from the consumer. So technically, it's not your problem that the device was sold to you (perhaps) below cost, you own it. I think of it more like signing up for a two-year DirecTV contract and getting a DVR for free, or getting a free cable modem with your internet service - in those cases, at least, the contract states that you own the device immediately, but you are obligated to a defined service period. VZW likes to make us think that we are still paying for our phones for the entire contract period (as they like us to think they are a content provider rather than just the pipe), but to the best of my knowledge, the contract requires you to pay for service, not the phone. It's paid for when you sign up. There must be some leasing plans too, just like DVRs and cable modems have, I'm just saying that's not always the case.

and here comes my problem with it, there is an early termination fee, a fee providers built in, with the intention of making you pay for the subsidy you received while using their service, and since you paid either the early termination or kept the contract until the phone was "paid" for, it is your device.

[cdavid469]

this is the first time I can think of where a company is allowed to retain possession of a piece of equipment your clearly paying for after you have fulfilled you obligation to them.

[comakills]

I would expect this type of misinformation from Fox, any other media outlets making this claim?

I haven't heard anyone else. I think it really boils down to terminology. They did clarify what they meant to say after the fact.

[comakills]

You know I think if they don't want to resend the law, They should amend it to force carriers to have a version of every model for every carrier. e.g. A droid Rzr M for att and for t mobile and sprint and so on.

[comakills]

this is the first time I can think of where a company is allowed to retain possession of a piece of equipment your clearly paying for after you have fulfilled you obligation to them.

Well There was the electric car EV1 GM had in the 90's that no one could keep. They were all "recalled" And GM crushed them. There are I think two or so still around but people who leased them did not want to give them up. I know this has nothing to do with the forum but it is an example of a Corp. taking something that the owners clearly wanted to keep. Even Danny Davito spoke out against GM with no avail.

[cdavid469]

Well There was the electric car EV1 GM had in the 90's that no one could keep. They were all "recalled" And GM crushed them. There are I think two or so still around but people who leased them did not want to give them up. I know this has nothing to do with the forum but it is an example of a Corp. taking something that the owners clearly wanted to keep. Even Danny Davito spoke out against GM with no avail.

the keyword is leased, they were not purchased, but essentially rented, when I buy my phone I assume I have outright ownership.

[comakills]

the keyword is leased, they were not purchased, but essentially rented, when I buy my phone I assume I have outright ownership.

I understand that but my point is that no one could buy them. Ever.

[comakills]

Well, readers, remember a few months ago when T-Mobile was carpet bombing your TV with ads about bringing your unlocked phone to them? Well, with the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ruling, that will just be a pipe dream.

Now, I've done quite a bit of reading on this issue and I'm going to condense the information as most articles on this matter are ambiguous, at best.

Here's the lowdown:

First, when we talk about unlocking, we're talking about the ability to unlock the phone from being carrier-specific. Consider the iPhone, you could buy it from ATT, then take it to T-Mobile or Verizon and activate it with them if the phone is unlocked. This law prohibits doing that.

Second, and I can't stress this enough, rooting (or "jailbreaking" for you iPhone users) is still 100% legal as rooting your phone will not allow you to run the phone on a carrier that the phone wasn't designed for. The same goes for unlocking the bootloader on devices that allow it. That's still fine. It will still void your warranty, but it's legal.

Third, in order to change carriers, you'll need to have permission from the carrier you bought the phone from in order to unlock the phone (good luck with that one). Basically, if you buy a phone from a carrier at a discounted (upgrade, subsidized) price, you will not be able to unlock it and take it to another carrier.

Now, the big question is "how would they be able to enforce it?". Well, now with the new DMCA ruling, carriers will have federal legislative backing and can enforce this law. There are no specifics on what they can do, but it's a fair assumption that you'd receive a warning letter first, then they could, theoretically, terminate your service without warning.

In short, it's a mess. With all the caveats and ins and outs of this new act, it seems that "bringing your own device" ends tomorrow. Now, there is a 90 day window from tomorrow to unlock your locked phone, after those 90 days expire, unlocking phones will no longer be allowed.


So, readers, what are your thoughts? Think it's a good idea? Think it's just another way for our carriers to keep us corralled? Let us know in the comments!

Well it has seemed the Government has kinda listened to our plea and has deemed that if the unlock is on a device that is not under contract its ok to do with out permission from the phone carrier. I know this is an old post but I just found this out last night.