AT&T Tries, Fails to Settle With Throttled User > O.k. stuff like this has to stop

reply to Kristopher

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

Likewise, as we're held to ETFs to jump ship in most cases.. we sometimes DO get to leave the service. However, if WE violate the terms of the contract by leaving early, or just "leaving early" we have to pay the prorated or full ETF depending on where we are. However, what about when THEY violate it... by me leaving for a material change in the contract (which I don't think they SHOULD be able to change anyway.. a deal is a deal).. .I think they should also have to pay me back for the portion I paid for the hardware up front as well. Fair is fair! (It's not part of the agreement, I know.. but still, fair is fair).. just an example of a one way agreement.

So what exactly is there to motivate the PROVIDER to honor their agreement if there is no penalty outside of losing a customer? I am motivated to STAY in the agreement by notice of penalty for doing so.

My cell service is $100 a month and i have 18 months left... that's $1800, and if they do me wrong I will gladly pay $300 and go with someone that deserves that extra $1500. The kind of thinking that you mention above is what helps in allowing them to do what they want.

Your argument works, on Sprint. I've used it a few times in my negotiations with them, only my numbers were $368 per month x 18 months. (Ironically I was at the 18 month point myself when I had that conversation) Only Sprint "got it" and worked with me.. when I brought this point up to AT&T, it was like looking at a deer in headlights.

But, I fail to see how what I said about encourages them. Not only do they lose the remaining of the contract, they also would have to pay back/buy back the hardware that was fronted FOR violating. So, add $200 to your $1800 in lost future revenue... it doesn't help them. What it DOES do is help them shed a customer for about 2 years, at minimum.

I paid att's etf back when it was att wireless and switched to sprint actually. All that i'm saying is that alot of people think that they need to stay with these companies because of the etf, if a million of the throttled iphone (or any other screwed over customers) cancelled, that would be a big loss of revenue after the 3 months that the etf pays and would change some things. It's alot of money up front but most of the time you can sell the phone to cover it.

Edit: And my comment was not about what you said specifically but about the "motivation" to stay in the contract being the etf.. Some people will take gettin screwed for 2 yrs because of the money up front.
--

And I agree with you.

Also, too, it cracks me up how there is this mental block with people regarding the ETF when it comes to extremely dissatisfied service they are getting. How I see it, much like you, is while they're getting the ETF, they're not getting any more revenue from me. People will stay with a provider to avoid a $200 fee, but continue to pay upwards $80 a month for service they can't stand, or sometimes can't use, as they'll say. I also don't see the ETF as a penalty. I know that the phone costs more "retail" than what I paid. I know they are subsidizing the phone over the life of my contract. By staying in the contract I know I'm paying a portion back each month to cover the cost of the phone that I didn't make up front. I don't see the ETF as a pentaly, I simply see it as what I owe them for the remainder of the hardware. If the phone is a good one, (such as the iPhones, higher end Androids, etc) then I can sell the hardware on the web and get most of my money back. Anything that I didn't make, as people call "a loss" is what I paid in to use the hardware for the time that I had it.

But in short, people see that "fee" as a "penalty" and will do anything to avoid it and continue to pay upwards, as you said, $1800 more to the provider for providing service they don't want.

>But in short, people see that "fee" as a "penalty" and will do anything to avoid it and continue to pay upwards, as you said, $1800 more to the provider for providing service they don't want.

+1

I paid $180 to Verizon to terminate a contract with about 8 months of service left that I just wasn't using. It is simply a no-brainer of which one is cheaper. I agree, I think people get locked into a mindset of 'paying for nothing' vs. 'getting a service for my money' and they lose sight of the bigger picture.

Kind of reminds me of a stupid joke my friend used to crack up about:

Hey mister, wanna buy an elephant?

No way! I don't need an elephant, besides where would I keep it?

I will give you two for the price of one...

OK, I'll take em!!!