<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <<a href="mailto:joseph@pfeifferfamily.net">joseph@pfeifferfamily.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Kevin Dean writes:<br>
>On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Joe Pfeiffer <<a href="mailto:joseph@pfeifferfamily.net">joseph@pfeifferfamily.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">>> US. To me, it's quite obvious that a contract without a phone<br>
>> *should* be cheaper, but that's a long way from "is" (it actually<br>
>> worked out for the best, since I've had a working phne all these<br>
>> months as a result).<br>
><br>
>I'm an American and your statement confuses me. Why is it "obvious"<br>
>that a contract without a phone should be cheaper? The service<br>
>(cellular connectivity for voice and/or data) is the same service no<br>
>matter what phone you have.<br>
<br>
</div>Because the price of the "free" phone is bundled into the price of the<br>
contract. If I don't get a phone, I shouldn't have to pay for one.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
>In the US, the price of service contracts doesn't change. The price of<br>
>PHONES does when you agree to commit to a service contract but the<br>
>service contract doesn't.<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>>>The most obvious example of this is that one can choose how much to<br>
>>>pay up front - on can choose the phone "for free" with one set of<br>
>>>tariffs, or pay £75 on purchase and get the same number of minutes<br>
>>>for £10 a month less (on an 18-month contract, for example). One can<br>
>>>also get much cheaper contracts when no phone purchase is involved.<br>
>><br>
><br>
>Not sure if you're confusing cause and effect here or if Brits just<br>
>look at "cellular service" differently than Americans. You are<br>
>implying that "the contract" is "the monthly service of voice/data<br>
>connectivity and a handset". In the US, ONLY the monthly service of<br>
>voice/data connectivity is contracted. It seems to me that what you're<br>
>ACTUALLY doing when you make your purchase is purchasing a phone at<br>
>some price, agreeing to a service level (monthly voice/data) and then<br>
>financing the cost of that device through your monthly bill. By paying<br>
>the £75 up front you're simply paying for the phone and NOT paying the<br>
>cost of it in installments monthly.<br>
><br>
>But from how I see it the service that is purchased (voice/data<br>
>connectivity) remains the same price.<br>
<br>
</div>Not quite -- you're also committed to pay the inflated price long<br>
enough to pay for the phone, or pay for the phone under the guise of<br>
an "early termination" fee.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openmoko community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:community@lists.openmoko.org">community@lists.openmoko.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community" target="_blank">http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community</a></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br>If I make an observation.. I am an American by birth but have lived all over the world.. In the middle of the Pacific, Korea, and now Europe (again). One of the things I have noticed is that the laws in Europe tend to protect the consumer whereas the laws in the US tend to protect big business. I could give many examples but I think this whole "contact vs. no contract" discussion is a perfect example. imho.<br>
<br>Just a personal observation... shoot me down if you like.<br></div></div><br>