Wildbill Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 That is one sick phone.I bet that would be a pretty price if you just bought it outright. They would want me to take out a 3 year contract to get the phone at a reasonable price. Then Bell owns my soul for another 3 years. Hey KP. No not at all.. I think it was $250 and I had $100 credit so it cost me $150.. Well worth it.. I do alot of texting and it is perfect for that... where ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuvMyViper Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 That is one sick phone.I bet that would be a pretty price if you just bought it outright. They would want me to take out a 3 year contract to get the phone at a reasonable price. Then Bell owns my soul for another 3 years. Hey KP. No not at all.. I think it was $250 and I had $100 credit so it cost me $150.. Well worth it.. I do alot of texting and it is perfect for that... where ? Bell Mobility only.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooer Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I think it was $250 and I had $100 credit so it cost me $150.. Well worth it.. I do alot of texting and it is perfect for that... Yeah, but does your phone have a forum reader application? :poke: (Showing another forum, but I would like to see it working with this forum at some point if it is successful in the App Store) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 My dad's phone is bigger than your dad's phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooer Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 My dad's phone is bigger than your dad's phone I take it that your dad is Zach Morris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 My dad's phone is bigger than your dad's phone And now, this topic will go sideways.... (although NBS's phone is awesome ...can't wait to see the photos on it ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 That is one sick phone.I bet that would be a pretty price if you just bought it outright. They would want me to take out a 3 year contract to get the phone at a reasonable price. Then Bell owns my soul for another 3 years. Hey KP. No not at all.. I think it was $250 and I had $100 credit so it cost me $150.. Well worth it.. I do alot of texting and it is perfect for that... Thats really not a bad deal at all. Test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 That is one sick phone.I bet that would be a pretty price if you just bought it outright. They would want me to take out a 3 year contract to get the phone at a reasonable price. Then Bell owns my soul for another 3 years. Hey KP. No not at all.. I think it was $250 and I had $100 credit so it cost me $150.. Well worth it.. I do alot of texting and it is perfect for that... Thats really not a bad deal at all. Test Just testing as I had submitted previous comments to this string and they didn't show up. Here is what I had submitted: What's with all the whining on contracts? ... how is this any different than the arrangements for a home security monitoring contract for example? Here's your decision: Buy your hardware at a higher price and be free from a contract or get the same hardware at a much reduced price by signing a contract for the service. By the way.... you need the service to use the hardware The cost of my first cell phone.... $ 5,000.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dano Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 What's with all the whining on contracts? ... how is this any different than the arrangements for a home security monitoring contract for example? Here's your decision: Buy your hardware at a higher price and be free from a contract or get the same hardware at a much reduced price by signing a contract for the service. By the way.... you need the service to use the hardware The cost of my first cell phone.... $ 5,000.00 The difference with our beloved cell carriers is that they tack on “features” to a contract that really do not exist. These “features” are part of the contract, which the customer has no choice, but to pay. When you sign a contract with a carrier, the carrier can raise the price of these bogus “features” to whatever they want. So a $40 per month plan is really $50 per month, which can be raised at any time regardless of contract. If we don’t like it, we have an only option to pay out our contract. For the record, there is no such pot of money that our System Access Fees or 911 charges go in. Its all profit and if they want more profit from their contract customers, all they have to do is tack on charges to its “features” just like Bell tacked on $2 on SAFs for each customer. The Text message fiascal is no different. Customers sign a contract adjusted to what the carrier offers and then they get charged extra for incoming text. Yep, all while on a contract. The actual cell phones are cheap to buy considering. Carriers charge more for a phone under no contract just to make signing a contract with a discount phone more appealing. It currently makes sense to sign a contract to get a discounted phone, but its more of a trap to sign a 3 year contract taking away bargaining power for better rates from the customer. As Bell and Telus go HSPA, we’ll be able to buy unlocked phones at a good price. Then we buy our service we want from whatever carrier through a sim card. Keep in mind the new GSM based phones are very mass produced across the world. For the record, we in Canada pay amongst the highest in the world for our wireless service. Our carriers are also amongst the top in profit as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dano Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 That is one sick phone.I bet that would be a pretty price if you just bought it outright. They would want me to take out a 3 year contract to get the phone at a reasonable price. Then Bell owns my soul for another 3 years. Hey KP. No not at all.. I think it was $250 and I had $100 credit so it cost me $150.. Well worth it.. I do alot of texting and it is perfect for that... where ? Bell Mobility only.... Actually, its also available at Telus for quite some time now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 What's with all the whining on contracts? ... how is this any different than the arrangements for a home security monitoring contract for example? Here's your decision: Buy your hardware at a higher price and be free from a contract or get the same hardware at a much reduced price by signing a contract for the service. By the way.... you need the service to use the hardware The cost of my first cell phone.... $ 5,000.00 The difference with our beloved cell carriers is that they tack on “features” to a contract that really do not exist. These “features” are part of the contract, which the customer has no choice, but to pay. When you sign a contract with a carrier, the carrier can raise the price of these bogus “features” to whatever they want. So a $40 per month plan is really $50 per month, which can be raised at any time regardless of contract. If we don’t like it, we have an only option to pay out our contract. For the record, there is no such pot of money that our System Access Fees or 911 charges go in. Its all profit and if they want more profit from their contract customers, all they have to do is tack on charges to its “features” just like Bell tacked on $2 on SAFs for each customer. The Text message fiascal is no different. Customers sign a contract adjusted to what the carrier offers and then they get charged extra for incoming text. Yep, all while on a contract. The actual cell phones are cheap to buy considering. Carriers charge more for a phone under no contract just to make signing a contract with a discount phone more appealing. It currently makes sense to sign a contract to get a discounted phone, but its more of a trap to sign a 3 year contract taking away bargaining power for better rates from the customer. As Bell and Telus go HSPA, we’ll be able to buy unlocked phones at a good price. Then we buy our service we want from whatever carrier through a sim card. Keep in mind the new GSM based phones are very mass produced across the world. For the record, we in Canada pay amongst the highest in the world for our wireless service. Our carriers are also amongst the top in profit as well. Phone are subsidized by the carriers. At full price with no contract they make a profit. With a contract, they are generally selling at a loss. This is how they justify the contract cancellation fee. The thought of providing a good service at a fair price to instill loyalty is a marketing strategy that has slipped the little minds at the wireless carriers in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooer Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'm sure the only reason Rogers does not lock them is because they were the only GSM based carrier in Canada. Fido was competition once upon a time. Did Rogers lock their network before the buyout? The thought of providing a good service at a fair price to instill loyalty is a marketing strategy that has slipped the little minds at the wireless carriers in Canada. You must have missed this link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'm sure the only reason Rogers does not lock them is because they were the only GSM based carrier in Canada. Fido was competition once upon a time. Did Rogers lock their network before the buyout? Fido only had site in Toronto and then had a roaming agreement with Rogers, so no they did not lock them, they were on the same network most of the time. The thought of providing a good service at a fair price to instill loyalty is a marketing strategy that has slipped the little minds at the wireless carriers in Canada. You must have missed this link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooer Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And your point is?? That their business is working very well for them as it is. Sure, you can argue that it is a result of their monopoly. But they didn't get that monopoly in the first place by playing nice. See: Fido acquisition, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 And your point is?? That their business is working very well for them as it is. Sure, you can argue that it is a result of their monopoly. But they didn't get that monopoly in the first place by playing nice. See: Fido acquisition, for example. There was a time when one could be proud to work for Bell Mobility, Rogers or Clearnet. Now it something the employees dance around. "I work in Wireless" or "Telecommunications" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dano Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I think it was $250 and I had $100 credit so it cost me $150.. Well worth it.. I do alot of texting and it is perfect for that... Yeah, but does your phone have a forum reader application? :poke: (Showing another forum, but I would like to see it working with this forum at some point if it is successful in the App Store) I just got back from a trip up north and I brought my Ipod touch with me (same as Iphone with no phone). Really worked great in the motels connected to wifi. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiggertim Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I have been having a problem with line noise with Smell telephone (okay they call themselves Bell. but something stinks) since 2003. There is an unwillingness to fix the problem since as one technician put it I will only take 10Km of cable to make it better. We play roulette when we dial out due to the noise and a switch issue. Internet is slow and difficult to connect to. But I do know a way to fix it quickly, Move. There really is not a good phone company to deal with, is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I have been having a problem with line noise with Smell telephone (okay they call themselves Bell. but something stinks) since 2003. There is an unwillingness to fix the problem since as one technician put it I will only take 10Km of cable to make it better. We play roulette when we dial out due to the noise and a switch issue. Internet is slow and difficult to connect to. But I do know a way to fix it quickly, Move. There really is not a good phone company to deal with, is there. Tell them you are filing a complaint with the CRTC. They are regulated to provide service to you and that must be reliable. If they don;'t listen, file a complaint with the CRTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major_Malfunction Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I have been having a problem with line noise with Smell telephone (okay they call themselves Bell. but something stinks) since 2003. There is an unwillingness to fix the problem since as one technician put it I will only take 10Km of cable to make it better. We play roulette when we dial out due to the noise and a switch issue. Internet is slow and difficult to connect to. But I do know a way to fix it quickly, Move. There really is not a good phone company to deal with, is there. I have the same problem in fact the line is so bad that Bell cant even provide me with DSL to my house and i am only 1.5KM's away from the CO. When ever it rains very heavy all our lines get noisy and sometimes we get cross talk between the other houses on the street. Bell knows the problem is in the line that runs back to the CO but because it only affects 10 homes they have said they wont replace it until the line is totally unusable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooer Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 There really is not a good phone company to deal with, is there. The independents are doing a pretty good job. In fact, their service is sometimes too good. They insist on sending out a tech for something as simple as installing a DSL modem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 What's with all the whining on contracts? ... how is this any different than the arrangements for a home security monitoring contract for example? Here's your decision: Buy your hardware at a higher price and be free from a contract or get the same hardware at a much reduced price by signing a contract for the service. By the way.... you need the service to use the hardware The cost of my first cell phone.... $ 5,000.00 The difference with our beloved cell carriers is that they tack on “features” to a contract that really do not exist. These “features” are part of the contract, which the customer has no choice, but to pay. When you sign a contract with a carrier, the carrier can raise the price of these bogus “features” to whatever they want. So a $40 per month plan is really $50 per month, which can be raised at any time regardless of contract. If we don’t like it, we have an only option to pay out our contract. For the record, there is no such pot of money that our System Access Fees or 911 charges go in. Its all profit and if they want more profit from their contract customers, all they have to do is tack on charges to its “features” just like Bell tacked on $2 on SAFs for each customer. The Text message fiascal is no different. Customers sign a contract adjusted to what the carrier offers and then they get charged extra for incoming text. Yep, all while on a contract. The actual cell phones are cheap to buy considering. Carriers charge more for a phone under no contract just to make signing a contract with a discount phone more appealing. It currently makes sense to sign a contract to get a discounted phone, but its more of a trap to sign a 3 year contract taking away bargaining power for better rates from the customer. As Bell and Telus go HSPA, we’ll be able to buy unlocked phones at a good price. Then we buy our service we want from whatever carrier through a sim card. Keep in mind the new GSM based phones are very mass produced across the world. For the record, we in Canada pay amongst the highest in the world for our wireless service. Our carriers are also amongst the top in profit as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dano Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 WRT SAF's .... if you read the conditions on the contract you would know going in that SAF fees may be extra. I locked into a plan that included SAF fees so these increases are not an issue. Been on it over 4 years now at the same rate. I would suggest to you that SAF fees are really a small percentage of most peoples monthly bill and therefore the increase in SAF fees represents and even smaller portion of the overall bill. Know what your signing for going in. The point I’m trying to get across is that there are no such things as SAFs and it should not be added to a contract to mislead customers. SAF/911 charges may be a smaller part of contract, but its an extra $90-130 per year after tax money getting paid from the customer to a “feature” charge that does not exist. I’m quite aware of all print in a contract and know exactly what I’m signing. The problem is, the big 3 all have the same practices and if I choose not to pay SAFs, then I would have to go with a discount brand possibly owned by one of the big 3 that will only provide sub par handsets and in some cases, throttled service. You will see these bogus billing issues gone in about a year or so. The big 3 can do or charge whatever they want for as long as the want. Sooner or later they will have to compete with new competition. WRT test messaging... plans were offered for unlimited text messages ($10/month) that would have allowed you to avoid additional charges in this area. Some people sign a contract based on the services provided at the time of signing. Your right, charging for incoming text made it a better deal to get a texting package. Now the customer is stuck paying an extra $10/month while under contract because of this change. That’s over double the cost if someone was only doing 1 text per day before. probably best we both agree to disagree Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 WRT SAF's .... if you read the conditions on the contract you would know going in that SAF fees may be extra. I locked into a plan that included SAF fees so these increases are not an issue. Been on it over 4 years now at the same rate. I would suggest to you that SAF fees are really a small percentage of most peoples monthly bill and therefore the increase in SAF fees represents and even smaller portion of the overall bill. Know what your signing for going in. The point I’m trying to get across is that there are no such things as SAFs and it should not be added to a contract to mislead customers. SAF/911 charges may be a smaller part of contract, but its an extra $90-130 after tax money getting paid from the customer to a “feature” charge that does not exist. I’m quite aware of all print in a contract and know exactly what I’m signing. The problem is, the big 3 all have the same practices and if I choose not to pay SAFs, then I would have to go with a discount brand possibly owned by one of the big 3 that will only provide sub par handsets and in some cases, throttled service. You will see these bogus billing issues gone in about a year or so. The big 3 can do or charge whatever they want for as long as the want. Sooner or later they will have to compete with new competition. WRT test messaging... plans were offered for unlimited text messages ($10/month) that would have allowed you to avoid additional charges in this area. Some people sign a contract based on the services provided at the time of signing. Your right, charging for incoming text made it a better deal to get a texting package. Now the customer is stuck paying an extra $10/month while under contract because of this change. That’s over double the cost if someone was only doing 1 text per day before. probably best we both agree to disagree Dan No problem, we can do that. Everyone is entitled to their point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i2cool2fool Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 There was a time when one could be proud to work for Bell Mobility, Rogers or Clearnet. Now it something the employees dance around. "I work in Wireless" or "Telecommunications" Or "cable". ....er...at least most on this site doesn't dislike Comcast. And St. Louis Dave (and other Americans), NO I CAN NOT fixed your cable hook-up all the way from Ontario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I was at lunch on Sunday and I passed this message along to one of the offending carriers It was an interesting conversation. I just needed a Rogers representative there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.