Sprint handset upgrade policy change applies retroactively! 3/1 changed to 7/1

[unoriginal]

Because they are buying out a service contract, a contract you signed when buying x phone. What keeps people with a T-Mobile line from adding a line for free by creating sprint line, and going to T-Mobile and etfing it, they swap phone and now have a phone for free they can use. Kinda hitting the fraud area.

 

I never even said what phone I was using on the T-Mobile line. You seem to assume that it was a Sprint one. We bought a T-Mo branded Note 3 off swappa for my wife to use with the new line. I simply wanted the $200 credit for the blackberry which in essence gave me free service for almost 4 months.

[jamesinclair]

Latest update, 1 of my 3 affected line was reset to 20 months tonight, the other 2 still at 24 months. (4th line was recently upgraded so correctly at 24)

 

Same here, one line didnt change (20 months) but the other two did (24 months).

[caspar347]

Huh. Looks like the weird rollback thing happened to me. I would have been eligible under the 20-month cycle on 7/1/2015 and on the 24-month cycle 11/1/2015, but Sprint says I am eligible as of 11/1/2014. Weird. But cool. I guess I might get an M9 after all. My Nexus 5 isn't exactly showing its age yet, but it would be cool to align my contract cycle with the Springtime phone releases rather than the Fall.

[centermedic]

You have a point. However, a product is priced where the manufacturer thinks it will sell and they can make a profit. So yes, if it lists at $700 plus dollars then the device is subsidized when you buy it for $200 on contract. There are plenty of items that are sold at a price point far higher than its cost to produce.

Does anyone really believe a phone under contract is subsidized? Look at the note 4, its freaking $300 bucks. Note Edge is $430. They have tablets with similar specs or better for less.. There are phones like One Plus One selling with no contract for that range. Etc.

 

 

[greencat]

Switching phones to bypass that can be considered fraud in some states. That is theft by deception.

 

Tell me more about your internet cellphone legal theories.

[greencat]

Does anyone really believe a phone under contract is subsidized? Look at the note 4, its freaking $300 bucks. Note Edge is $430. They have tablets with similar specs or better for less.. There are phones like One Plus One selling with no contract for that range. Etc.

 

It is more like price fixing. The price is fixed high to lock you to one phone, one carrier, unable to afford to switch and making you stay put due to payment plans in place or contracts. $300 by itself seems like full price for Note 4 quality device, but they take it a step further claiming it costs $720 which is triple to four times its actual cost to make.. Apple does that too, in the realm of iPhone it typically sold for $200 under contract but an identically spec'd iPod Touch cost $200 with no contract. Now the new payment plan versions cost $700 somehow. Yep, looks like they want us tied down to a payment plan for years unable to afford the cost up front so that we can't switch carriers as easy, same old BS. If you try to switch they will slap you with the termination fee, the rest of the cost of the device. Lol

 

Somehow they are selling decked out tablets like the moorefield Asus memo 7" or the kindle fire hdx 7" for <$200. The Kindle even has built in LTE modem. Showing these $800 dollar cellphones couldn't possibly cost that much without some type of anticompete price fixing scheme being in place.

They're subsidized in that the customer isn't paying $600ish that Sprint or VZW or ATT pays Samsung or Apple for the device. It is fairly obvious that Sprint ATT VZW are marking up the devices which should push more people away from buying them from those companies. If cellphones were a digital item they'd be pirated more than movies and music. The consumers lose when dealing with monopolies.

[JeffDTD]

Hard to believe this has gone on for 6 pages. Sprint wants to retain customers right now. Until you've specifically been denied a new contract in return for a contract extension, there's nothing to complain about

[travismheim]

They're subsidized in that the customer isn't paying $600ish that Sprint or VZW or ATT pays Samsung or Apple for the device. It is fairly obvious that Sprint ATT VZW are marking up the devices which should push more people away from buying them from those companies. If cellphones were a digital item they'd be pirated more than movies and music. The consumers lose when dealing with monopolies.

If that was the case, why are unlocked unbranded phones still about the same price?

 

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

[bitslizer]

By the same token most of us work without a contract. let say you are expecting your mid month pay day to paid bills that are due, and on the day you are expecting to get pay, they tell you they are changing to a monthly pay cycle. Where all previous indication (ie the days until upgrade count down) have never indicated other wise, let's see how happy you are and if you want to complain or not. Just because something is not in a contract doesn't mean it's right or smart thing to do

 

 

Hard to believe this has gone on for 6 pages. Sprint wants to retain customers right now. Until you've specifically been denied a new contract in return for a contract extension, there's nothing to complain about

[S4GRU]

By the same token most of us work without a contract. let say you are expecting your mid month pay day to paid bills that are due, and on the day you are expecting to get pay, they tell you they are changing to a monthly pay cycle. Where all previous indication (ie the days until upgrade count down) have never indicated other wise, let's see how happy you are and if you want to complain or not. Just because something is not in a contract doesn't mean it's right or smart thing to do

 

 

 

That is an awful analogy.  You do not depend on Sprint early upgrades to pay your bills.  Early upgrades are a perk.  One that their competitors do not offer.  And Sprint is in the process of drastically cutting costs to compete on price.  Perk cut, save money.

 

If the average subsidy is $300 and a contract is 24 months, then that 4 month early upgrade is worth $50.  Some subsidies are significantly higher, but I like $50.  Nice round number.

 

If they cut 10 Million customers early upgrades, it saves Sprint $500 Million from all those customers. If it's 20 Million customers, then that is a Billion!  There is a real cost to that early upgrade.  To Sprint, it was worth it in the past.  Now with much lower and more competitive pricing, they think they cannot afford it any longer.

 

You decide what that means to you.

[greencat]

If that was the case, why are unlocked unbranded phones still about the same price?

 

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

Volume discount.

[jamesinclair]

That is an awful analogy.  You do not depend on Sprint early upgrades to pay your bills.  Early upgrades are a perk.  One that their competitors do not offer.  And Sprint is in the process of drastically cutting costs to compete on price.  Perk cut, save money.

 

If the average subsidy is $300 and a contract is 24 months, then that 4 month early upgrade is worth $50.  Some subsidies are significantly higher, but I like $50.  Nice round number.

 

If they cut 10 Million customers early upgrades, it saves Sprint $500 Million from all those customers. If it's 20 Million customers, then that is a Billion!  There is a real cost to that early upgrade.  To Sprint, it was worth it in the past.  Now with much lower and more competitive pricing, they think they cannot afford it any longer.

 

You decide what that means to you.

 

Theres two issues at play though.

 

One is ending early upgrades. I disagree with doing so, but we can assume Sprint did the math and it makes sense to do so, as you pointed out.

 

 

But the other issue is how they went about doing it. Sprint was broadcasting one upgrade date (March 1) via the website and via the text-message upgrade check every day until Feb 28 and then at 12:01am changed that to July 1. So people who were waiting for that upgrade, and were confident they could upgrade the very next day felt that they were screwed over. Sure, what Sprint did was legal and such, but that doesn't mean it was right. An expectation was set, and it was tanked away.

 

I don't understand how doing so this way is defensible. It is certainly not a good way to encourage customer loyalty or strengthen the brand. And Im sure if we had the math available, we'd see the cost to Sprint of allowing March (and April) upgrades would be less than the cost of a big PR hit for these customers that feel cheated. If you had your upgrade yanked away literally at the last minute, your loyalty to Sprint come July may be over.

 

"But there was a text on page 2 of the bill!" Yes, the bill few people see, and even fewer read past the main number, as Sprint highly encourages both auto-pay and paperless billing. I'm sure I'm far from alone in only opening the PDF of the Sprint bill only if the number looks off in my credit card statement.

 

Meanwhile, the primary mode of checking upgrade dates (again the website and texting "upgrade" to Sprint) had no such warning about a policy change.

 

When Verizon switched their policy, it was changed only for new contracts after x date. Everybody else was grandfathered in, and then when they upgraded they were told of the new policy. That is, the expectation was set at point of sale. I dont know what Tmobile or AT&T did, or if they even changed their policies.

[S4GRU]

I can defend Sprint's economics. However, I can't defend in this case or in many others, Sprint's poor communication to customers.

 

Using Moto X² on Tapatalk

[bretton88]

I can't even get 1311 to work. All my texts to it fail to send

[jamesinclair]

I can't even get 1311 to work. All my texts to it fail to send

 

Half the time it comes back to me as "(my number) does not exist" but the 2nd or 3rd try usually goes through

[bitslizer]

I can defend Sprint's economics. However, I can't defend in this case or in many others, Sprint's poor communication to customers.

 

Using Moto X² on Tapatalk

 

 

I agree with that

[clbowens]

My contract ends 7/1/2016.

 

For my upgrade check on the Sprint website, it says I can upgrade to a lease or easy pay on 3/1/2016.  Or I could upgrade on a new 2 yr contract on 7/1/2016.

[ericdabbs]

Wow this sucks.  I just checked my upgrade eligibility and yes it changed from 6/1/14 to 10/1/14.  This is such BS.  At least Sprint should honor their commitment 2 years ago when I was still under the 20 month upgrade cycle policy.  I understand the rules have changed to 24 months but this should ONLY be applicable on new 2 year contracts going forward.

[Ascertion]

Wow this sucks. I just checked my upgrade eligibility and yes it changed from 6/1/14 to 10/1/14. This is such BS. At least Sprint should honor their commitment 2 years ago when I was still under the 20 month upgrade cycle policy. I understand the rules have changed to 24 months but this should ONLY be applicable on new 2 year contracts going forward.

At best, Sprint could have communicated this instead of surprising customers.

 

Sent from my M8