Can you hear me now Verizon? They’re out of their minds.

Customer service – POOR
Signal Strength – FAIR
Billing – POOR
Stability of Service – POOR

God forbid you ever have to call them for anything other than a simple question that their dumbest tech can answer.

This hike in ETF is just proof that VZ has no idea how to retain customers. They spend all their money on getting new customers with crappy tv ads and propaganda then once you’re in you realize what a crappy service/company it is.

I think it is not balanced how WSJ reports on VZ versus AT&T and Sprint. If either of those raised it’s ETF, Mr. Paczkowski would be all over them.

Both Sprint and AT&T subsidies their phones. How much do you think the subsuidy is for an iPhone or a PRE?

Because in my case, I’ve had to return my Omnia 3 separate times over the first 7 months of my contract. Verizon will not replace it with anything other than an Omnia unless you return it 3 times in 90 DAYS. My current Omnia is now acting up, too — it is unreliable. I know it was made by Samsung but Verizon’s obligation includes actually being able to USE their vaunted network.

Why should Verizon offer the phones at a loss if you can cancel it and keep the phone?

Considering that Verizon will have to change the TOS on 15 November, I am going to say that the doubling of the ETF is a material hardship. The TOS does not define the term, so Verizon cannot determine what constitutes a material hardship for me.

Thoughts?

In a free enterprise economy, companies should be free to charge whatever they want for a product, and people should be free to obtain that product from any company or person they want. Verizon has every right to provide their customers with the option to pay for the product in full or have the price of the product prorated over time, be it two or three years. If the customer decides to leave Verizon’s network, they should be held responsible for paying the balance of the cost of the phone. Isn’t that how business is conducted in America?

Once the customer pays for the phone in full, the phone should be unlocked:

If a customer leaves Verizon’s network, they should be obligated to pay the balance of the phone. No free ride, it is how business is conducted in America. If you owe money to a bank, and you decide to close your account after two years, should all of your outstanding loans (or debt) be forgiven? Business is generally conducted based upon mutually accepted agreements, which both parties are required to adhere to. The customer’s purchase should also be protected. Verizon should unlock all phones that are fully paid for. Likewise, the customer should be able to sell their phone to either a new or existing Verizon customer who should be allowed to activate the phone at a cost that is not greater than Verizon’s current activation fees.

Who wins in these scenarios?

This is a win-win situation for both Verizon and her customers. Verizon get’s to recover the full cost of the device if the customer leaves, and the customer gets a highly sophisticated, functioning device that has most of its core functionality, less the voice/data plan. If the device is a smart phone that has Wi-Fi internet access built-in, it must be unlocked and fully functional after the contract ends or is terminated (if it is fully paid for).