Home » Competition »Consumer News »T-Mobile »Wireless Broadband » Currently Reading:

Wireless Carriers’ Dream Come True: The End of the Phone Subsidy; T-Mobile May Start Trend

Phillip Dampier December 11, 2012 Competition, Consumer News, T-Mobile, Wireless Broadband 8 Comments

Riding away with your phone subsidy.

T-Mobile USA has thrown down the gauntlet, announcing it intends to end the kind of phone subsidies that have allowed customers to pick up pricey smartphones like the iPhone for as low as $99, with a two-year contract.

Wireless subsidies have been part of the North American wireless experience for nearly two decades. In an effort to bring new customers on board, carriers wanted the upfront cost to consumers to be as low as possible. Until expensive smartphones arrived, consumers were assured they could get a new, cutting-edge phone at contract renewal time for very little money. Carriers tolerated the subsidy even for existing customers because the difference between the company’s cost and the amount consumers paid wasn’t large enough to negatively affect a carrier’s balance sheet.

Companies gradually earn back the subsidy over the course of a typical two year contract by artificially inflating prices for service plans and add-ons. Because wireless rates have been set with the assumption a customer has received a subsidized phone, it made sense to keep getting new equipment every two years, because customers pay for it on each monthly bill.

In most countries outside of North America, it works very differently. Most customers either pay for a phone outright or agree to finance its purchase through a wireless company, paying monthly installments for smartphones that often cost more than $600. Some companies offer more aggressive discounts if one agrees to a 1-3 year contract, but buyers still cover much of the cost themselves. In return, wireless companies abroad typically charge much lower rates for service and do not force people into lengthy contracts. Customers also find they can switch companies as easily as replacing a SIM card, activating an old phone on a new carrier’s network.

There are pros and cons to the subsidy model:

PROS

  • Consumers get the latest phones at a reduced up-front cost up to every two-years;
  • The subsidy win-back is collected gradually over the course of 24 months;
  • Carriers aggressively compete on huge subsidies for popular phones;
  • The reduced price of a subsidized phone brings reticent consumers into the market;
  • Carriers have increased control over the equipment that is used on their network through price incentives;

CONS

  • The subsidy model gives carriers an incentive to lock discounted phones to their network;
  • Customers pay artificially higher prices for service, whether they take advantage of a subsidized phone offer or not;
  • Consumers don’t realize the true cost of the phones and expect them to cost less than $200 regardless of their retail price;
  • Customers are locked into lengthy contracts with stiff early termination fees to protect the subsidy win-back structure;
  • Without a subsidy, equipment manufacturers would face natural market pressure to cut costs to remain affordable;

Legere

T-Mobile announced last week it was ending its phone subsidy program next year, and customers will be expected to bring their own phone, buy one at an unsubsidized rate, or finance a full price phone with the carrier. In return, customers will get a lower priced T-Mobile calling and data plan.

Some in the tech press are heralding the announcement as a consumer victory and a breakthrough for lower priced service plans. But before throwing the confetti, consider this.

T-Mobile is making customers bring or buy their own phones, but will still lock them into a two year contract with a $200 early termination fee.

T-Mobile’s retention of its contract plans might delineate the postpaid side of its business and its month-to-month, contract-free, prepaid business. But that does not mean much for customers.

John Legere, the new CEO of T-Mobile USA hinted the measure is designed to reduce customer churn — customers coming and going. Locking a customer in place with termination penalties assures shareholders customers are more likely to remain with T-Mobile for the life of their contract.

That represents a win for T-Mobile, but not for customers. Legere explained the benefits to investors:

“[We are going] to have a lower device subsidy obviously and overall value,” Legere told attendees at the Capital Markets Day Conference. “[... because of the] device margin — $200 to $250 — which we do not have to eat. Over a 24-month period [we get] a customer life value that is the difference between $550 on a Classic [traditional subsidy contract] plan and $600 on a Value [no-subsidy] plan.”

In other words, T-Mobile doesn’t have to front a device subsidy, still holds a customer with a two-year contract, and despite the lower-priced service plans, comes out $50 richer when the contract expires.  T-Mobile is essentially admitting it does not return the entire value of its former subsidy back to the customer.

What is more, T-Mobile may pave the way for other carriers to also drop handset subsidies, keep the traditional two-year contract, and only slightly lower prices.

Nothing peeves Wall Street more than the huge subsidy costs carriers pay up front to discount the latest smartphones. Getting rid of subsidies while only mildly adjusting prices could be the next hidden “price increase,” the perfect gift for an investor that demands higher revenue from every customer.

Share

Currently there are 8 comments on this Article:

  1. Scott says:

    AT&T and Verizon couldn’t have asked for a better deal, they’ll both be following suit shortly after exchanging a few comments publicly to signal to each other what they’ll be doing.

    This is a horrible deal for consumers, as with European customers there’s absolutely NO reason for you to be forced into a 2 year contract to save a meager $18/mo off your bill.

    For example, if you were on an ‘inexpensive’ T-Mobile Smartphone plan for $80/mo, that would reduce it to $62 not including taxes but lock you into a 2 year contract for no reason and require you to buy your own $300+ Android phone or $500+ Apple iPhone.

    You can get your own Smartphone plan TODAY with no contract by simply purchasing a SIM and plan from one of the many MVNO pre-paid cellular companies such as StraightTalk for just $45/mo still saving 30-50% or more than T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon while operating on the same cell towers for service.

  2. Greg says:

    T-Mobile has short memory. Sprint tried this around 2000 and eventually switched to subsidized phones. Also, if there’s no phone subsidy, what is the purpose of the contract?? I thought the only reason for the contract / early termination fee (ETF) is to justify the subsidy.

  3. KL says:

    Oh, come on, the one rare time something good happens in telecom, you still see the dark side. I’m on T-Mobile’s unsubbed Value plan, and I’m on it because I explicitly picked it over the subbed Classic plan. The Value plan is way cheaper, by about $20 per month, so over the course of a 2-year contract, I’ve saved $480. Rarely does the phone subsidy reach that high of a level! So if I want a lower-end smartphone (ones that cost between $100 and $200, unsubbed), the subsidy model royally screws me.

    Actually, in practice, I save a whole lot more than $20/mo because I get use my phone without any data (or with small amounts of data). You’ve written a whole bunch about the messed-up data pricing, so you know how that bleeds people. If I want to use only WiFi for data (since I’m usually at a place with WiFi), I can opt to go with a dataless plan; there’s no such option on their subbed plan. And if I do want data, I can get 200MB for just $5/mo (I usually use under 100MB per month because, again, I around WiFi a lot), and if I am going on vacation and will be away from my WiFi, I can bump that to the unlimited (throttled after 2GB) plan, which is only $10 per month, and then step that back down to my 200MB plan for the next month after I get back. Again, the subbed Classic plan doesn’t offer you this kind of freedom of swapping data in and out. And how many other carriers offer 2GB with no overage (only throttling) for just $10/mo?

    Basically, T-Mobile’s unsubbed plan works a lot like their prepaid plans in terms of freedom (I don’t mind the 2-year contract since I have no intention of letting the other carriers screw me with their forced smartphone data and uneven subsidies) but with perks like discounts for multiple lines and night/weekend minutes.

    Now, if the carrier killed subsidies but still put up lots of restrictions and still charge you the same rate, then yea, I’d be pissed off and crying bloody murder. But that isn’t the case here. Unsubbing and moving towards a more European carrier model will increase competition, increase transparency and ultimately be better for consumers. Why else do you think that prepaid carriers are surging so much these days?

    So how why did the CEO say that Value customers make more money for them? The 600 vs. 550 thing? You need to watch the video of the CEO talking to investors, because I think you missed a critical detail there: He concedes that the margins per customer is substantially lower for the unsubbed Value plan, but because Value plan customers are happier (not “pissed off”, to use his own words, about the old carrier pricing/restrictions), they stay on board longer, and that’s where the extra profits come: from the customer remaining more loyal and on average staying with T-Mobile more more months.

    (Also, T-Mobile jacks up the margins on the unsubbed phones that they sell, but that’s not a problem since you can buy an unlocked phone from a third party (Nexus 4 from Google) or buy an ubsubbed phone from T-Mobile’s prepaid division, which prices their hardware competitively, unlike their postpaid division.)

    • I am more than happy to see TMO drop its subsidy model and switch to bring your own phone, buy it outright, or finance it through them, but there should be no two-year contract.

      What exactly is TMO giving the consumer that justifies a 24 month contract and $200(!) ETF, especially if that consumer buys or brings his own phone and doesn’t finance it through TMO? Absolutely nothing I can see. The price savings is mostly from dropping the subsidy win-back. But the contract and ETF is still there.

      I welcome them trying an innovative pricing change, but the 24 month term contract is a deal killer for me personally. I think this will mostly appeal to people who want to activate an older phone or device they already own. I think they’ll have to spend a lot of money trying to educate customers shopping for a new phone why paying $650 for an iPhone is better than paying $99.

      A side note, in Europe some carriers have been dropping subsidies and discounts altogether in the past 12 months and now some are putting them back after poor results.

      In Spain, for instance, market leader Telefonica and No. 2 mobile operator Vodafone Group Plc lost customers after they got rid of subsidies for new customers this year. Vodafone abandoned its no-subsidy model after barely six months, while Telefonica is sticking to its guns.

      • From what I saw from Vodafone Spain and Movistar Spain, the problem was that the retail price was mentioned as the “price to pay”. T-Mobile USA’s version of the system mentions the “down payment” on the sticker, not the full retail price. Vodafone and Movistar allowed the sticker shock to kill everything, while T-Mobile is being very careful about how it is being implemented here. As a result, T-Mobile has had much more success with the Value plan than Vodafone and Movistar had. Also, T-Mobile does not allow you to choose how much of a down payment you can make on a phone, so the installments are fixed and essentially work the same way as a subsidy. The difference is largely in the accounting treatment.

        The result is that people automatically assume it is the same as before. For most people, it functionally acts the same way. There are a few kinks to work out, true. For example, T-Mobile has yet to fully implement the Value plan pricing model on its website. You still have to call in or go to a store in order to take advantage of the down payment pricing. Most people will not choose the Value plan on the website because of this. Since T-Mobile is fully reimbursed over two years (instead of taking a loss), the net cost to T-Mobile is zero. It makes a small ($30 to $50) profit per device due to a slight markup from the manufacturer, but otherwise it is fine.

        The termination fee could still be looked at as a subsidy, but a different kind of one. In exchange for retaining services for two years, that $200 subsidy goes back into the monthly rate. It’s probably how T-Mobile now justifies the different pricing for data plan options between the Classic and the Value plan. Whether that is truly the case or not, I’m not sure. But it seems to make sense to me.

        • Scott says:

          The termination fee has always been in place to allow the Cellular provider to recoup the cost of the phone they gave you via the subsidy should you leave before your contract is up (and the phone has been paid for). They’ve stated and made this clear themselves, AT&T was one that increased the termination fee specifically for Smartphone’s.

          There’s absolutely no reason or justification for them to retain the contract requirement or termination fee when they’re no longer subsidizing the phone provided to you for using the service.

          So far these changes are purely there to satisfy Wall St., and increase profits while lowering liabilities with upfront costs. To be a win-win for customers and T-Mobile they need to drop the contract and termination clause and extend the full value of this change in reducing their monthly service plan’s cost, not keeping an extra $50+ for themselves to pocket.

      • KL says:

        Okay, I agree that the 2-year contract seems weird and out-of-place for an unsubbed plan. Personally, I’ve never worried about it because I have no intention of leaving any time soon. I think it might just be a vestige of the classic plan, that it’s something that they just never bothered taking out when they started to experiment with the value plan. It’s possible that if they move towards making the VP the primary plan, that they’ll do away with the contract. Because, you’re right, it doesn’t make sense, and ETFs are the kind of annoyances that Legere wants to address to make switching palatable. (Or so I hope…)

  4. Jason says:

    I agree There should Not Be 2 Year Contracts!! Take an example from http://solavei.com/graber







Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • elfonblog: And I certainly have a problem with that. AT&T is suggesting that they *deserve* the same deal. And they don't. Always playing the victim. Poor, p...
  • txpatriot: The NY PSC partially approved the VZ Tariff filing; you can find the Order and press release on this page: http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Matte...
  • txpatriot: AT&T is saying that if google is allowed to redline, then AT&T s/b allowed to redline....
  • Damaeus: Joshua Taylor says: >>> [SNIP]--- Get rid of your internet, save your money and READ. Who cares about AT&T and the Internet? ---[SNIP]...
  • telephone tariffs: Nice blog. Thanks for sharing interesting video. Keep updating....
  • Scott: Get 1GB of metered data transfer free with every $100.00 spent!!...
  • Tim: The fact that Erie, PA was chosen as an example is quite intriguing because Erie unlike Buffalo or Pittsburgh is a totally Fios-less market. Of course...
  • Ralph: The tv ads featuring "Frank " have been running quite a bit lately. I think Frontier chose an animal as their spokesman because no human being wanted...
  • elfonblog: Right right. AT&T wants us to think that it's diligently elbowing into municipalities that Google has bullied into relaxing their regulations. ...
  • Scott: Our internet and the majority of those lines were built with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, the majority of it being ripped off via creativ...
  • Jim Donahue: In the long term fiber is less expensive than the old copper network. The problem is that it doesn't provide enough of a margin versus wireless wh...
  • Scott: "Stephenson also suggested an unlikely new source of money to finance fiber upgrades — content producers and applications developers who need faster n...

Your Account: