Smartphone ban: Glass half empty, or half full?

[elecconnec]

Am I the only guy who thinks the smartphone ban doesn't make sense UNLESS Page Plus is planning to launch to an unlimited data plan?

With a 20MB, 50MB or PAYG data plan the type of device used is immaterial- data is data when you charge by the byte, and smartphones would actually be more attractive phones to activate since they eat more data.

Only if you intend to offer "unlimited" a la Straight Talk does limiting service to dumbphones make any sense...

[gregsmith59]

Am I the only guy who thinks the smartphone ban doesn't make sense UNLESS Page Plus is planning to launch to an unlimited data plan?
...

The problem is you're thinking like a HoFo gadget geek instead of a business person.

PP needs to reduce call wait time for CS. Smartphones were causing lots of CS issues due to poor work by dealers. Block smartphone activations and the CS problem should be reduced.

No need for conspiracy theories.

[Big Blue 023]

Half which way? Depends on which glass you are holding. For the CS, this is half full. For dealers/users who got burned, half empty.

And the smartphone list is starting to get a little defined. Some , even many smartphones can still activate despite the ban. The big issue besides the ban itself is the fact that some Non Treo/Blackberry smartphones got tangled in there with their esn dragnet.

According to one post , dealers may or may not get their blocked esns on unusable smartphone inventory approved if they submit the esns to their master dealer/distributor by today.

My guess is the blocked NON Blackberry/Treos caught in the web will be released but the Berries/Treos will stay banned for the time being.

[jcompton]

Despite their customer service struggles, I don't believe this was a P+ idea. It was a Verizon idea--the logical "other shoe" dropping now that V is pushing mandatory data plans out to a substantial population. They are closing a bolt-hole that those customers might have selected for their modest data requirements.

We already know from the "Call this new MVNO, they'll activate what P+ can't!/Wait, never mind!" escapade yesterday that P+ is not the only MVNO affected by the ban. Therefore, it seems likely that Verizon is simply using a staged rollout of the ban across its MVNO partners, starting with the most aggressive BYOD customer/dealer base.

[Big Blue 023]

Hooo boy. Yesterday's BD Wireless mess was caused by them sharing the same MVNE or Mvno infrastructure specialist that Page Plus has. They do not feed off of Page Plus like say Talkaway did. Yeah, I screwed up and I apologize for the premature announcement. BD had the doors slammed on their fingers as of yesterday on the banned phones issue.

Other Verizon mvnos like Mingo, Air Voice , H20 cdma probably have a different mvne though Verizon is the parent carrier. Policies of MVNES can vary just as policies of parent carriers can for their mvno programs.

Maybe Offthegrid can explain all this better. He is extremely knowledgable about such matters.

[jcompton]

Yesterday's BD Wireless mess was caused by them sharing the same MVNE or Mvno infrastructure specialist that Page Plus has.

I arch my eyebrow at the idea of Mr. Under Construction Banner being in the same MVNO class as Page Plus.

Yeah, I screwed up and I apologize for the premature announcement. BD had the doors slammed on their fingers as of yesterday on the banned phones issue.

It happens. People get excited.

Policies of MVNES can vary just as policies of parent carriers can for their mvno programs.

But an exclusionary policy only makes sense for a pretty narrow range of reasons.

I'm not convinced by the "reduce CS calls/hold time" argument, because of the prepaid model. By the time someone is calling P+ for help with their phone, the company already has the money. It's not like a contract arrangement where somebody threatens to be a pain in the *** for two solid years.

If they really don't want to help you, why not simply say, "We're not going to help you fix your phone. Switch to a different one. G'bye! <click>" That would weed out the "problem" customers (many of whom will be out $10 to P+, tops), without shutting off the flow of new customers who wouldn't be problematic.

As a general rule, new customer acquisition is one of the most difficult and expensive problems for any business. To see a company deliberately stemming the flow of new customers--particularly when that company is selling an essentially limitless resource--is extremely unusual. Therefore, I still believe the most logical conclusion is that it is not their choice to do so.

[roba]

If this is to benefit the Page Plus CS team, why was it imposed by the MVNE - wouldn't it be Page Plus implementing this?

Why would the MVNE want to cripple its other MVNOs because of a Page Plus CS issue?

[Big Blue 023]

That's the question I want answered too. It'd be a little easier if the name of Page Plus and BD Wireless's MVNE were known. I'm sure someone here does know who they are.

Other then that, all I can say is that other major Verizon mvnos are not affected. I just confirmed with Mingo . And they are testing a Blackberry program anyway. So what the heck. Air Voice Express also gives a thumbs up to any device including all banned ones on PPC. I got tired of waiting for H20 so I hung up.

[plumsauce]

It has the smell of a strategy on the part of VZW to scoop the cream of the data users.

If you look at costs involved, the best data user to have when data plans are mandatory is someone who does not use much data, but uses some, and is therefore forced to pay for an "unlimited" plan.

With the rise of mandatory data plans amongst the top tier carriers, why has no one brought up the matter of "tied selling" as being at least questionable in the eyes of the law?

[gregsmith59]

...
I'm not convinced by the "reduce CS calls/hold time" argument, because of the prepaid model. By the time someone is calling P+ for help with their phone, the company already has the money. It's not like a contract arrangement where somebody threatens to be a pain in the *** for two solid years.
...

Except you ignore the facts here.

Lots of customers are calling PP CS with the $6 free credit, a probable commission paid out to a dealer, and no money in the PP bank. So PP is out the $3-$5 that a typical CS call costs fully-loaded, and they are further behind before they get started.

Prepaid service is not a high margin business, and they don't need the headache of newbie customers and newbie dealers like they have been slammed with over the smartphone moving to plans and smartphone data/MMS issues.

[gregsmith59]

...
With the rise of mandatory data plans amongst the top tier carriers, why has no one brought up the matter of "tied selling" as being at least questionable in the eyes of the law?

Customers do not have a mandatory data plan. Customers choose certain phones which have a mandatory data plan, knowing full well at the time they choose the phone this is the case. A mandatory data plan has not been imposed retroactively to my knowledge, unless the customer changed plans, and if that were to happen the customer could walk.

[jcompton]

Except you ignore the facts here.

Lots of customers are calling PP CS with the $6 free credit, a probable commission paid out to a dealer, and no money in the PP bank. So PP is out the $3-$5 that a typical CS call costs fully-loaded, and they are further behind before they get started.

They'd be less than that cost if they were as short as I propose...

Prepaid service is not a high margin business, and they don't need the headache of newbie customers and newbie dealers like they have been slammed with over the smartphone moving to plans and smartphone data/MMS issues.

I'm not ignoring those facts. They represent other variables which a company should be adjusting before going with the drastic and, again, almost wholly unprecedented move of actively discouraging new customer acquisition. (I think most reasonable people have dismissed the prospect that this could be a "let's sell more P+ branded phones" move, since their lineup is nowhere equivalent to the banned phones.) So let's talk more about these facts.

If BYOD smartphone users really are negatively impacting the business, I would expect a rational, self-interested business to consider adjusting its CS policies (up to and including "firing" customers by disallowing problem callers with unsupported phones from adding further credit), dealer acquisition, pricing, activation incentive, and dealer compensation models before actively discouraging new customer acquisition.

Keep in mind, also, that some BYOD customers are absolute gold, with practically a zero-acquisition cost. Some people (myself included) bring a device, activate on the website, pay their money, and then mind their own business. Closing your doors to those customers seems like a much more short-sighted decision than firing the bad apples.

So I am left with the conclusion that either P+ is operated in an irrational manner, or that the decision is not theirs.

Generally, if you are actively discouraging new customers from patronizing your business, one or more of these is true:

1. You sell a dwindling or finite resource. (Parking spots, restaurant tables, fossil fuels.)
2. A great deal of the value of your product is the cachet of exclusivity. (designer clothes, country club memberships)
3. You are an unregulated monopoly, and attracting a larger audience might also attract a competitor which would threaten your monopoly profits.

P+ fails all three tests.

1. P+'s sales capacity does not threaten to put a serious dent in Verizon's available bandwidth. For all intents and purposes, unless there is some contract clause we are unaware of, their input (Verizon bandwidth) is "unlimited."
2. P+ is hardly an exclusive brand.
3. We both agree that P+ is a low-margin commodity reseller in a competitive marketplace for private-label and name-brand cellular services.

Yes, true, CS is a "finite resource", but it is rather less finite and more flexible than, say, coal.

[hpark21]

However, if you BOUGHT a phone out of your money and want to activate on Verizon line, you do not get any choice but to get data plan even if you do not want them if you have certain phone, no?

If customer does not want the feature, but just because you have an equipment which is capable, why does the customer MUST purchase it?

I would think there would be law against it?

For example, if I buy a blackberry from a friend of mine and want to activate it on Verizon, verizon will force me to get a data plan even if I do not want it nor need it.

[thusidie]

I don't think the ban hurts them that much. Bad CS is expected of prepaid. And they got good plans.

[offthegrid]

My take (obviously just an opinion) is that they are moving closer to an unlimited data offering and they needed to impose a smartphone ban for two reasons:

1.- Why stay with postpaid if you can just get the exact same thing (minus roaming in some areas) with the same phone? This would cause a mass exodus from Verizon to PagePlus. Verizon is not going to allow that.

2.- PagePlus will have some sort of cap regardless of what the terms are so in order to call it unlimited and mean it they have to cull smartphones etc. Failure to take action on phones capable of using too much data would be suicide for them a la Amp'd.

I've been saying for some time that they can't offer any type of unlimited data plan while having smartphones.

Its only my opinion that PP does not have an MVNE relationship unless its just for infrastructure purposes - certainly they have a contract directly with Verizon but who knows. An MVNE relationship would be used initially till a certain size is obtained or for software purposes such as billing etc.

Of course I could be way off and they are sniffing out data loss ($$$) thats happening through the free data method and they need to shut that down. That would follow the 'prepaid not a high margin business' way of thinking. I don't know just how much data can be used that way in a month but if enough users are doing that they have to realize that someone is paying the bill - its not really free. The goose that killed the golden egg type of thing.

It certainly is interesting that this is all happening so fast. THAT seems to point to Verizon wielding a hammer to make this happen for whatever reason imo.

Just very interesting.