Vodaphone - Getting out of 2 year contract

drbesty

dangerman7uk you clearly have no idea how much a mobile network costs to run, you seem to think the staff, the infrastructure, the network etc all costs nothing. As an example, Orange recently set aside £180 million to upgrade the capacity on their network and a further £500 million to overhaul their 2g network. Pretty soon they'll have to bid for a 4g license, then they'll spend further billions building a 4g network. It's not just a case of 24 x 30 - handset cost = pure profit for the network, in reality alot of customers make mobile networks negligible amounts of money, some even cost the networks money

gjchester

dangerman7uk wrote: »

Talk Mobile offering a £99 phone (Samsung Galaxy 2 which would cost £450 about the same as the iphone) with 400 minutes, 1000 texts and a gig of data for a £30pcm for 12 months TCO of £460. Theoretically, you could buy another contract in 12 months and get a similar deal and a new phone.

Vs

Vodafone offering the same phone for the same price with 900 minutes unlimited texts and 750mb internet for £36pcm fo 24 months TCO of £964.

So, as you can see, Vodafone are charging more than double for a very similar contract, yet you're only getting one phone for the two years.

Firstly to be fair you need to quote both at 24 months, so the TCO on the intial contract is (£460 x 2) = £920, but you wuold get to sell one phone after 12 months. Would it realise £200 in 12 months, Hard to say, the desire HD is almost a year old and CEX play £150 to £200 for them depening on branding and condition so it's possible however your still not making anything significant difference over a phone for 24 months. If you were to look at that dela for 12 months then 12 months on a giffgaff deal you'd be looking at £580 as the TCO but again it's not as simple as the comparison implies you need to consider unlocking and lower service levels.


However talkmobile http://www.talkmobile.co.uk/ seem to be offering the Galaxy S II at £30 pcm for the phone on a 24 month contract. I don't seen any 12 month contracts where the SG2 is offered.

That makes the TCO £720. Sure theres a differnce at that point but as Vodafone direct offer the same phone for Free on a £30 contract I'm not sure that your comparison is valid the TCO is the same.

gjchester

dangerman7uk wrote: »

Totally agree. They sound like good deals. And I've never said that you cannot get good deals. It's what's right for the person, innit?

The reason I get bet out of shape, though, is when they close up gaps like allowing you to reduce a contract after nine months (which I always though was handy in case circumstances changed while serving a long contract). Or when they extend a contract without giving the customer something in return?

Am I repeating myself now? Sorry about that.

It's not closing gaps at will though, it's closing them when the user renews. If they don't read the T&C how is it anyone elses fault but the user.

And they don't extend the contract except at renewal, as I said if you don't like it vote with your wallet.

Unfortunatly as Guys Dad says many people don't bother or care to read the terms in the rush to get the latest gadget.

gjchester

dangerman7uk wrote: »

It's basic ethics. I recycle bicycles for a charity. A 'non-profit' charity. Which obviously profits, of course. Maybe I am a bad manager. But it's my ethic. I find out the value of a used reconditioned bicycle and make sure both parties get a good deal.

No it's not different ethics it's different motivation.

You are driven to do good, and I daresay you could make more per bike but choose not to. Do you honestly pay yourself a market rate for all the time spent on each bike, (and I mean all the time, that the fixing, selling, fetching, advertising etc) or do you end up donating time time (I'm not trying to take the hiss, friends I know who do charity work always do more hours than they get paid for). Your motivation is not simply money related.

Coprporate policies are driven to make money, thats it. They can be ethical but every item willbe charged for and very few itens done for free.

Same ethics, differnet emphasis.

redped

dangerman7uk wrote: »

Talk Mobile offering a £99 phone (Samsung Galaxy 2 which would cost £450 about the same as the iphone) with 400 minutes, 1000 texts and a gig of data for a £30pcm for 12 months TCO of £460. Theoretically, you could buy another contract in 12 months and get a similar deal and a new phone.

Vs

Vodafone offering the same phone for the same price with 900 minutes unlimited texts and 750mb internet for £36pcm fo 24 months TCO of £964.

Two points:
(a) You're comparing a deal that has a TCO of £460 over one year with a deal that has a TCO of £964 OVER TWO YEARS. See the flaw in your logic?

(b) I can't see the Galaxy S 2 on Talkmobile's website for the tariff you mention. The only tariff for it is here - 750 mins/1500 text/1 Gig over 24 months, at £30pcm. So that gives a TCO of £720. Yes it's still cheaper that via Vodafone (although it has less minutes/more texts/more data allowance), but it's not right to say

dangerman7uk wrote: »

Vodafone are charging more than double for a very similar contract

Are you sure you're comparing the same phone on both networks? Looks like you've used the Galaxy S as a comparison from TM's website, instead of the Galaxy S 2.

Edit: Just realised that gjchester has been finding flaws in your logic as well

T_T_2

dangerman7uk wrote: »

It's basic ethics. I recycle bicycles for a charity. A 'non-profit' charity. Which obviously profits, of course. Maybe I am a bad manager. But it's my ethic. I find out the value of a used reconditioned bicycle and make sure both parties get a good deal.

The term non-profit is outdated and a poor approach to a business (charitable or other wise) the latest buzz word is not-for-profit and for good reason. The idea is that whilst the charity/organisation's main purpose is not to make a profit but is instead to provide a service to its targetted clients it should still do what it can to aim for profit.

There is no sensible reason why a charity should not be making a profit. The most successful charities are run like businesses, the only difference is that profit is slightly further down the scale of priorities.

Can I just ask, in your charity's mission statement, WHO are you aiming to help? Are you just trying to earn money to help these people or are you also trying to help the people you sell the bicycles to? If you are trying to help both parties then that's fine, if you are just trying to raise money to help one particular group then you shouldn't be underselling the bikes, you should be selling them for as much as the market will allow, otherwsie you are selling yourself short at the expense of your mission statement.

dangerman7uk

T_T wrote: »

The term non-profit is outdated and a poor approach to a business (charitable or other wise) the latest buzz word is not-for-profit and for good reason. The idea is that whilst the charity/organisation's main purpose is not to make a profit but is instead to provide a service to its targetted clients it should still do what it can to aim for profit.

There is no sensible reason why a charity should not be making a profit. The most successful charities are run like businesses, the only difference is that profit is slightly further down the scale of priorities.

Can I just ask, in your charity's mission statement, WHO are you aiming to help? Are you just trying to earn money to help these people or are you also trying to help the people you sell the bicycles to? If you are trying to help both parties then that's fine, if you are just trying to raise money to help one particular group then you shouldn't be underselling the bikes, you should be selling them for as much as the market will allow, otherwsie you are selling yourself short at the expense of your mission statement.

Good points, I like it. The company I work for claim to help their own service users. They pay me a wage to do support work, but rather than just take service users for walks or to the cinema or something, they gave me a work shop and a computer and said "fix up some bikes and make us some extra money". So alas, the service user, out of his benefits, pays my wages and I am instructed to fix up bikes "with" he/she/them.

I'm not selling the company short at all. I sell the bikes for what they're worth. For example, a classic 70's racer was donated, I put a new chain-set, recycled a chain and put a recycled wheel on it along with new tyres and inner tubes. The bike cost me £40 in bits, but once complete was gorgeous. I looked at the market and decided that for a bike like this was probably worth £100 based on what bikes are selling for new and based on the cost of refurb. Someone offered me £80 and I accepted. That's double what it cost, but it was a good deal on both sides.

I'm not charging for labour as such, because my labour is already paid for by the tax payer.

dangerman7uk

redped wrote: »

Two points:
(a) You're comparing a deal that has a TCO of £460 over one year with a deal that has a TCO of £964 OVER TWO YEARS. See the flaw in your logic?

(b) I can't see the Galaxy S 2 on Talkmobile's website for the tariff you mention. The only tariff for it is here - 750 mins/1500 text/1 Gig over 24 months, at £30pcm. So that gives a TCO of £720. Yes it's still cheaper that via Vodafone (although it has less minutes/more texts/more data allowance), but it's not right to say

Are you sure you're comparing the same phone on both networks? Looks like you've used the Galaxy S as a comparison from TM's website, instead of the Galaxy S 2.

Edit: Just realised that gjchester has been finding flaws in your logic as well

Yeah, the Voda deal was on the Voda site, and the Talkmobile was on Mobiles.co.uk. They're both real deals, I assure you. I'm going to buy the Talkmobile one if it's still available in a month.

The fact the Voda sign you up to a two year deal but only give you one phone is the whole point, my entire logic, of the statement. They charge roughly the same, but only give you one phone for the whole two years instead of one phone a year. There is no flaw, it's perfect. Voda should let you out of the contract after 12 months to compare to the TM deal.

I know I've not thought through all my examples thoroughly, but it my basic point stands: Contracts are, most of the time, unjustifiably long and expensive. Not all the deals the companies are offering are bad, you can get some really good deals.

gjchester

dangerman7uk wrote: »

I looked at the market and decided that for a bike like this was probably worth £100 based on what bikes are selling for new and based on the cost of refurb. Someone offered me £80 and I accepted. That's double what it cost, but it was a good deal on both sides.

I'm not charging for labour as such, because my labour is already paid for by the tax payer.

With respect if you were a business man you'd be asking above the £100, and bargaining down to £100 not accepting a low offer to start with.

How much does it cost to provide you with a workshop, pc, etc? I suspect you enviroment and labour is not being costed realisitically in the equasion.

In your bike example you made £40 on the bike. How long did it take to do all the work?

Around here a simple lockup costs £1k a month, assuming you work Mon to Sat 9-5 thats 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, so around 190 hour a month, or roughly £5 an hour for the lockup

Lets say you get minimum wage of £5.91 that means the cost is almost £11 an hour before any gas, water, electricity, taxes, rates, and all the other costs are covered.

Lets also remember your TAX and NI need to be covered too, so your probably looking at £15 to £20 an hour for your time and facilities.

Did it take longer than two hours to get the bike, get the parts, refurb it, find a buyer and sell the bike and any paperwork that needed to be done? Anything less is a loss, maybe not directly to your pocket, but cetainly overall. If you work for a charity then unless they have an income if they continue like that they will be out of business before long.

You say someone is paying your wages so that doesn't need to be covered, but at ther end of the day if your not making a profit on each sale your making a loss, and no business can sustain a constant loss without income from some source.

dangerman7uk

gjchester wrote: »

With respect if you were a business man you'd be asking above the £100, and bargaining down to £100 not accepting a low offer to start with.

How much does it cost to provide you with a workshop, pc, etc? I suspect you enviroment and labour is not being costed realisitically in the equasion.

In your bike example you made £40 on the bike. How long did it take to do all the work?

Around here a simple lockup costs £1k a month, assuming you work Mon to Sat 9-5 thats 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, so around 190 hour a month, or roughly £5 an hour for the lockup

Lets say you get minimum wage of £5.91 that means the cost is almost £11 an hour before any gas, water, electricity, taxes, rates, and all the other costs are covered.

Lets also remember your TAX and NI need to be covered too, so your probably looking at £15 to £20 an hour for your time and facilities.

Did it take longer than two hours to get the bike, get the parts, refurb it, find a buyer and sell the bike and any paperwork that needed to be done? Anything less is a loss, maybe not directly to your pocket, but cetainly overall. If you work for a charity then unless they have an income if they continue like that they will be out of business before long.

You say someone is paying your wages so that doesn't need to be covered, but at ther end of the day if your not making a profit on each sale your making a loss, and no business can sustain a constant loss without income from some source.

Ok ok, I take it back. I'm a mickey mouse business man at best.

I thought I was doing ok getting double the investment on each bike.

I've been schooled.