Ad blocking users will not magically start clicking ads because someone coerces them into disabling their ad blocker.

Content providers should really focus their efforts where there is at least the possibility they will benefit from the effort. In this case, not only will unblocking ads lower the overall "quality" of the eyeballs on the ads, but it will piss off consumers. Smart.

I think it should prorate faster too. There's no sense in having to pay $120 to break your contract at the 23 month mark.

Now that's a reasonable argument. Although they also have phones that cost more than $560, so it goes both ways.

I just looked at completed listings on ebay and I see plenty of DROIDs that have sold for anywhere from $400 to $620 (don't ask me why anyone would pay more than the retail price), so it's not as if you are stuck with the phone and its cost if you decide to bolt to another company.

If you don't like the vendor lock-in that comes with a CDMA phone then nobody is stopping you from using AT&T or T-Mobile. Verizon is not a monopoly.

I think you're allowed out of your contract if you move out of the service area, but I'm not sure of that.

They aren't relating the ETF directly to the phone you buy, but they are relating it to the class of phone you buy; the $350 fee only applies to "advanced devices."

Exactly. Companies are in business to make money.

Thank you for understanding that when I said you save X amount that I wasn't claiming Verizon was losing X amount. It just comes out of their markup.

Nobody that I know of has been forced into a cell phone contract. Rather, those of us that have contracts have been persuaded into it which works because, as you point out, there is such strong demand for the latest and greatest.

For that particular phone it is completely relevant. If you go into a store and ask them for a DROID with no contract that is the price.

They do have cheaper phones where the math would be more in their favor and they also have more expensive phones where the math would swing more to your favor.

Who said I accept the cost is $560? I said they charge you $560. Don't like the price? Don't pay it.

Must trash your phone? Don't even own it? That's just stupid. I might switch to another carrier, but I could still sell the phone, so don't go screaming the sky is falling.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with wireless providers locking down phones. I don't like it either, but don't confuse the issue.

I'm assuming by open market you meant free market. I hate to break it to you, but this is the free market at work. The carriers have ETFs and locked handsets because consumers by and large put up with it.

None of this is to say that these companies don't do some pretty sleazy things. For example, having ETFs that didn't prorate was dirty for sure, but if you don't like how Verizon is doing business then go with a company like Cricket that doesn't require contracts and will let you unlock your phone if you want to leave them. You do have choices.

I'm not saying whether $560 is fair or not, but that's the price, so the new ETF still enables you to give yourself an instant $10 discount.

I have no idea how much the phone costs VZW, but I'm with you... I would never pay that much.

At least on AT&T when you are on suspension the contract clock pauses. You simply move your contract end date out by the length of your suspension.

Using the DROID as an example:

The DROID with no contract is $560.

Math with the current termination fee:
$200 for the phone +
$175 to immediately break your contract =
$375 (You save $185 over the no-contract price)

Math with the new termination fee:
$200 for the phone +
$350 to immediately break your contract =
$550 (You save $10 over the no-contract price)

Either way you save more than simply buying the phone without a contract. The new fee is high, but I can understand their reasoning.

The article isn't so much about targeted advertising as it is how the user's data is obtained. What the article actually says is we don't want to be tracked across multiple sites. It doesn't mention targeted advertising using data acquired on a single site.