[nerys]

"Like it or not - It's their sandbox and they set the rules, if you don't like the rules change carriers!"

Actually its OUR sandbox. Operating a company is not a right is a priviledge granted to corporations BY US the citizens of the united states of america.

ITS OUR SAND BOX. they play by OUR RULES.

the problem is our society has become apathetic and literally "dumber" so we lets the tail wag the dog so to speak and do nothing about it (as a whole)

DVD players are the opposite of cell phones since dvd players are objects that are sold so as you sell more you economy of SCALE goes down IE they get cheaper.

Cell Phones require "service" and this service has to be maintained and EXPANDED as you add more users.

The idea is the users you add pay for the services you expand. The problem is when EXISTING users start to use MORE services.

this should not be a problem. You see if your intelligent you amortize the cost of your network into the "expected" lifespan if your accounts. Once that has occurred your "effective" profit from each customer goes up. If they use more that is factored into your profit (hence the 5gb limit)

You get 5gb whether you use 5gb or not thats what your paying for. a good analogy is actually the buffet.

$13 a person all you can eat whether thats 1 plate or 3 plates its $13

IF the company is smart they factor in the max usage say 3 plates and price accordingly.

What sprint is doing would be tantamount to you eating 1 plate at the buffet for several years and then suddenly you start eating 2 plates (say smart phone) and now suddenly they are upset at their lower profit so they want to charge you more.

but you PAID for all you can eat and your NOT over the theoretical max (3 plates)

this is not fair and is unethical.

my anger in this thread is NOT at sprint. They are doing what any corrupt greedy corporation does. Screw their customers.

I am angry at the INABILITY or UNWILLINGNESS of some of the people on this forum to grasp this very simple very common issue for what it is.

What they are doing is WRONG and it should not be tolerated.

When a company SCREWS UP and makes a mistake on their estimation of user usage the RIGHT MORAL AND PROPER WAY to handle this is to change it "from them on" not retroactively.

For example. you want us to subsidize your new toy? fine but we require these changes.

Your a NEW user? NEW rules you don't get the rules of the existing users.

this is the RIGHT way to handle this.

the problem is sprint is RETROACTIVELY changing the rules for EXISTING USERS. this is wrong. THIS is where my problem lies.

If I want sprint to subsidize an EPIC I have no problem with sprint saying ok but you must accept these new terms.

in the past this is how it worked. if I did not like the new terms then I had to foot the full bill for the new phone myself.

Now sprint is saying no matter what even if WE are giving you NOTHING NEW we are going to charge you anyway (and NO the red herring of Any mobile and navi do not count since they are NOT WANTED) thats called a "strawman" argument.

thats my only problem. the changes should NOT be compulsory and retroactive. what is the POINT of a contract if sprint can just change it anytime they wish.