Slashdot Mirror


Why Phone Stores Should Stockpile Replacements

Bennett Haselton writes: I would be in favor of a regulation requiring cell phone stores to have replacement phones on hand, for any phone model covered by a customer's insurance policy. Then customers who have insurance protection on their phones could get the damaged phones replaced instantly, and the replacement phones that are normally mailed out by overnight mail to customers under their protection plan, could instead be mailed to the stores to replace the one they just gave out to the customer. Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts

My phone got wet. It wasn't a warranty issue, since it was my fault. (Well, it would be more accurate to say that it wasn't the manufacturer's fault. I was going through the Ballard Locks with some friends in a river raft that we were paddling. But taking my phone on the raft wasn't the stupid part; I had it sealed in a zippable plastic bag. But on the way back through the locks, some jerks in a rental yacht pulled up to the raft, started chatting, and then suddenly urged us to get on board and get our raft into the yacht very urgently, making me think it was an emergency and causing me to lose track of my phone. As I dug the soaked phone out of my pocket once we were all on board the yacht, we later determined that the "emergency" was that the jerks were trying to get the three women in bikinis on board their boat.)

So I gave the T-Mobile store rep an abbreviated version of this story the next day, and he said that after I paid the $90 deductible under the phone insurance policy, I could get a new phone mailed out to me by overnight mail. As much as the phone itself sucked, I really wanted a working one again, so since I could see the same model in boxes on the wall, I asked why I couldn't just take one of those, since the insurance policy entitled me to a replacement. He said it was because to save costs, their insurance provider sometimes sent out refurbished phones as replacements under the insurance policy, which are worth less because they can't be sold new.

Well, that's fair. Presumably it really does keep costs down to use refurbished phones as replacements, and while not every cost savings gets passed on to the consumer, it doesn't hurt. Then I asked if I could "borrow" one of the in-store models by buying it and using it until the replacement phone arrived the next day, then returning the borrowed phone to the store under their 14-day return policy? No, he said, at least not without paying the $50 re-stocking fee. (In hindsight I probably should have paid that for the ability to start using my phone again, but it's one of those fees that grates on you not because you can't afford it, but because you're disgusted at having to pay it.)

But, that's still fair. Restocking a phone costs money too. But -- but -- why don't they just keep a stockpile of phones in a cardboard box in the back -- the crummy "refurbished" ones that can't be sold new -- and use those to satisfy customers' insurance claims? Then customers who file a claim could walk out of the store with a replacement phone, the same model they'd always been used to, and the insurance company could mail the replacement phone to the store, to replace the one that was handed out to the customer.

They would only have to have one replacement model of each phone that had been sold recently enough to consumers to still be covered under a replacement insurance plan. That still probably wouldn't take up more space than what you could fit into a medium cardboard box. Perhaps more popular models of phones could have multiple stand-by replacement models in the store, since it would be more likely for two people to walk in on the same day looking for replacements for that phone model -- and once the replacement phones get mailed out by the insurance company, the store's supply of replacements gets replenished anyway. If the store is really unlucky, and four people walk in on the same day making warranty claims on a phone model, when the store's policy was to only carry three of that model in stock, there would be no reason to penalize the store, as long as they made a reasonable effort to have enough replacement phones in stock to handle the normal rate of insurance claims.

For that matter, you wouldn't even have to have the replacement phones all in stock at the same store. One store could serve as the "replacement supplier" for all of that carrier's retail stores in, say, a 20-minute driving radius. So when I make my warranty claim at the initial store, they can tell me to drive 20 minutes and pick up a new phone. That would have been much preferable to waiting another day.

Also, if the customer's replacement phone gets given to me instantly and then the replacement from the insurance provider gets mailed to the store to replenish the one they just gave out, there's no particular reason it would have to be sent out by overnight mail. That would bring down the cost of handling the claim, which might be passed on to the consumer in the form of a lower insurance deductible or lower overall fees (again with the optimism, but lowering costs means the savings will be passed on to somebody, even if only to the shareholders of the cell phone carrier). The more of that phone model they have in stock at the store, the more slowly and cheaply the replacement phone can be mailed out, since you only need to make sure that the store's supply of that model never hits zero. So the optimal solution would involve weighing the cost of storing two or three of a particular phone (versus just one) versus the cost savings of the slower mailing method.

This is a simple (and very first-world) problem and a modest fix, but the larger point is that there's no reason to think that the free market necessarily arrives at the most cost-effective solution in situations like this. Companies compete on cost-effectiveness in arenas that are highly visible to the consumer and likely to factor into their purchasing decisions -- the highest-megapixel camera for the lowest price, for example -- but few customers at purchase time are likely to ask about the insurance claim process (and probably very few people ask how quickly a phone gets replaced when a user files a claim). As such, we're lucky that the insurance provider sends out the replacement phone by overnight mail at all, when they could presumably mail it out by 3- or 4-day mail instead, and no free market forces or government truth-in-labeling enforcers would probably penalize them for that. But an in-store-replacement rule (or a replacement-from-some-store-within-a-20-minute-drive rule) would benefit customers more and, with the savings on the mailing speed for the replacements, possibly cost the carrier less. (Even if it did cost the carrier more to carry a small box of in-store replacements in the back room, and even if that cost did get passed on to customers, I'd consider myself ahead on the deal if it meant I'd never be without a replacement phone for more than a day.)

253 comments

  1. Quick by qbast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... legislate away my every inconvenience.

    1. Re:Quick by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Insurance companies should keep spare houses on hand for when my house burns down. I dont want to wait.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Quick by u38cg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why in the name of Goodness does this inane stream-of-consciousness rambling get published here? And more to the point, why can't he be given an auther ID so we can filter his nonsense out?

      To keep this vaguely on topic, the answer is efficiency. If that's not good enough for you, fuck off and run a retail store until you have a clue.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    3. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree.

      It it so dumb that people think about only the cost to them and ask for regulations from the government to make life easier. They choose to ship replacement overnight because that is more cost effective then keeping a pile of refurbished phones in stock in every store.

      How dose a stupid article like this make front page?

    4. Re:Quick by qbast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All that ranting just because he could not get new phone *immediately*. What is wrong with this guy?

    5. Re:Quick by swb · · Score: 2

      A lot of insurance policies do cover temporary housing, and it wouldn't surprise me if they do maintain "inventory" in the form of preferential arrangements with hotels, especially the extended stay kind.

    6. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      he's a whiny little prick and he wants everyone to know how long he had to wait because some guys got his phone wet. sad really.

    7. Re:Quick by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      It's not even a new phone, it's a crummy old phone.

    8. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Bennett. Such an entitled twat, why do we all get his rants on the front page... unfilterable...

    9. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QUICK! Suck on Ayn Rand's Penis!

    10. Re:Quick by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      All that ranting just because he could not get new phone *immediately*. What is wrong with this guy?

      It's even a phone he admittedly hates. For fucks sake, he should have listened to the sign from God and just bought an iPhone (which they no doubt have in stock) so he can complain about *real* phone problems.

    11. Re:Quick by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I check the submissions queue every now and again in case I can down-vote his posts, but I never seem to catch them. Are they on some kind of fast-track?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Quick by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      With a phone you don't need a temporary replacement, just buy one right off the shelf at the cell phone store. I insure my multi-hundred thousand dollar houses, I don't insure my $400 cell phone or my $400 shoes. It's ridiculous and simply leads to "problems" that wouldn't be a problem if you didn't pay for insurance.

    13. Re:Quick by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      But he could get a new phone immediately, he only needed to pull out his wallet and point at which replacement phone he wanted. His real problem is he signed up for a crappy third party cell phone insurance plan that he finds inconvenient to use and wants someone else to solve his problem. The solution is simply, don't fork over money for insurance that makes you wait for an in-warranty replacement/repair OR have an old beater phone sitting around you can slap your SIM in if your primary phone gets damaged.

    14. Re:Quick by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      ... legislate away my every inconvenience.

      ^^^ Pure logical win.

    15. Re:Quick by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a liberal, Bennett's idea is stupid and this is something the government should stay out of. The market can handle this just fine.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He even says in hindsight he would have paid $50 for an additional 24 hours of having a phone. How fucking dependant is this guy? If he was homeless and this phone was his lifeline I could maybe kinda sorta understand it.

      This is the epitome of "first world problems".

    17. Re: Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most phone stores actually offer their own slightly higher insurance. Key is, you have to go to the same store. If you travel, just buy two idenrical phones ans invest in peace of mind. Btw I think mt home owners insurance company should provide a house just like mine if mine burns up, floods, or gets blown away.

  2. wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was I supposed to read that?

  3. Awww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did someone just break their phone???

  4. I'm in favor of a free vacation for Bennett by CajunArson · · Score: 0

    That's right, we can send Bennett over to our friends at ISIS and he can give them annoyling irrelevant advice about the exact type of eco-aware synthetic materials that they should use in their head-chopping knife scabbards. If we're lucky, they'll chop their own heads off in sheer frustration after they're done with him, and we'll kill 2 birds with one stone.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  5. Legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're in favor of the federal government enacting legislation that would determine how a company runs? We need less government oversight, not more... especially for something as ridiculous as this. If you can't be without your phone overnight, you have some issues. If it's that important.. YOU keep a spare on hand using YOUR money.

    1. Re:Legislation? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's communism: central economic planning. In this case, he's trying to legislate how shipping and stocking for risk management is handled.

      This means, of course, overstocked phones, meaning waste stock, meaning additional cost shifted onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. Communism would, as well, legislate that away, mandating that the business simply incur less profit.

      Americans have been favoring communism lately, in the form of demanding the government tell businesses to profit less. We have also shifted a lot toward democratic socialism, demanding the Government provide more services; mind, we haven't moved toward true socialism, in which the Government runs a business for a profit and uses that money for social benefit, so we're just asking for higher taxes or deficit spending.

      I've been trying to build this web site about providing a Citizen's Dividend--a Georgist concept--taken as a percentage of "the economy" by applying a flat tax against all income filed, but it's too ugly to publicize yet. My plan is, in a nutshell, to eliminate all taxes tied to direct welfare spending totaling $1.62T (excluding Medicare and Medicaid, due to practical concerns); apply a 14.5% tax to all income instead ($1.72T); divide that up by all natural-born, resident American citizens of the age of majority ($7,125 per adult person per year in 2012); and repeal minimum wage. Because it's a fixed tax on all income filed, it follows inflation forever.

      There's some transition required--this works if you've been doing it for 10 years, but breaks if you're on Social Security today collecting $1500/mo and we suddenly give you $600/mo instead--but the end result is a baseline market in which people have a known, non-garnered, non-taxed, permanent income to which all other income is added. It's just enough for businesses to turn a profit by providing basic needs, even in a recession (2007 - 4.8% GDP drop, would drop income by 0.7% or $28/mo), and is the amount that the unemployed or minimally-employed are guaranteed to have. This makes it safe for the market to solve our problems of homelessness and hunger with impunity, for the higher purpose of raking in tons of cash from people who have nothing and are desperate enough to give up everything they do have. No government intervention required, poverty solves itself.

      The whole thing is both blindingly simple and immensely complex. The rough outline--the actual action required and the major effects--are simple, easy, and obvious. The secondary effects, the self-stabilizing nature of the thing, the threats and resistances to those threats, are all results of subtle complexity in social and economic behavior.

      No government planning in how the economy should provide welfare. No government welfare services. No government enterprise to raise welfare revenue (unemployment is this: a government insurance provider). A tax object is created, it exhibits fixed behavior, and the market adjusts around that to all fluctuations in market conditions. It's like I've found a way to make capitalism work.

  6. Agree 100% by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article is foolish. I could write the same diatribe for any object under warranty.

    Car dealerships should be required to keep an inventory for every model on-hand in case my car needs to go in for warranty service for an extended period.

    Home Depot should be required to keep a loaner inventory for every power tool in case I need to ship mine away for warranty service

    Best Buy should be required to keep a a loaner inventory for every refrigerator model...

    etc etc...

    You should count yourself lucky that most cell shops offer you a free loaner phone AT ALL, because they are under no obligation to, and some do not without a fee.

    1. Re:Agree 100% by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I was more surprised with the free overnight delivery and warranty covering accidents.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Agree 100% by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Car dealerships should be required to keep an inventory for every model on-hand in case my car needs to go in for warranty service for an extended period.

      Actually, in my country (Israel) this _is_ law. All car dealerships have associated garages that must supply seven years worth expected spare parts for all new vehicles, including non-wear parts such as body parts, and to maintain that stock. I'm not sure about how the details pan out for older vehicles, but it ensures that the company cannot just up and leave us without any parts.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Agree 100% by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having spare parts on hand has nothing to do with providing loaner vehicles while the car is under repair whatsoever. This (silly) article is about loaner phones, the analaogy is therefore loaner vehicles. It is common practice for dealerships to give you a loaner vehicle if your car will be in the shop for multiple days, but the loaner is just a random vehicle, not the exact same type. Just like this guys loaner phone was not the same type.

    4. Re:Agree 100% by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was more surprised with the free overnight delivery and warranty covering accidents.

      It wasn't replaced under warranty, it was replaced under a carrier provided insurance plan -- a plan that usually costs around $100/year, yet still has a high deductible. I once bought the insurance, but when I lost my phone about a year into the contract, i found that I could get a used one on eBay for less than the deductible. If you lose or break a new model phone within the few months of release, it may be worth it, but after that, you're generally better off just buying a new phone if you lose yours.

    5. Re:Agree 100% by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 2

      The thermopile on my 16 month old hot water heater broke down on a Friday morning. The parts are still under warranty, but not labor.

      I called Sears service (the warranter), told them the diagnostic code indicated the exact problem, and scheduled service (earliest available was Saturday). The tech arrived, looked at the same double-blink light pattern that I saw, and agreed that the thermopile needed to be replaced. He didn't, however, carry that part on his truck, so he had to "overnight" order it.

      An "overnight" order on Saturday actually means it gets ordered on Monday and delivered on Tuesday. They ship it directly to the customer's home, which means they won't schedule the next appointment until after I call to confirm that the part has arrived. They won't come on the same day, so essentially "overnight" on Saturday means we'll see you in some 5-hour window on Wednesday.

      I know I'll never order from Sears again (other service companies carry parts on their trucks), but I hadn't thought of just making it illegal to provide bad service...

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    6. Re:Agree 100% by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      The difference is that phones are small and you only need to stock a dozen models to serve most clients.

      And while there is no obligation to do so, it may bring a lot of good publicity. Especially now that brick and mortar shops have to compete with online resellers. In fact, the ability to walk in and leave with your item is probably the number one reason they still exist.

      Psychologically, immediate response is extremely important. If you want a good example of a company fully understanding this principle, just look at Apple stores. You can get your new shiny gadget the day of its announcement, they are always stocked, there is always someone available for you and beside the stupid launch day queues you can walk in and a minute later you leave with an iPhone in one pocket a very light wallet in the other. And of course, they do stockpile replacements.

    7. Re:Agree 100% by Krojack · · Score: 1

      Car dealerships should be required to keep an inventory for every model on-hand in case my car needs to go in for warranty service for an extended period.

      They use to have loaners on hand but stopped due to liability and insurance cost. Now they will give you a ride to a local car rental service. Your own car insurance will cover a rental.

    8. Re:Agree 100% by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Fixing a thermopile is very very very easy.

    9. Re:Agree 100% by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      I know I'll never order from Sears again (other service companies carry parts on their trucks), but I hadn't thought of just making it illegal to provide bad service...

      See, you're doing the right thing there by telling you friends. I've done the same on Facebook (Sears told me that me hand-washing dishes for a month while I waited for a $70 part was reasonable under their extended warranty that I foolishly purchased and that I was lucky because people who have refrigerators that fail in the summer and have to wait six weeks for service are much more unhappy).

      And I mean FOOLISHLY because, for Pete's sake, I'm in the support & service business and I never thought to ask Sears what their SLA is!

      So, yeah, I'm going to buy my next appliance from the local mom&pop shop and pay more, which means I'm pre-paying for customer service I'll need later (dishwashers are essentially disposable after their warranty service now - a control board can cost $375 if it's an old enough model).

      What the OP wants is to make it illegal for a Mom & Pop store to ever exist, because only the big megalocorps like Sears could ever afford to stock huge quantities of parts (and even Sears has closed down its branch parts counters in this economy). So, to the OP - screw you for being a corporate water carrier and enemy of the small business owner - you are what's wrong with society. If you want a service *PAY FOR IT*. Asshole.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Agree 100% by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      And how many of each of those models do you need to stock? 5? 10? This is not a zero-cost proposal.

      Furthermore, it doesn't invalidate any of my previous analogies. Home Depot only carries probably 3 models of chainsaws so the analogy holds.

      There is nothing special about cell phones that should require this kind of discussion, It most certainly should not be regulated. If this is really that important to you then voice your concerns to the store, if enough people want it the market will take care of it.

    11. Re:Agree 100% by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That kind of insurance is never worth it. Put it on your home contents insurance, or just shove some money in a jar every month to cover all your electrical appliances. Insurance is only ever worth it for things that might cost more than you can afford but absolutely need to pay for, such as damaging other people's cars or re-building your house after a fire.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Agree 100% by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Car rental will not be the exact same model so the analogy does not hold. OP wants a law that says if your car needs to go in the shop they should provide you with a loaner of the EXACT SAME type.

    13. Re:Agree 100% by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The difference is that phones are small and you only need to stock a dozen models to serve most clients.

      And while there is no obligation to do so, it may bring a lot of good publicity. Especially now that brick and mortar shops have to compete with online resellers. In fact, the ability to walk in and leave with your item is probably the number one reason they still exist.

      Psychologically, immediate response is extremely important. If you want a good example of a company fully understanding this principle, just look at Apple stores. You can get your new shiny gadget the day of its announcement, they are always stocked, there is always someone available for you and beside the stupid launch day queues you can walk in and a minute later you leave with an iPhone in one pocket a very light wallet in the other. And of course, they do stockpile replacements.

      *snort*. Given the way Samsung and other Android providers release phones, a dozen new phones a day is probably more accurate. (All variations on a theme). Sure, something like the Galaxy S5 changes once a year, but there are hundreds of phones and variations thereof under the Galaxy line for those who don't want to pay $200 for a new phone.

      So it becomes a huge inventory problem.

      And you're right about Apple. If you have a warranty issue, they'll happily replace it right then and there - they maintain a stock (even when it comes out) of replacement phones in the back. When the hot new iPhone comes out and is sold out, be reassured that if your shiny new one you got has a problem, Apple will pull it from their replacement stock. (If it's just released, that stock will be new - being manufactured purely to serve as replacement swapouts).

      But that's Apple, who thrives on providing a "premium" experience for its users. it also doesn't hurt that they don't have to stock many models. But it's also why you generally pay a bit more for Apple.

      Some no name crap-droid phone? Good luck.

    14. Re:Agree 100% by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      The loaner vehicle dealers sometimes provide is in exchange for high dollar services that you are procuring from the dealer. Phones are cheap, if you break the electronics they aren't generally repaired they are replaced. So purchase a replacement phone and be on your way.

    15. Re:Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the overall point is inane, but really, this rant strikes me as a thinly-veiled excuse to nonchalantly mention to a bunch of geeks that he was hanging out with three (!!) women in bikinis...

    16. Re:Agree 100% by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      This article is foolish

      Well, yeah. Most of us could have told you that as soon as we saw who wrote it.

    17. Re:Agree 100% by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was thinking that it would probably be good enough for most customers making insurance claims, if the store were just required to give out a loaner phone, not necessarily the same model. I would have strongly preferred the same model since I'm hooked on my slideout keyboard, but a virtual keyboard phone is better than nothing.

    18. Re:Agree 100% by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      I would not be in favor of this regulation for a small business, but there aren't a lot of mom-and-pop cell phone carriers.

      If there were some carriers small enough that this would be truly burdensome, it could always be written into the regulation that the requirement only applied to companies with more than X number of stores.

      My point is that the benefit to the consumer would be a lot less than the cost to the company, which means customers would come out ahead even if the companies passed the costs along.

    19. Re:Agree 100% by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      The specific circumstances that apply to cell phones are (1) they're really small, so it would cost the store less to carry spares, than, say, for an auto dealership to carry spare cars; and (2) when people's phones break, there's a huge benefit to them of getting a new one right away instead of waiting several days.

      After all, as some commenters pointed out, some stores provide free loaner phones voluntarily, so it can't be that hard.

      My problem is with the assumption that the free market will take care of these things by itself, and so whatever "the market" has given us must already be resource-optimal. That's only true for attributes of a product that the customer is fully aware of up-front when they're comparing options. If customers don't know in advance what the experience will be like to get a phone replaced, there's no reason to expect people to make the most informed choice when buying the phone and the insurance in the first place.

    20. Re:Agree 100% by geoscodin · · Score: 1

      A loaner vehicle has not been "common practice" in my experience. The last time I had extended service done the rep did offer me a loaner, but when I returned it I found that I had been billed for it under some vague line item. I had to ask what that fee was. Since I did not request a loaner, and was offered one (presumably at no cost) by the dealership, I was able to get that fee removed -- once I asked to speak to a manager. The "common practice" appears to be to provide a loaner, yes, but bury the cost and hope no one asks. I could have Enterprise pick me up and give me a rental for $9.99/day instead of paying $50/day for a "loaner."

    21. Re:Agree 100% by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Yep. Sometimes waiting on an external service is more trouble (and sometimes money) than it's worth.

    22. Re:Agree 100% by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      The size of the phone is irrelevant to the discussion, it is the COST of the phone and the DEPRECIATION that matters. If I have to keep 10 Galaxy S5s in inventory for possibly repairs, that costs me $6500 in inventory. Oh, and they depreciate at a rate of basically 50% a year or more so I am losing $3500 a year just having them sit there. Multiply that by 5 new phone models a quarter and 4 quarters a year and you have a net capital expenditure of $70,000 a year in this inventory. I could hire two employees with that money. It's TOTALLY infeasible.

    23. Re:Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having recently had my Maytag washer repaired (front-loader; the front bellows developed a hole - on the LAST day of the warranty, no less!), I can say that they do carry parts on their trucks for frequently replaced parts.

      Of course they don't carry everything, It's a truck. Do you expect them to drive around to their service visits in a tractor rig hauling double 52-foot trailers? They stock the common stuff in the service truck, less common stuff in a warehouse, possibly not local, and uncommon stuff maybe not at all, ordered from the manufacturer when they need it.

      The only downside - I never buy the extended warranty. My wife bought the washer and the warranty, it flooded our laundry room on the last day of the extended warranty, and now I'm sure I'll hear about that EVERY SINGLE TIME we buy a new appliance, even though the warranty cost more than the part would have.

    24. Re:Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best Buy should be required to keep a a loaner inventory for every refrigerator model...

      While I agree that the whole thing seems foolish, it is funny you should mention Best Buy. All of your analogies are flawed, but this one can be easily tweaked.

      Best Buy should be required to keep a replacement inventory for every refrigerator model that they have managed to sucker a consumer into buying their 2 year replacement policy for

      Now that is analogous to what Mr Haselton is saying with phones. If you sell a warranty / insurance policy for phone replacements, you should be required to stock extra models of all phones for which customers currently have policies for. Not 1 extra phone per policy mind you, that would be super dumb, since not all phones will need to be replaced within the warranty period. But definitely some number of each model.

      Again, I agree with you that it seems foolish. But in order to argue against something, you need to know exactly what you are arguing against.

    25. Re:Agree 100% by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      Well first of all you're double-counting if you're adding the $6500 in inventory cost PLUS the $3500 from depreciation :) If the depreciation of the phones is a loss, it's a depreciation on an asset that you still have, so you can't also count the up-front cost of the phone as a loss at the same time.

      Also, it's unrealistic to think you'd need 10 of EVERY phone. It's not as if 10 people are all going to make replacement claims on the same model in the same 2 days (it takes at most 2 days for the replacements to arrive from the insurance provider).

      More generally, it would probably benefit enough customers enough, if there were just a requirement to provide loaner phones while replacing the insurance phones, even if the loaner phones wouldn't have to be exactly the same model. I was probably overreacing on the idea of having loaner phones in every model since I really, really prefer having a slide-out keyboard, but even I could live with a virtual keyboard for one day.

      This can't be that much of an imposition, because it's something that some cell phone stores actually do. (But not all of them, and that's where customers get screwed because they have no working phone for two days.)

    26. Re:Agree 100% by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      It's a water heater, not a laundry machine. If the pilot won't stay lit, there's basically two parts that could have failed: the thermopile and the gas valve. Each can be carried in one hand.

      Either way, I told them the diagnostic code when I called, so they already knew exactly which part had failed. They were servicing a warranty for a unit just over a year old. It's a current model and they knew the exact serial number of the unit before they dispatched anyone.

      I've actually been shopping for other appliances recently and been asking more closely about their service standards. It seems to be common knowledge amongst their competitors that Sears generally doesn't carry parts on their while most others actually do.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    27. Re:Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with the proposed legislation. But, if a consumer protection law is considered necessary to protect consumers, why should small businesses be exempt and their customers be unprotected?

      Another example of this is the exemption for small (50 employees) businesses being exposed to penalties if they fail to offer health insurance to their employees. Why? If offering healthcare insurance is something employees should expect from their employer, why should the substantial percentage of employees who work for small businesses not also expect to be offered health insurance?

      Why not extend this philosophy to medical care itself? Maybe care providers who call themselves "doctors" who are in a medical group with less than four caregivers should not be required to be licensed or even have a medical degree? Maybe small manufacturers (less than, say, $10M in revenue) should be able to make and sell lawn darts?

      Of course, it all comes down to politics and rent seeking by small businesses.

    28. Re:Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Go fuck yourself. You're actually trying to justify your piece-of-shit, childish, rant? You're still arguing to LEGISLATE something so ridiculous. Grow the fuck up. You were slightly inconvenienced. Boo Fucking Hoo. The world doesn't owe you anything for your convenience. It's a wonder anyone allowed such a crap article to be published. It's even worse that you're now commenting trying to justify your crap article. Fuck off and buy a clue.

    29. Re:Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why those extended warranties are junk. Of course, people and consumer groups have been saying this for decades, at least for the last 40 years. But you were a schmuck.

    30. Re:Agree 100% by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I worked for one of the world's largest agricultural machinery companies and we did precisely that. Every part of every machine we had in stock just in case. Harvest season can be as short as a few weeks, so a broken part at the wrong time can bankrupt a farmer. Of course they pay for the privilege and it's a kind of insurance. The easy solution here (and pure capitalism/free market) is for retailers to offer same day replacement insurance for a fee. If you can't live without your phone you pay more insurance and get a quicker replacement, if you don't care you wait while it gets replaced.

    31. Re:Agree 100% by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      You did "precisely what" because what you describe has nothing to do with what the OP or myself posted about.

      This is about stockpiling LOANERS for use when warranty is being invoked. It has nothing to do with stockpiling parts.

      Sorry for being so blunt but this is the third such post I have had to reply to that did not RTFA.

    32. Re:Agree 100% by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1

      The difference is that phones are small and you only need to stock a dozen models to serve most clients.

      Only a dozen? Let's see... within the iPhone 5S range in the US, we have 3 different storage capacities (16, 32, 64 Gb) in 3 different colour schemes, with 4 different network setups (Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile/unlocked). That's 27. 40 more for the iPhone 5c (5 colours, 2 sizes, 4 networks). The iPhone 4S is still for sale, but "only" 8 options there because it's 8 Gb only now - except the 3 larger ones are still under warranty, so make that another 32. Then we get the 4 and 3GS - but I'll stop there, because we're already at 99 different handsets for the iPhone alone, before we get into Android handsets! Call them $333 each on average, that's $33k of handsets you're mandated to store but not sell. That's insane - just to avoid a 24 hour wait to Fedex a replacement handset to you!? (Not to mention I'd rather have the replacement shipped to me next-day anyway rather than spend hours travelling just to collect it myself.)

      Also, I seem to recall some of the Apple fan sites actually monitor stock levels in Apple's own stores - it usually takes a while for stores to have stock on hand after a launch (while customers buy up stock as soon as it arrives), then once a model is old they start running down stocks to avoid being left holding old kit. So, even Apple themselves don't actually carry stock on the scale the poster seems to be demanding, let alone 3rd party repair shops/vendors!

      A few years ago, my MacBook Pro's Superdrive failed. Standard part they'd been using for years ... the Store would have a spare in stock surely? No, I had to wait a week for them to get one shipped from Panasonic ... then I was told I'd have to leave the MBP with them for up to another a week to fit it. Of course, by the time I add up the travel costs alone for 3 visits, I'd have spent the price of a brand new external drive, even before factoring in the c 10 hours of my time spent going to and from the Apple Store, so I told them to install the replacement drive somewhere it wouldn't fit easily and bought an external drive.

      So, this legislation would be a hugely expensive "solution" to a trivial problem - and, of course, there's no guarantee that on the day your pink 32 Gb iPhone Verizon 5c happens to need replacing, someone else won't already have claimed that one replacement unit, so you can't have it anyway. Would the legislation somehow guarantee a quick replacement of the replacement by Apple, too? Or it would have to mandate everywhere having two of every handset, in case the first one's already taken ...

    33. Re:Agree 100% by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      This article is foolish. I could write the same diatribe for any object under warranty.

      What do you expect from that halfwit blowhard Haselton?

    34. Re:Agree 100% by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      The first part of my comment was context for the second part. A "loaner" can be treated like a part. If I'm a retailer, I stock a handful of loaners of popular models, then on each sale I offer "loaner insurance" to cover the cost of keeping these devices in stock. This is how we did it in Ag land with spares, so could use the same model in retail land for loan phones.

  7. Bad Advice by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts

    This is pretty much always bad advice.

    1. Re:Bad Advice by bobbied · · Score: 1

      It certainly was this time... Drowns his phone and gripe because it takes too long to replace it? I want my 5 min back...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Bad Advice by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      It is not better as it still uses the crusty Slashdot D1 comment engine. One has to load a new page to pop open a comment or to write a reply.

    3. Re:Bad Advice by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      His columns aren't always terrible, but this one was particularly dumb. Oh no, I'm so god damn special that I can't wait 2 days to get my phone replaced. If it's that big of a deal, either get better insurance or buy your own spare phone.

    4. Re:Bad Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still crusty, but there's a "+" button in the corner of each post that will expand the thread without reloading the page now. Not quite as slick as Slashdot in that regard, but functional enough. SN also supports UTF. Still waiting on Slashdot to do that.

      Besides, I thought the important thing was content.

    5. Re:Bad Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His columns aren't always terrible

      Mods, do the needful.

    6. Re:Bad Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you know.... Bennett Haselton is a excellent ./ troll.

      He does it so well, you think it's real. But step back, take a deep breath, and you'll see it's all one big joke just to get people riled up in the comments.

      John Katz 2.0.

      We need less of these guys. And more PizzaAnalogyGuys.

    7. Re:Bad Advice by Threni · · Score: 1

      Never heard of him. Tech journalist? Slashdot employee? "First time submitter"? Proven track record of insightful commentary/accurate predictions?

      Otherwise, why should I care?

    8. Re:Bad Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His columns aren't always terrible

      [Citation needed]

    9. Re:Bad Advice by Dahan · · Score: 1

      SN also supports UTF. Still waiting on Slashdot to do that.

      You missed the boat/raft on that one... Slashdot supported it over 10 years ago. Support was removed due to people abusing Unicode control characters (particularly the RTL/LTR direction overrides). Does SN let you switch to RTL text? Or post a ton of stacked combining characters (i.e., "Zalgo" text)?

      That said, Slashdot should just blacklist the control characters--Unicode publishes a list of them.

    10. Re:Bad Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still crusty, but there's a "+" button in the corner of each post that will expand the thread without reloading the page now. Not quite as slick as Slashdot in that regard, but functional enough. SN also supports UTF. Still waiting on Slashdot to do that.

      Besides, I thought the important thing was content.

      I can find tech news anywhere. I come to Slashdot for the attitude, and the atmosphere. And the trolling! Now fuck off you ignorant wank.

  8. make money instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of involving the state and burdening business with yet another regulation, if such a service is so important, start your own phone insurance service that features just the thing you are wanting.

    1. Re:make money instead by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      He can't do that, he would lose money. Which is why nobody does it.
      The first thing I though of was that there is no way for one particular store to know that you are that person's store and therefore have to stock the phone that they have insured. So you will have to have at least one of every phone in existence that is currently under an insurance plan. Secondly, you have no way of knowing how many people are going to experience an insurance issue on a given day and come in to get a replacement phone. There are actuarials which could give averages, but the store would need to cover for the worst case, not the average.
      Far cheaper for the consumer would be, instead of paying the monthly insurance and ridiculous deductible, just buy a second phone and leave it in the box.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  9. Regulation, regulation, regulation by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's wrong with you people? Can't you take care of your own fucking problems without crying to dad..., er, I mean, government for help???

    Get something through your thick skulls: regulation is ALWAYS bad!! But you'll only get once some regulation affects you in a negative way.

    1. Re:Regulation, regulation, regulation by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Regulation is by no means always bad. The one Bennet proposed is, par for the course.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Regulation, regulation, regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regulation isn't always bad by any means. Ensuring food and drink isn't poisonous, preventing companies screwing their customers via false advertising, and preventing collusion in a market with few competitors are all examples of the good that can come from regulation.

      This idea is shit though, you're right there.

    3. Re:Regulation, regulation, regulation by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      dad..., er, I mean, government

      I hope to hell your dad didn't engage in the same kind of activities that government is so well-known for...!

    4. Re:Regulation, regulation, regulation by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      Get something through your thick skulls: regulation is ALWAYS bad!!

      Food safety: ALWAYS bad!!
      Building codes: ALWAYS bad!!
      Headphones that don't electrocute me: ALWAYS bad!!
      Baby cribs that don't kill babies: ALWAYS bad!!
      Medicine that is safe: ALWAYS bad!!

      Your position is absurd.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Regulation, regulation, regulation by Nimey · · Score: 1

      "Regulation is always bad", says the fuckwit who gets clean food and water because of government regulation.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Regulation, regulation, regulation by enjar · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone figured out

      - what side of the road to drive on
      - what voltage at what frequency comes out of the wall plug, and what amperage is allowed
      - who can broadcast radio waves on what frequency so I can enjoy radio, television, mobile phone and data
      - when I pump 93 octane gas into my car, it means something. Also that the pump is dispensing the amount of fuel I'm paying for.

      There are stupid regulations like the drivel posted above. There are also regulations that make some sense or which have come about as the result of abuse, collusion, etc.

  10. Very sorry to hear this by djbckr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It troubles me that you were without your phone for a few days. Really... well... NOT. What kind of tripe is this on Slashdot? This is perhaps one of the most whinging pathetic things I've heard in a while. It reminds me of a two-year-old crying over spilt milk.

    1. Re:Very sorry to hear this by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      This is perhaps one of the most whinging pathetic things I've heard in a while.

      This can only be true if "a while" is "since his last pointless rant got posted to Slashdot".

  11. Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Galaga88 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm pretty sure Apple stores have replacement stock on hand. Anytime I've had to get my phone replaced under AppleCare+, I've been able to make my appointment, walk in, and walk out with a (presumably refurbed) new phone from a box in the back. Heck, if the replacement didn't work in the store, they had even more replacements ready to go.

    This is probably the result of Apple being able to afford to keep that kind of inventory on hand in their stores. Plus, Apple doesn't exactly have a lot of models of phones. A carrier like T-Mobile or Verizon would have to keep a frankly excessive number of phones on hand for any immediate warranty replacements. (How many Samsung phones are on the market at any given time?)

    On the gripping hand, it's not like smartphones are exactly *large* and would take up a lot of space in the backroom so...

    I think it'd be a nice customer service perk (and part of the reason I stick with Apple) but not something that needs to be legislated. Do carriers not keep cheap loaners in stock that you can borrow (with a credit card deposit) until your actual replacement shows up?

    1. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Not only that, if they don't have the model you have, they will replace it with a better one. When the Wifi went out on my 16gb 4S, I walked out with a 32gb.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    2. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the precise way it should be handled, by the market. Apple will replace your phone on the spot, so that's one reason you stay with Apple. For them, it's a competitive advantage that is apparently worth the extra cost.

      Bennett wanted his phone replaced on the spot, but neither selected a vendor for that purpose nor was willing to spend $50 extra because he was apparently too stupid to leave the phone in its waterproof bag until he was on land. This is precisely what government regulation isn't for.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About half of Bennett's "stories" are just petulant whining about how his Android phone isn't as nice a an iPhone.

      If his posts weren't so annoying, I'd just assume that this was all stealth advertising for Apple.

    4. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Bingo. What he described is not something that needs to be legislated, nor should it be. After all, there's nothing special about the mobile industry, so why wouldn't this extend to microwaves, dishwashers, refrigerators, cars, and other devices under warranty? As soon as we put it in those terms, we realize that it makes little sense to do so, since it's ridiculously expensive to keep stock on-hand in many cases.

      As you said, that Apple is able to do so is a competitive advantage that differentiates them, and it's one which is largely afforded them by their slim product line and large stock of units on-hand for selling.

    5. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple can keep spare phones because Apple stocks exactly 1 product. It's a perk of "thinking different, like everyone else."

      Meanwhile there are a hundred different models of Android phones, with new ones coming out every few months.
      This chode expects every store to keep all of them on hand just in case?

      Nope.

    6. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the advantages of having a very small number of models to choose from. For most phone shops, it would be extremely impractical to keep every one of dozens of models (including everything recently discontinued, until the end of the warranty period) stockpiled.

    7. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft store also does this with their Complete insurance. My phone broke, and they gave me an upgraded one because they no longer sold my original model.

    8. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're joking. It's 1 product * multiple carries * multiple sizes * multiple colors * multiple generations.

    9. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple can pull that off as it is a *VERY* narrow inventory scope. It is one of the things Jobs did when he came back. He cleaned house of the old trash that didnt sell. They may have a dozen models they currently support. So it is easy and trivial as they are probably selling the very same.

      You bust your iPhone 4s and it takes them a couple of square feet and is easy to count. Rock into a t-mobile and they have 200 different brands of phones in flight over the last 3 years. You want each store to keep hundreds of square feet of floor space in case you dunk your craptastic android v6. They *might* have some of the 'big brands' but all of them? I seriously doubt it.

    10. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Not only that, if they don't have the model you have, they will replace it with a better one. When the Wifi went out on my 16gb 4S, I walked out with a 32gb.

      That's because it costs Apple no more than $5 to give you the 32Gb version over the 16Gb version. It's cheaper than having to ship a replacement to you. It's also good customer service, which is one of things you pay for when you buy an Apple product. Personally, I buy Android devices because you get a better device for your money (in my opinion), but there are some perks for paying the Apple tax....
       

    11. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      These days most people have an old phone that could tide them over for a few days while they order another one. New ones are not exactly expensive, e.g. a Nexus 5 is on a par with pretty much anything else in most respects and there are a few other "high end but cheap" phones out there now. I think the days of expensive phones are coming to an end in the next few years.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but depending on your provider it may not be easy to activate the old phone temporarily, and then deactivate it when the new phone comes in.

      With AT&T and T-Mobile, which as GSM carriers use SIM cards, swapping SIM cards is relatively easy, so your point stands.

      With Verizon and Sprint, which as CDMA carriers don't use SIM cards, you have to bring the old phone into the store, convince them to activate it, and then a few days later bring both phones into the store and convince them to deactivate the old one, then reactivate the new one. You may be able to do it over an 800 number (I've never needed to try), but it's still a hassle.

      And if (like me) you've recently switched from a CDMA carrier to a GSM carrier (or vice versa), none of your old phones will work on the new carrier at all.

    13. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      To cover iPhones an Apple store would have to have at most 8 different models. There are also fewer Apple Stores. Another factor is that many iPhone users "have" to have the latest phone so there are quite a few used phones around. Non-iPhones have different issues. Multiply the number of cell phone stores by the number of different models in the last 5 year and multiply that by the average cost of a phone and you get a very big number.

      On the gripping hand, it's not like smartphones are exactly *large* and would take up a lot of space in the backroom so...

      Space is not the issue. Cost is.

    14. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by macdude22 · · Score: 1

      The Android vs. Apple thing is subjective, calling it the Apple Tax needlessly cheapens your argument. I don't hear anyone complaining about the Buick tax, the Enclave is essentially the same as an Arcadia, etc.... But that's neither here nor there, the reason Apple keeps swappable replacements on hand is 2-fold. a. Customer service, keep the customer happy and comping back. This would be the PR response. (the old why is milk at the back of the store argument, ask a grocer they will tell you its logistically easier to keep it cold in the back. Sure, but it doesn't hurt that you've got to walk through the whole store hungry to get to it) b. Limited variety. It's just not that hard to keep a matrix of a dozen or so refurbished phones on hand. Could you imagine the local ATT shop having even a fraction of currently sold phones on hand refurbished? It's a couple steps down from insanity. There's just so much variety. It just wouldn't be cost effective to operate like this. Not to mention many of these places are just third party shops, not company stores. Arguably a store could target this kind of service but I kind of expect the consumer that wants that level of service may have just bought an Apple device anyway (reference above I'm not saying Apple devices aren't necessarily more expensive, but you get what you pay for, in this case premium service). The margins are low on many of these devices if the service wasn't getting subsidized by the manufactures I cant see any store branching out to that kind of service on their own. I don't disagree with the authors sentiment I guess, though all our local places will give you a loaner of some sort while you're waiting on a repair or replacement. A DAY or two with out MY device isn't going to kill anyone, and overnighting a phone is more than most companies are willing to do (Ever RMA a hard drive). This seems like a perfect example of THE MARKET HAS HANDLED THIS. If there were people clamoring for this level of service that were also willing to pay for it I expect we'd already have some cellular store providing it. On a side note Apple is doing more repair on phones in store rather than just doing the swap and sending the phone to their repair depo (screen replacement etc...). Being the ACMT at my organization (with a VERY large deployment of iPhones) I'm not really looking forward to having to do the repairs here rather than just doing a mail in replacement.

    15. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by macdude22 · · Score: 1

      My formatting! Why have you forsaken me Slashdot, I have Plain Old Text set. Can I blame this migration to newdot?

    16. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by egranlund · · Score: 1

      To cover iPhones an Apple store would have to have at most 8 different models.

      Also, at least with the iPhone 5S they can do screen replacements in store which is probably one of the most common repair issues other than water.

    17. Re:Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      ...On the gripping hand...

      Thanks for that, Galaga88! I think I'll go back and re-read The Mote In God's Eye and The Gripping Hand again. Good stuff!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  12. Worst Article by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    This is like the worst article I have seen on /. in a while.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Worst Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like the worst article or actually the worst article? that statement makes no sense.

    2. Re:Worst Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's like the last Bennett article within the aforementioned "while", which actually WAS the worst article on slashdot.

      There, it still works. Either way, Bennett's too vapid to exist without electronic distraction for two days, and so completely detached from humanity that he advocates making profit off of snuff films. I don't know why the fuck people tolerate him.

  13. Too many "regulations" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have too many "regulations". We need fewer, not more. If a company can get a competitive advantage offering this level of service they will. Let the market take care of itself. We don't need more two bit lawyers at the state house getting involved

  14. No More Bennett by gauauu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why, slashdot, why, do you let this guy post this nonsense? It almost makes me miss John Katz.

    Ok, time for an off-topic side story. Feel free to mod me off-topic, but I can't resist.

    My kids (6 years old) came home with a book list of books they were supposed to get from the library and read. One of them was about some Dogs from some farm. So my wife comes home with the book from the library. As I start reading it, I notice the author's name: John Katz. That can't be the same John Katz can it? Turns out, yes. John Katz, after moving on from posting drivel on slashdot, is now writing children's books. And my school district was making my children read them. There's no escape!

    So I'm pretty sure, once slashdot finally gets the message that nobody here cares a lick about what Bennett Hassleton thinks, he'll turn up somewhere else equally miserable.

    1. Re:No More Bennett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that in addition to being an admitted spammer, not understanding what spam is, having no idea how the internet works, endorsing buying cheap trivial crap for people for holidays, and who can forget supporting profiteering from snuff films, he also is such a vapid sad little person that he can't live without his cellphone long enough to get one overnighted to himself.

    2. Re:No More Bennett by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I am sure that Bennett also believes that the government should enact some legislation forcing school children to read his angry rants.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:No More Bennett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this from wikipedia:

      Anti-spam activities

      Haselton has won 10 small-claims cases and thousands of dollars in judgments against senders of unwanted e-mail.[10] Haselton has become one of the most well known anti-spam plaintiffs in the United States.[10] Dan Birchall, Executive director of the anti-spam SpamCon Foundation, wrote, "What he's doing definitely has an effect. It raises awareness of the laws that are available."[10]

      oh, the irony ...

    4. Re:No More Bennett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, slashdot, why, do you let this guy post this nonsense? It almost makes me miss John Katz.

      Ok, time for an off-topic side story. Feel free to mod me off-topic, but I can't resist.

      My kids (6 years old) came home with a book list of books they were supposed to get from the library and read. One of them was about some Dogs from some farm. So my wife comes home with the book from the library. As I start reading it, I notice the author's name: John Katz. That can't be the same John Katz can it? Turns out, yes. John Katz, after moving on from posting drivel on slashdot, is now writing children's books. And my school district was making my children read them. There's no escape!

      So I'm pretty sure, once slashdot finally gets the message that nobody here cares a lick about what Bennett Hassleton thinks, he'll turn up somewhere else equally miserable.

      So . . . you're on the fence about John Katz? Sorry, lost you in there somewhere. Would you say you're more PRO Katz or ANTI Katz? TIA.

    5. Re:No More Bennett by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're angry rants at all. They tend to be stupid, coddle me, "I don't understand" types of posts that are utterly pointless, but I've not ever seen them to be emotional per se.

  15. If it is that urgent, get a second one yourself by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really, overnight is fine for most people. However, for the price of an additional phone and some surcharge, I am sure your phone shop will be willing to stockpile one phone just for you. Requiring them to have all insured phones in stock would just drive up insurance prices, even for people that do not need this.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:If it is that urgent, get a second one yourself by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Mods, please mod up parent.

    2. Re:If it is that urgent, get a second one yourself by danomac · · Score: 1

      When I couldn't find an immediate replacement battery for one of my old cell phones a couple years ago, I ordered one online. It was going to take a week and so I went down to the cell provider store and bought the cheapest phone they had ($90.) Now I always have a spare phone around in case my smartphone craps out. Who needs an insurance plan?

      I didn't rant and rave on Slashdot about it then. I didn't think it was a big deal then and I still don't now. Guy sounds completely like an entitlement elitist.

    3. Re:If it is that urgent, get a second one yourself by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      I don't think he realizes that he is dealing with the insurance carrier, and not the cell phone provider. The store stock he saw and the insurance carrier's stock are two separate inventories owned by separate entities. If I have to make a claim on accidental damage on my phone, I deal strictly with the insurance provider (Asurion). My provider could care less, all they did was offer the policy and handle the premium deduction on the monthly bill.

  16. I'll be honest by korbulon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't even read this guy's posts anymore. I come here for the (mostly deserved) snide comments.

    Again, someone remind me why this guy keeps popping on ./

    1. Re:I'll be honest by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      someone remind me why this guy keeps popping on ./

      He probably pays Dice for the privilege. Or else Slashdot just posts him because he's click-bait, baby. And the more you hate him, the more more you click, and the more Slashdot loves him!

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:I'll be honest by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      THIS!!!! Click bait is exactly why they keep posting his crap!

      I've been thinking for a while that I'd love to write a Bennet Hasselton parody where I argue in 1200 words why he is such an asset to /. but I can never debase myself to write 1200 words without arriving at a meaningful conclusion.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    3. Re:I'll be honest by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      They probably just look at the number of comments on his rants without reading what the comments are about, coming to the conclusion that he's very popular.

    4. Re:I'll be honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a meaningful conclusion to any of BH's "stories"?

    5. Re:I'll be honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No idea why Slashdot would love my clicks....not like they earn them any money. I'd hazard a guess that's true for a very large percentage of readers here.

    6. Re:I'll be honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. I keep hoping to hear why his whiny ignorant self-important drivel is something I can't filter out from Slashdot. Are the editors totally idiots as well? I mean, seriously how does this stuff get posted? No one could possibly believe it has any value at all.

    7. Re:I'll be honest by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Or else Slashdot just posts him because he's click-bait, baby

      No skin off my back. Like korbulon, I see his name and click on the "articles" only to read the well-deserved rage. My karma grants me no ads, so it's not as if /. is making money off of me taking the bait. Even so, I rather wish they would stop, his "thoughts" are a waste of time.

      Incidentally, I read the blurb before the submitter and thought "What kind of idiot thinks that this is feasible for any small store or..." and then I saw the name. "Oh, that kind of idiot."

      He probably pays Dice for the privilege.

      I wonder... I'm too lazy to look it up, but does anyone know when he started using Slashdot as his blog? If it was after the purchase by Dice (and I think it was), it could be that he's an employee of Dice, perhaps even the "corporate overseer" for Slashdot. And as long as he has to manage the corporate side of /., well, why not share some thoughts...

  17. Yes, it would be nice. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    No, it's never going to happen. It costs money to carry inventory. Stores are not warehouses.

  18. Dear Mr. Hasselton: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go away. Please. Nobody cares what you think. You are like Andy Rooney, but the long tedious rants you spew lack his occasional wisdom or warmth. This website has really bad editors or something...

  19. First world problems by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Geez. What a pussy.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  20. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does give them an opportunity to get you in store again and talking to a customer service / sales guy. They might be able to sell you a different phone, or some bonus kit to go with the replacement when it gets here...

    "You'll get your replacement mailed to you overnight Sir. While you're here though maybe you should consider getting this water resistant heavy duty case and screen protector, I had a guy in here just the other day who was saying how good they were for ".

    "Maybe you could upgrade to the iPhone 7 with Gorilla Glass X. It's made from mineral lonsdaleite, water resistant and won't scratch or break. You could get that for yourself and give the replacement to your wife. We'll even tie your bills together for you!"

  21. Slashdot, home of the pathetic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP, do you still need momma to wipe your ass too?

    Jesus, what's happening to this place and our country

  22. More regulation needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with Bennett. We need more regulation.

    I also think stores should keep a small stockpile of phones because then I would be able to loot the stores and make a grip of money. Or maybe even get a job working at the stores and steal the phones while inside the place.

    I could fit a lot of phones in my pockets.

  23. And this is precisely why ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... you are not in the retail phone store business with a ton of inventory in the back room stocking every conceivable device that's not supposed to need replacement.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  24. Don't let your phone get wet, dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world doesn't owe you instant gratification, especially if it's your dumbassery that destroyed the phone.

    Keeping stock of every model covered under dumbass insurance, in every shop, for the sole purpose of handing it to dumbasses who bought insurance and then wrecked their phone, is obviously much more costly than keeping central stock and sending phones by mail. Most of those phones would never be needed.

    1. Re:Don't let your phone get wet, dumbass. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My thought: why didn't he keep his phone in the waterproof bag as long as he was on the water? He got out of the frippin' raft, to go to another boat, and his phone wasn't sealed up?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Don't let your phone get wet, dumbass. by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Dry bag baby... learn it, use it!

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    3. Re:Don't let your phone get wet, dumbass. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Also, where did he get the idea that a ziploc bag is watertight? That's just stupid.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  25. If having a phone is so important... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Have a spare!

    Personally I can bear the cost of not having a phone for a day. Forcing shops to keep dozens of phones in stock on the offchance that someone absolutely needs one the same day seems a highly inefficient way of doing things.

    Perhaps instead the submitter should have seen if there was a way to pay the difference in order to get a brand new phone

  26. There needs to be a regulation against B.H. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like B.H. stories. Ever. I know! Let's pass a law banning B.H. from the internet! We'll definitely all be better then!

  27. working capital by Cardoor · · Score: 5, Informative

    this is purely a question of economics and $. the answer is very straightforward for those familiar with either financial accounting or microeconomics, and comes down to a concept called 'working capital management'.

    To house that inventory (inventory being an element of working capital, along with accounts receivable and payables etc) of phones costs money, and do so means that you have to take into account the cost of that money. If you need to borrow it, then you have to pay interest on the balance. If you have the extra cash, then you need to take into account the opportunity cost of using your cash for inventory instead of, say, marketing or hiring another salesperson.

    to use a numbers example, lets say you are the store owner, and you determine you need 50 phones on hand at any given time. you need to pay $50 upfront to house each phone, or cough up 50 x 50 = $2500 upfront. When a customer comes in for a replacement, you give them one out of your inventory, and then need to order a replacement to top-you-off back to a standing inventory of 50 phones. The give-out/re-topping off is a net money neutral transaction (at least theoretically), but as you will always have to top off your inventory, you will never see your $2500 again unless you liquidate, which as long as you're a going concern, you won't do. Add onto that the fact that holding that inventory exposes you to obscolesence risks, and so your inventory, even in a liquidation scenario, might only be worth, say $1000 to you. So you have capital risk in addition to the costs of funding the inventory. Now multiply that $2500 by the however many thousands of retail shops you care to (and/or increase the number of phones needed in inventory) and you start talking real money.

    Now if the manufacturer wants to finance the whole shebang instead of the retail store owner, then great. but SOMEONE has to finance it. and it's much easier (and cheaper) to make the customer wait and only order them as-needed.

    1. Re:working capital by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      this is purely a question of economics and $. the answer is very straightforward for those with a clue and comes down to a concept called 'working capital management'.

      FTFY and also identified the root cause of the issue at hand.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:working capital by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      Thanks, this is a lot more thoughtful than a lot of the ranting comments that got posted in response. So what if you minimized the cost by (1) only requiring the loaner phones to be available from one store in the area, that the customer could drive to (instead of in every retail location) and (2) only requiring the store to give out a loaner phone, not necessarily the same model. Now you've driven the cost down from $2,500 per store to $50, per, say, every 10 stores, or $5 per store? Presumably that's a much less burdensome regulation.

    3. Re:working capital by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      or.. just don't offer the service at all (as they currently do) and truly minimize the cost. the initiating novella notwithstanding, i think you're continuing to devote way too much time and effort to this.

      p.s. the number's i used were illustrative only. i pulled them out of the air. also, every logistical enterprise has costs which you are ignoring.

      p.p.s. now i'm out. good deed served to those interested. for god's sake, please let it go now.

    4. Re:working capital by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      That would indeed minimize the cost. But the goal should not be to minimize cost but to maximize benefit-minus-cost. (Otherwise, you could just sell empty boxes without phones in them, to "minimize cost".) Having a loaner phone that is guaranteed available to consumers to borrow while their replacement phone is being mailed to them, would benefit consumers a lot for only a little cost.

      My goal was not really to get a regulation like this passed. My goal was to get people thinking about how often the market leads to non-optimal solutions, because there is a lot of dogma claiming that the market cannot make mistakes like this, and it needs to be counteracted.

    5. Re:working capital by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      you need a new hobby.

    6. Re:working capital by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      says the guy commenting five levels deep :-P

  28. How about a different kind of legislation? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    How about legislation to make it illegal for companies to sell insurance on phone for $10-$12 a month and then charge a $90 deductible on a phone that is now several months old and could be bought on the internet for $50?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Probably why they allow 100% customer fault warranty claims. At that price they are actually making money on every warranty claim.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone sign an insurance contract without reading it? You read the contract, you note the $90 deductible, you calculate the second-hand value at $50, you don't buy the insurance. Fairly simple, no?

      Plus, why would anyone insure a phone at $10/mo when its second-hand value is only $50 anyway? You're expecting to destroy two per year?

      Maybe we need legislation that forces idiot consumers to read contracts before signing them, and that forces people to apply basic probability theory where it's appropriate.

    3. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you have a point that can be refined. If the deductible is higher than the cost of the replacement that is just misleading advertisement. Everyone assumes that having issuance means that you are protected in some way, not that filing a claim is actually profitable by the insurance company.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Most smartphones have a pretty high unsubsidized price tag. If you have a subsidized phone under contract, the insurance is a pretty good deal if your phone goes for a swim.

    5. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your fault for accepting to pay insurance for a phone that will lose it's worth so quickly...

    6. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Why? There's a simple solution when someone offers you a bad deal. Don't take it.

      I used to buy insurance for phones. It was a decent deal. I spent a little money, and if the not super likely but possible happened, I was spared $hundreds out of pocket. Then prices went up, and deductibles went up, and before long I was spending too much money. When the not super likely but possible happened, I was out a fairly hefty deductable anyway. I just quit renewing the policy, and quit buying them going forward. I don't need someone to pass a law prohibiting me from doing something dumb. I'm capable of simply declining to do something dumb.

    7. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this was already a refurbished model. Basically, worthless.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Or, if you were born before September 2nd, 2014, you know that this kind of insurance is a rip-off and decline it automatically and instinctively.

    9. Re:How about a different kind of legislation? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Refurbished is far from worthless. They just can't sell it as new. Many refurbished items effectively are new, having been returned for reasons not related to functionality, many have just had minor repairs or parts or modules replaced.

  29. Whiner. Wanker. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is utter crap like this even doing on ./ ?

  30. Is there an "ignore Bennett" checkbox someplace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, one person gets his phone wet, decides every cell phone reseller in the country should change their business model because he cannot wait one full business day, and it's a worth a headline on /. ?

  31. Instantly?!? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... Then customers who have insurance protection on their phones could get the damaged phones replaced instantly...

    Not instantly, first you have to get to the phone store.

    .
    But nit-picking aside, this is an incredibly stupid idea.

    ... But taking my phone on the raft wasn't the stupid part;

    That's debatable. If the phone is as critical to your life as you say it is, taking the only phone you have on a raft is stupid, ziplock or not. As you found out, stuff happens, even to things in ziplock bags.

    1. Re:Instantly?!? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      perhaps the government should legislate that every phone sold comes with a spare encase your first one breaks.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Instantly?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally favor a an app that monitors both the moisture sensor, and the GPS so that in the even that your phone gets wet a drone can instantly be dispatched with a new phone to your location.

      Or you could just get a waterproof phone... or even a otter box to store your phone in while doing things near water...

  32. He didn't pay for the service he wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The price and terms of the service did not include that stocking policy.

    Overnight seems a pretty good compromise.

    Perhaps the gentlemen should consider that he has an addiction.
        Two possible options
              Cold turkey
              Get some spare phones for emergencies

  33. What's REALLY dumb about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... is that he could have got a replacement immediately, subject to a $50 restocking fee, which he agrees is reasonable.

    But what he wants is regulation which allows him to do the same thing, more or less, but not subject to the restocking fee. So he wants RETAILERS to take some responsibility of INSURERS, but without being paid to do it.

    Why was this even posted? Who gives a shit about this guy's shit? This is the kind of crap you want to see (or ideally don't even want to see) on Facebook. Maybe his friends care. But on Slashdot? Really?

  34. Three women in bikinis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pics or it didn't happen.

  35. Don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the poster child for 'system acceptance' yeah yeah sure but, come on, THIS IS EMBARRASSING BULLSHIT.

  36. Should we also say they can't make a profit? by elijahjoel · · Score: 1

    Really? They should be forced to incur the cost of excess inventory because you can't live with out your phone.

  37. Boo Hoo Hoo, Bennett is such a whiny little fuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bennett broke his phone by being a stupid piece of shit, now the special snowflake doesn't want to wait for his replacement phone to be shipped, so he feels the government should step in and make him entitled to a same day exchange. Cry me a river!

    If the cellphone industry were to face such regulation, they will respond by simply discontinuing the insurance altogether. Then Bennett will be spilling his tears on slashdot like a 3 year old arguing for government mandated free cell phone insurance attached to all cell phones plans because he is such klutz who can't take care of his phone.

    Seriously Dice, Stop publishing anything by Bennett. He's a useless arrogant prick who thinks the world should revolve around him!

  38. Loaner phones? by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 2

    You can't legislate good customer service. Besides, the inventory overhead would be unreasonable.

    But, this is T-Mobile he's talking about. They use SIM cards. The store could just program a SIM card, slip it in a random unit someone traded in last month, and let him walk out of the store at least being able to make phone calls. Heck, they might not even care about getting the loaner unit back, depending on its resale value. It's the sort of courtesy that encourages repeat patronage.

    1. Re:Loaner phones? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he got perfectly good customer service. He was paying for an insurance plan which would get him an overnight replacement, and he got an overnight replacement.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  39. Not journalism by knapper_tech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is clearly an opinion piece. A quick scan makes it look even more anecdotal and presumptuous than I had expected. It's not April 1st, and this is terrible.

    --
    "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
  40. Can...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can we pass a regulation requiring them to give me a pony, too? I've always wanted a pony, too. Perhaps the government can help!

  41. #firstworldproblems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously dude?

    1) You're lucky enough to go on a rafting trip with 3 chicks hot enough to induce a passing boat to try and pick them up
    2) You're clueless enough to fall for their "emergency" shtick, and careless enough to misplace your phone in the process
    3) You're lucky enough to have insurance on your phone, allowing you to replace it VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL for $90

    And you're complaining about having to wait the 1-2 days for the replacement?

    Seriously. Journey back in time with me to the not so distant past. Say, 1993, when I was probably about the same age you are now.
    Here's your phone.

    http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8097/nokia1011.jpg

    No insurance. No overnight replacement. Enjoy.

  42. Leave your Phone by GoJays · · Score: 1

    This is a horrible article.

    First, you shouldn't have brought your phone on the raft in the first place. Leave it at home or in your car or whatever. Second, Are you that addicted to your device that you need to have a replacement instantly? It's a phone, not your life. Third, if it is that important to you, maybe you should purchase a second phone, for the next time you decide to take your phone for a swim and stop blaming companies for not backing up your stupidity.

    1. Re:Leave your Phone by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Keeping a spare is not even hard to do. My battery developed a fault. Anyone who cares that much about their phone and is paying that much for insurance is pretty likely to replace them regularly enough that they have a reasonably capable older model. Not perfect, but seriously - I'm sure he can cope for a day!

    2. Re:Leave your Phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he is addicted to the phone. He wanted to spend $140 for instant access to a phone when the whole thing could had been avoided by not checking his phone until he got off the water. He had his phone sealed water tight, but then took it out before he put his boat away. WTF? Are your emails that important that you can't wait another 5 minutes? Why can't you use the phone through the plastic bag? No buttons and an annoying touch screen that only works with fingers?

    3. Re:Leave your Phone by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      In fact, even better option: Leave your fancy smartphone at home and take the dorky spare on the raft.

  43. Apple Stores and Stock on Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not hard to do for Apple... they have just a handful of models that they still support, 2-3 disk-sizes for each, and maybe a couple of colors. They have to keep loads of them in-stock anyway because they're constantly selling them, and since they're Apple-owned they get replenished at a decent speed.

    So only several versions of the phone total and fast to get replenished.

    Your local AT&T store would have to worry about dozens of models, with potentially multiple disk-sizes for most of them, often with many colors. Thats a LOT of combinations. Seriously, walk the floor of your local AT&T wireless store... they have as much shelf-space dedicated to phones as the Apple store has for phones + ipods + iPads + MacBooks + iMacs + etc.

    Chances are they don't even have all of those combinations in stock, or perhaps just a handful that they would rather sell. Meanwhile it might take longer for them to get replenished from home office so if they did run out of model X then it hurts them because they lost a customer.

  44. You don't need LEGISLATION for this petty issue! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    The *real* problem goes far deeper, my friend. If the cellular companies in America didn't standardize on selling the handsets instead of the service, none of this would even matter anymore!

    In a more sane scenario, you'd simply buy a used cellphone off Amazon or eBay, or off a buddy, or a classified ad in the local newspaper ... whatever. It wouldn't matter what make or model you selected. You'd bring it in and say, "I'd like to put THIS phone on my plan, please?" and they'd do it. (Heck, maybe they'd even charge you $10 or $15 for their time to have to go in the computer and update the information. Fair enough.) Phones wouldn't be "carrier subsidized" and marketed to death as a reason you should go with Verizon, AT&T or whoever.... and "carrier locking" phones to only work on their network wouldn't exist either.

    Sure, you *might* still opt to buy insurance for your particular cellphone? But chances are, if things worked like I described above -- it wouldn't make a lot of sense except for the most expensive of handsets. (Despite the millions of cellphones produced every year, the current system makes almost half of them unusable with your current phone carrier and contract, right off the bat, because you need GSM or CDMA depending on who you're using. Then you've got all the carrier locked phones out there that you can't use, thanks to an artificial restriction placed on them. And with some of the "second tier" carriers like Cricket Wireless - they opted to use at least one special frequency band that isn't supported on many phones at all, other than the ones they provide you with.)

  45. Running A Quick Numbers Check by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    the larger point is that there's no reason to think that the free market necessarily arrives at the most cost-effective solution in situations like this. Companies compete on cost-effectiveness in arenas that are highly visible to the consumer and likely to factor into their purchasing decisions

    That is an important point; one that is worthwhile to highlight regularly. There are many who believe that the theoretical ideal free market can be closely approximated by a laissez-faire real world market. It cannot, and until we deeply internalize that reality as a society, it is good to continue repeating the lesson.

    As such, we're lucky that the insurance provider sends out the replacement phone by overnight mail at all, when they could presumably mail it out by 3- or 4-day mail instead, and no free market forces or government truth-in-labeling enforcers would probably penalize them for that.

    While I tend to agree with your previous point that lack of perfect information about insurance coverage implementation at time of purchase leads to a distortion favoring poor insurance service, I think your 3- or 4-day hypothesis proves that the free market is, in fact, having a regulatory effect on cell phone coverage. And it doesn't really surprise me, either -- every time I've had a bad cell phone replacement experience, I have told everyone I know that boned me. That kind of negative publicity does have an effect, as evidenced by the overnight service.

    But an in-store-replacement rule (or a replacement-from-some-store-within-a-20-minute-drive rule) would benefit customers more and, with the savings on the mailing speed for the replacements, possibly cost the carrier less. (Even if it did cost the carrier more to carry a small box of in-store replacements in the back room

    You may be right, but you may be underestimating the inventory size involved and the cost of keeping so many phones in stock. If it is common for phones to remain under coverage for two years (probably an underestimate), then each store or region would have to stock every phone that is currently for sale and all those that have been out of distribution for up to two years. I live in Phoenix, figure it takes 15 regions to cover the Valley of The Sun, four providers, 20 current models and another 20 out-of-distribution. That's 2400 cell phones, or something like a quarter million dollars. Multiply that by something like 100 to cover the US (rough population multiplier), and we're up to $25m, or an annual cost of $2.5m at 10% cost of capital.

    Now, how about the other side of the equation: What we'd be saving is 24 hours of cell-phone-lessness, maybe once every couple years per cell-reliant person. Call that 50m people (140m taxpayers, 3/4ths have little cost to being without a phone for a day, and some non-taxpayers have a significant cost). At once every two years, that's 25m days of high-value cell-phone-lessness per year. $2.5m annual cost over 25m saved high-value days equals $0.10 per saved day of high value cell-phone-lessness.

    (obviously the math is more complicated, but there are additional factors in both directions)

    Hmm, not what I was expecting. The back-of-the-envelope numbers actually make your proposal look like it is within the limits of credibility, and worthy of further investigation.

    I was expecting to find your idea to be impractically expensive, but that's the great thing about science; casting doubt on my preconception is just as good as confirming it.

    1. Re:Running A Quick Numbers Check by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      1. There are far more than 4 cellular companies in the Phoenix area 2. There are hundreds of independent stores in the Phoenix area 3. It would take at least 100 locations just within the Phoenix area to put the entire population within 20 minutes of a location Verizon currently shows 34 different smartphones available for sale, most of those come in multiple colors and memory sizes. They also have 8 basic phones. Total variations, not including color, is over 50 I would wager that across providers and phones sold in the past 3 years you could come up with at least 400 phone models. You would also need to stock more than 1 of each model. Sounds like a major mess when a simple solution already exists: 1) Don't buy insurance 2) Replace your phone if you break or lose your current phone

    2. Re:Running A Quick Numbers Check by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      1. There are far more than 4 cellular companies in the Phoenix area

      "far more"? I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

      2. There are hundreds of independent stores in the Phoenix area

      I was testing to see if his hypothesis was within the realm of possibility. As such, I operated on the assumption that only the carrier stores would be covered. There are a number of ways this could be true; if you engage your thinking machine for a moment, I'm sure you can come up with one.

      3. It would take at least 100 locations just within the Phoenix area to put the entire population within 20 minutes of a location

      Phoenix is only a hair over an hour wide, so I used 15. I think your estimate of 100 is wildly excessive, unless you are counting different carriers having duplicate coverage (which I covered with the 4 multiplier).

      Verizon currently shows 34 different smartphones available for sale, most of those come in multiple colors and memory sizes. They also have 8 basic phones. Total variations, not including color, is over 50 I would wager that across providers and phones sold in the past 3 years you could come up with at least 400 phone models.

      I used 160 as my figure, you're claiming 400. That's well inside an order of magnitude on the most wild-assed-guess figure in the estimate, and again, I'm trying to test whether it is within the bounds of reality, not writing pro forma financials.

      You would also need to stock more than 1 of each model.

      No you wouldn't. You might need to stock more than 1 of some models, but you could probably get away with not carrying others (some of the out of production ones, most likely) based on covered customers in each area, and the regulation could, in theory, only require one handset of each model per store. It could also not require carrying all colors, and they might choose to not carry the smallest memory sizes, opting instead to upgrade. They might also not carry superseded models.

      Or, said differently, (obviously the math is more complicated, but there are additional factors in both directions) -- like I said in my OP.

      Sounds like a major mess when a simple solution already exists: 1) Don't buy insurance 2) Replace your phone if you break or lose your current phone

      Well, of course. I completely agree. That's why I don't have insurance on my phone. Like you, I am neither a sucker nor a person who can't live without Angry Birds for 24 hours. But we're not considering whether the solution makes sense for more Spartan users, we're considering whether self-indulgent twits who can't go twelve minutes without checking their Facebook status would consider such a policy to be cost effective.

      I can't believe I just wasted five minutes of my life on this. You're not supposed to see if there is any conceivable way to poke little holes in my post so you can continue in your comfortable preconception. You're supposed to consider whether it is in the realm of possibility, so you can let go of your hate-on.

  46. Just Buy an iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, the guy was too cheap to buy an iPhone with AppleCare and thus the ability to get this kind of service. So he wants to mandate Apple level services. Then he'll complain about Apple level prices.

  47. Thank you /. by Syphonius · · Score: 2

    And I mean the crowd, not the admins.

    For voicing all the thoughts that immediately jumped into my mind as soon as I saw this on the front page.

    Bleh.

  48. Le sigh... by blueshift_1 · · Score: 1

    This really made it to the main page of /. But that aside, thinking a ziplock bag would protect your phone is ridculous (even if you had double wrapped it). That's why they make very nice (and not that exensive) drylok bags that are meant for that sort of thing. And what it comes down to is that it's absurd for them to keep that much inventory on-hand. And lets be honest, getting a replacement electronic device from warranty/insurance issue would take far longer. The phone industry is far ahead of the rest of the tech world.

    1. Re:Le sigh... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      This really made it to the main page of /.

      BS-BH blog posts always do, regardless of how many people downvote them in the firehose.

      I've always presumed he's got some sort of quid pro quo deal with Timmy.

      I really wish this douche-nozzle would figure out what blogspot is and stop bothering the /. community with his idiotic, narcissistic rantings.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Le sigh... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Not really ridiculous (though I agree that the drylok bags are superior), even ignoring that there are different grades of ziplock bag. However, thinking it's a good idea to take it out of that ziplock bag while you're still on the water is another thing entirely.

  49. regulation regulation regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do progressives feel that more regulation solves every problem or inconvenience? As if the attitudes of businesses towards their customers can be mandated from the omnipotent government.

    The real solution to this problem is heavy competition. Phone stores that treat their customers better win out.

    1. Re:regulation regulation regulation by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      For most people, it's an inconvenience, not a problem. If it's an essential life-or-death thing or loss of your phone will cost you hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, you should take appropriate steps to ensure continuation of service.

    2. Re:regulation regulation regulation by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Why do progressives feel that more regulation solves every problem or inconvenience? As if the attitudes of businesses towards their customers can be mandated from the omnipotent government.

      The real solution to this problem is heavy competition. Phone stores that treat their customers better win out.

      Who says Bennett Haselton is a progressive? From what I've seen, he's a semi-literate, narcissistic, moron who couldn't formulate reasonable argument to save his life. The real solution is that there is no problem. Bennett Haselton is just whining about how he doesn't like the terms of the insurance contract he signed. End of story. Anything else is just you trying to shoehorn his moronic drivel into your ideological pigeonhole. Get a grip.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  50. Automotive analogy by Scootin159 · · Score: 2

    Because everything needs an automotive analogy.... "Car dealers should keep one of every part in stock for every car that's currently under warranty"

    This would be completely unrealistic for a car dealership to do, so instead they stock only the parts used most frequently, and then just rely on the manufacturer to have an appropriate stock at regional/national warehouses. It's been this way for years, and yes it's an inconvenience for the day or two (or ten) that it takes the parts to come in, but it is what it is.

    Perhaps the better plan, again taking a lesson from dealerships, would be to have "loaner" phones on hand to let you borrow while you wait for a "new" phone to come in. Of course, dealers seem to never have enough loaner cars, and I'm sure the phones would be the same thing - they'd also need to address the concern of getting the phones back (perhaps have warranty phones shipped to local store, and only given out upon receipt of the loaner?).

  51. Seconded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have stopped buying insurance with my cell phone plan, because it's effectively useless. Sure, it covers most of the kind of damage that normally leaves me phoneless, but to file a claim I have to send in my phone and be without it for up to two weeks. Regardless how much the store clerk agrees with me, they still have to send it in to procure a replacement for me, so the result is the same: No phone. As i am always on the move because of my job, and said job needs me to be available via phone, this is a no-go for me. I have been using a phone with a cracked screen for ages, since it still works fairly well and the lead-time on a replacement is simply too big, despite the model (Samsung galaxy Note 2) is relatively common among local consumers.

    Tip for scandinavian customers: Elkjøp does in fact keep replacement for all consumer-electronics to replace waranty failures as well as insurance covered damage. I buy most of my damage-prone electronics from them, as the insurance is dirt cheap, and it covers ALL damage short of the phone disintegrating out of existence (My 2 year old kid had a tantrum once and threw a laptop into the floor on purpose. Covered!)

  52. The OP must be a lib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And wants Big Brother to take care of him cause he is too stooped to look after himbself. .

  53. Insuring a phone - stupidity by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    I think it's stupid to insure a phone. You insure stuff whose loss or destruction will bring you financial ruin. Not every other stuff.

    1. Re:Insuring a phone - stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's rational to insure any item if you think you'll save money versus not insuring that item. That means it's rational to insure a phone if you think you're in the top quartile for likelihood to lose or damage your phone. That also means it's irrational insuring your house against circumstances that you don't expect to ever arise.

      Irrational buying of insurance only makes more profit for the insurance companies. However, you are only you, and you can't amortize a lost house entirely against saved insurance premiums, so the fact that you win in the theoretical long run is only a quantum of solace when you're homeless because your kitchen caught fire. So for those kinds of insurance, the game is stacked completely in the insurers' favour. The traditional way to break this impasse and stop siphoning money to the people who already have money (the underwriters) is to nationalize an industry. That increase overall efficiency and is totally rational.

      For smaller losses, like phones, you can amortize a lost phone entirely against saved insurance premiums, so you have far more choice whether to play, and you can play rationally. It's a cheap product so they don't analyze your personal likelihoods; everyone plays a flat fee. That means they make less profit and you can win.

      Which is more rational?

    2. Re:Insuring a phone - stupidity by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Insurance is, on the average, almost always a bad deal. The reason to buy it is that you're paying the insurance company to take risk away from you, and that's a valuable service. If you can afford to replace something, insuring it is almost always a bad idea.

      The exception is if you're going to need insurance significantly more than the average person in whatever bin you're classified into.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  54. Just don't buy phone insurance by murderdeathkill · · Score: 1

    Don't insure things you can afford to replace. The house always wins. Insurance is for car crashes, cancer, house fires... stuff I can't afford to cover.

  55. Asurion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Cell providers don't even provide the insurance directly. You are getting your replacement phone from Asurion a phone insurance company. Your provider simply forwards your request to them and puts the charges on your phone bill for your billing convenience.

  56. Spare Phone cost by rsborg · · Score: 2

    You're in favor of the federal government enacting legislation that would determine how a company runs? We need less government oversight, not more... especially for something as ridiculous as this. If you can't be without your phone overnight, you have some issues. If it's that important.. YOU keep a spare on hand using YOUR money.

    It's as simple as getting a $20 Jenny basic phone from Amazon, and possibly a $5 SIM adapter so your micro/nano sim can fit. I think it's a great insurance policy, and you can take the basic phone with you overseas to use with random sims (of course, with T-Mobile, you can still use your phone data-free,sms-free, and calls without usurious charges overseas too, but having a backup there is useful too).

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Spare Phone cost by egranlund · · Score: 2

      It's as simple as getting a $20 Jenny basic phone from Amazon, and possibly a $5 SIM adapter so your micro/nano sim can fit. I think it's a great insurance policy, and you can take the basic phone with you overseas to use with random sims (of course, with T-Mobile, you can still use your phone data-free,sms-free, and calls without usurious charges overseas too, but having a backup there is useful too).

      You don't even have to buy your spare.

      I have a BlackBerry I kept from 4 years ago as my backup sitting in my closet.

      Doesn't do any whizz bang stuff the new phones do, but it'll at least give me text/data/phone if my regular phone craps out.

      I've only had to use it once, and I loaned it out to a family member when their phone was being replaced a year ago.

  57. Wish this was reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish this was reddit so it could be downvoted to oblivion. What a stupid idea. If you can't live without your phone for one day then there is something wrong with YOU, not the phone industry. Take a week to camp in the woods and get some god damn perspective.

  58. So many things wrong here... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First and foremost... a bunch of strangers on a yacht are yelling at you to get on board for no explicable reason and you just do it??? Your ass just got kidnapped!

    Second: Your story is unclear... are you suggesting that there were three women in bikinis on your river raft? If you speak the way you write I find that claim dubious.

    Third: Some guys in a rental yacht start yelling something about getting aboard their boat and your situational awareness tells you it's an emergency and you should get in the water???? IN A LOCK OF ALL PLACES??? Depending on the direction the lock was operating, you could have been pulled under and drown. Your fucking lucky to be alive! Remind me to never let you captain anything that floats ever!

    Fourth: Suggesting that every cell phone store keep an equivalent unit on hand would have a cumulative cost in the millions, and 90% of those devices would be wasted... they would sit on the shelf until such time as the user (rarely) needs a replacement, or until the user decides to upgrade... at which point the store now has an obsolete phone on the shelf that can't be sold for profit, and is now required to buy a brand new phone to stick on the shelf to act as "back up" for the new phone just purchased. Your logic is incomprehensible. It is apparent that you have no business sense whatsoever and that you make a living only because you are surrounded by exceedingly tolerant and generous people.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    1. Re:So many things wrong here... by bennetthaselton · · Score: 0

      Well (1) we had been talking to them from beside their boat for a while before; (2) I couldn't believe it either; (3a) we were not in the lock, we were in the canal waiting area waiting to go into the lock; (3b) this lock in question was being filled up, not drained, reducing the risk of being sucked under; and (3c) in any case it's moot because I didn't get into the water, I got into their boat, at emergency speed, and the phone fell out of my pocket into the water at the bottom of their boat, not into the canal.

      Now, (4) what if we mitigated the cost to the store by (a) only requiring them to give out a loaner phone, not necessarily the same model that you have (as I wrote elsewhere, I hate anything that doesn't have a slide-out keyboard, but I'd live) and (b) only requiring the loaner phones to be available from some store in the area, not necessarily the one where you bought your phone?

    2. Re:So many things wrong here... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Now, (4) what if we mitigated the cost to the store by (a) only requiring them to give out a loaner phone, not necessarily the same model that you have (as I wrote elsewhere, I hate anything that doesn't have a slide-out keyboard, but I'd live) and (b) only requiring the loaner phones to be available from some store in the area, not necessarily the one where you bought your phone?

      Or, you could just do the same as any sane person does and buy a second-hand phone that you can use as a backup should something happen to your primary one.

    3. Re:So many things wrong here... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Who is the "we" that is going to mitigate the cost? How is "legislating that the store to do more than they do now" in any way an act of mitigation? Have you considered the cost of enforcement? That's just more of my tax money that you are wasting!

        You have not answered the most critical question that has been posed over and over again by myself and others: Who is going to bear the huge costs of forcing stores to carry loaner phones? How is this profitable for the owners of the cellular store? How do you offset the cost of stocking several "loaner" units when they become obsolete and can't be sold? The store is going to pass the cost on to the customers, which means that in part, I end up subsidizing your dumb ass for not being able to take care of your personal belongings.

      The way you phrase things makes me think you are angling for some kind of consumer protection sympathy, but you don't realize that this is not protecting consumers... it's protecting consumers who made poor choices in the face of obvious risk. As has been stated above, if you want an instant replacement plan for your phone... buy two. Asking the entire market to help you bear the cost of insuring your device is a form of socialism.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    4. Re:So many things wrong here... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Also, your ass still got kidnapped. Just because you had been talking to them for a while doesn't mean they are pillars of the community.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    5. Re:So many things wrong here... by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      Well I'd need a smartphone to keep using it the way I'd use my normal phone, and the backup phone would have to be purchased without a contract, meaning a few hundred dollars at least. I doubt every '"sane person" does that :) If you mean a backup dumbphone, well maybe, but it's much harder to adjust to trying to find people and places when you're on the go, when you've suddenly lost Internet.

    6. Re:So many things wrong here... by bennetthaselton · · Score: 0

      Well obviously I assume they'd pass the costs on in the insurance premium (which means you won't be subsidizing my dumb ass if you forgo the insurance). My argument is that the benefit to consumers of not having to go without a phone for two days, is great enough, that most of them would come out ahead, even after the increased costs get passed on.

      My real goal was not to gain sympathy (on Slashdot?). The point I'm making in many of these articles is that we should not assume "the market" will lead to optimal solutions. People have accepted or argued for many terrible situations by blindly assuming that "the market" leads to what's best for us -- if that were really true, there would be no Net Neutrality issue, for example, because if a company were blocking or slowing access to a website, customers would just leave that company. It doesn't work that way in real life, which is why Net Neutrality is an issue.

      I happen to think every example of market failure helps to get the point across. I don't much care about the phone.

    7. Re:So many things wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are negotiating with a poster on a message board to resolve this vast regulatory snafu? Love that !!!!

      1) no one cares, 2) I don't believe much, 3a) I like canals, 3b) I prefer them filled, 3c) Don't be a scaredy cat jump in... And
      4) Let's mitigate the damage done to my brain by reading your post... I have a trauma response upon seeing your name attached to an article.

    8. Re:So many things wrong here... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Now we're getting down to it... why didn't you just start by saying "I wish I could pay extra for a premium replacement plan that allowed me to choose in advance, a phone handset of my liking, but leave it at the nearest convenient cellular retailer for the inevitable eventuality that I put my phone in the drink, so I don't have to wait 24 hours for a replacement handset."

      Instead you hit us with the traditional TL;DR.

      One concept that I think you are missing still is this: the market HAS REACHED THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION! We currently (and nearly always) sit at the balance point of what people are willing to pay for a service, and what a provider wants to charge for said service. Economics 101: Price curve meets demand curve and falls in love... you know the story right?

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    9. Re:So many things wrong here... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      You're not quite thinking this straight. In your case you got a replacement for your primary phone in a day. You can certainly get by one, single day on a less expensive phone. Also, there are hundreds of low-end Android-smartphones for $50 that can you well for that time, including Internet-access. There is no point in buying a high-end phone just to let it rot in storage.

    10. Re:So many things wrong here... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Well (1) we had been talking to them from beside their boat for a while before; (2) I couldn't believe it either; (3a) we were not in the lock, we were in the canal waiting area waiting to go into the lock; (3b) this lock in question was being filled up, not drained, reducing the risk of being sucked under; and (3c) in any case it's moot because I didn't get into the water, I got into their boat, at emergency speed, and the phone fell out of my pocket into the water at the bottom of their boat, not into the canal. Now, (4) what if we mitigated the cost to the store by (a) only requiring them to give out a loaner phone, not necessarily the same model that you have (as I wrote elsewhere, I hate anything that doesn't have a slide-out keyboard, but I'd live) and (b) only requiring the loaner phones to be available from some store in the area, not necessarily the one where you bought your phone?

      How about you do us all (not least of whom, you) a favor and go back to hounding spammers, rather than exposing us to the mindless drivel you keep spewing? Nobody except you cares about how dumb you are, nor is anyone interested in reading your inane, puerile rants. Go fuck yourself.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    11. Re:So many things wrong here... by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      Econ 101 also teaches that that conclusion is only valid when certain pre-conditions are met. If those pre-conditions are not met then there's no reason to assume the market solution is optimal. In particular, if users don't know about a particular advantage or disadvantage of a product at purchase time, then the market solution won't be optimal. Take Comcast throttling of its' users access to BitTorrent; do you think that's what the users wanted? In the case of phone insurance, most users have no idea when walk out of the store with a new phone, whether the store would give them a loaner phone if they made an insurance claim to get their main phone replaced. So the precondition for market optimality is not met.

    12. Re:So many things wrong here... by bennetthaselton · · Score: 1

      Well what's more resource-efficient, having thousands of customers keep a spare cheap phone at home as a standby replacement, or having the store keep a few to give out as loaners?

    13. Re:So many things wrong here... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      The former; it does not consume any resources whatsoever to keep one in a box somewhere. Obtaining one could consume some resources, but you can just store your old phone when you upgrade, thereby sidestepping even that issue. Cleaning up phones after they've been used as loaners by people, tracking who has been given what, charging people for broken loaners, making sure you always have an adequate number of loaners available and so on requires more resources and as such is less resource-efficient. Even less so if you take into account all the resources spent on drafting the laws and then upkeeping regulation on this, as per your rather naíve suggestion. Don't mix resource-efficiency with personal comfort.

  59. Buy an iPhone by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    Seriously. You've got complaints, and Apple has solutions. If you think that this sort of service is essential enough to legislate, you should just buy from the company that does this thing you want. Does it outweigh the advantages of your Android phone? You've got an LG Optimus that you've complained about before, so the thing you seem to be concerned about is how much this phone costs.

    I don't understand why you don't seem to get that your user experience is correlated with what you're willing to pay. You can get a NICE Android phone that avoids the problems you talked about in your other article, or you could get an iPhone. If having a quick turnover on a replacement phone is ALSO important to you, you're pretty much looking at Apple to fulfil your needs.

    You can get the things you want by putting a little more money on the table. You don't seem to object to the notion that some of these things are costs to the store and you even say that you may have been willing to pay the $50 restocking fee in retrospect. Just gather up your pennies, pay the fees up front, and stop complaining about service that's lacking when a viable alternative exists.

    But if price really is your main consideration, just buy a Moto E or G, phones that don't cost much that review really well (if I recall, you can get a G for less than your insurance claim + restocking fee that you were talking about--off contract) and be done with it. Honestly.

  60. Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would stimulate the economy so much! Mandatory inventory stuffing. Keynesian wet dream.

  61. Filter by ibpooks · · Score: 2

    Could we please get a tag to filter out this narcissistic drivel from the ever-obnoxious Bennet?

  62. replacement are always refurbs by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    "sometimes sent out refurbished phones"

    not sometimes ALWAYS...

    I was one of the first to get an HTC M8 and the first to suffer the failures of the device. 5 days after I first got the phone I had to send it in for replacement (lens cracking and scratching on camera that is still rampant) and I got back a refurb.

    They will never ever send you a brand new phone unless they have no other choice. They will send you someone elses borked item first.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  63. Bennett Being Boring - episode 834 by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    Hi, I'm an idiot and broke my computer but the store sold me insurance but why don't they stock replacement computers right at the store for me to take home the same day so I'm not inconvenienced by missing even one single episode of my favorite show, Bennett Being Boring?

  64. First World Problems! by silfen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here is a list of additional, serious problems legislators should address ASAP:

    http://first-world-problems.co...

  65. Seconded. by khasim · · Score: 1

    It troubles me that you were without your phone for a few days. Really... well... NOT.

    I'm old. I remember the times before cell phones. Sometimes, when you moved, you were without phone service for a whole week or more. And you had to tell everyone who mattered what your new phone number was.

    And still society managed to survive.

    Somehow, without constant phone reception, the country put men on the moon.

    But let's make a law now so companies will be forced to stock replacement phones because OVERNIGHT is too slow.

    It reminds me of a two-year-old crying over spilt milk.

    Worse. It's that child whinging because he cannot have the toy he really really wants RIGHT NOW! Tomorrow is too late!

  66. Warning: *Apple fanboy alert* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize just how much of a premium your paying for this? I'm paying something like $40-50 for what Apple charges $100+ a month for. The $50 restocking cost is imaterial compareed to the $600 a year cost in going with Apple.

  67. Customer service by OneMHz · · Score: 1

    Is a customer service issue. Not a legislative one. This issue does not have any governmental or societal benefit and certainly not enough to offset the costs of passing or enforcing such legislation. Please, please, please go get a clue about who's responsible for this kind of thing (hint: The COMPANY SELLING YOU A PRODUCT OR SERVICE). Even the cost of reading that customer service fever dream wasn't worth it.

  68. $90 deductible by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

    Like everybody else says, this article is stupid. BUT THERE'S MORE!

    T-Mobile sells a number of Android phones for less than the deductible of $90. $50 Alcatels, for instance, or the Nokia Windowphone. The LG L90 is a half-decent phone, better than the LG F3 he broke, for $100. Or he could even use the money to get a better phone. People use their cell phones a lot, presumably Bennett Hasselton is gainfully employed, it would have been worth the $1/day.

    Why would a person who is pinching pennies by getting a crappy phone also spend money on a high-deductible insurance policy, on a phone that probably cost him $200 new in the first place?

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  69. Whiner by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    I can't even believe this stupid rant made it onto /. You can't wait ONE WHOLE DAY for your replacement phone? That, and he didn't even think through the logistics of his 'plan':

    They would only have to have one replacement model of each phone that had been sold recently enough to consumers to still be covered under a replacement insurance plan. That still probably wouldn't take up more space than what you could fit into a medium cardboard box

    I don't think you realize how many stores there are. Instead of keeping a single large box of replacement phones at one distribution center, you would need to ship out at least one phone to every single area that you cover. The number of phones you have to have stocked at locations could easily exceed what you have at the single location. And to top it all off, you now have to keep track of all these phones, and keep shipping out newer models to hundreds of locations all the time.

    And your story is made up, since you contradicted yourself within the same paragraph:

    I had it sealed in a zippable plastic bag. .... As I dug the soaked phone out of my pocket once we were all on board the yacht,..

    So, was your phone in a sealed bag or in your pocket unsealed? You can't seem to make up your mind.

    ... the jerks were trying to get the three women in bikinis on board their boat.

    You post to /. and expect us to believe you were hanging out with three hot women in bikinis? Nice try ;-)

  70. There needs to be a law. by khasim · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    But taking my phone on the raft wasn't the stupid part; I had it sealed in a zippable plastic bag.

    There needs to be a law to make those plastic bags really, REALLY watertight so people who are NOT being stupid by putting their phone in one and then going on a raft ...

    Were you really going to answer the phone while you were on the raft? No that's not stupid. (sarcasm)

    But on the way back through the locks, some jerks in a rental yacht pulled up to the raft, started chatting, and then suddenly urged us to get on board and get our raft into the yacht very urgently, making me think it was an emergency and causing me to lose track of my phone.

    And you did not ask "why" because ... ?

    ... we later determined that the "emergency" was that the jerks were trying to get the three women in bikinis on board their boat.

    Is there some reason /. keeps posting bullshit like this?

    He made a series of stupid decisions about his 1st-world-toy and now he wants the government to make it better for him.

  71. People still insure telephones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't think phone insurance was still popular. I haven't had phone insurance since around 2000 when I had a heavily subsidized $200 phone with a multi-year contract. Now I have a $50 prepaid phone and don't really see the point of buying insurance. I don't carry insurance on my TI-89 either.

  72. Insurance, not Warranty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an insurance policy, and business. It is not like AppleCare, which is a warranty package given by the actual manufacture, who happens also to be the retailer. T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon are not equipment manufacturers, they are service providers and equipment retailers.

    Applecare, does that cover things like device loss, theft, and destruction? 2 incidents of device damage are covered with a 79$ deductible, but i see nothing about device loss/theft. These insurance packages cover total loss of the device, with a deductible based on the type of device it is (seriously, this part is a ripoff...phones are phones now but 150 for an iPhone versus 100 for most android phones is just bullshit).

    These are actual insurance policies, not extended warranties. They usually do included a warranty-like component for repair of damage though, which is pretty nice when your provider runs an actual in-store repair service. The reason they cannot do what Bennett wants is because the store is not part of the insurance chain. They may have to do an inspection before referring to the insurance company, but if it is beyond repair and needs replacing, then it has to go through insurance. Its not about refurbished devices, though yes, you are more likely to get a refurb than a brand new device unless it is a very popular phone or a very new one.

    So, to summarize, no Bennett, you misunderstand the situation. Your insurance is not provided by your cell phone service provider. They simply collect the payment for the insurance company. If a device needs replacing, it must go through the insurance company and through their stock of devices for replacement. The stores will never allow you to take store stock, because that stock is owned by the service provider and not the insurance company. The money you pay for your deductible goes to the insurance company, not to the store. Managing inventory levels and distribution is easier on the insurance company when they control the entire distribution chain, just like any other business.

  73. Refurbs aren't crummy by furby076 · · Score: 1

    While I prefer new to refurb, and was once infuriated where my brand new (35 day old phone) which broke was replaced by a refurb, the refurbs are actually really good. These phones have been re-serviced and look new. When you get your refurb, other than knowing it's a refurb, there is no difference. They replace the body, and any broken components. It's like a new phone, except they can't claim it as new. Yes it's frustrating to wait a day to get the phone (possibly more if over weekend and holiday), but without increasing costs (dramatically) they will not keep in stock every single phone they keep. First off, it could be a 2 year old phone that is no longer produced. Do you think they will keep 100 of those laying around? Multiply that by every phone the store has sold and you can see where it would become a logistics nightmare, and really expensive. Meaning, your costs would go up. The phone companies are not stupid - if they could keep the phones stocked and not overnight you a phone (which definitely costs money) they would do so.

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  74. Two simple solutions by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    1) Phone warranties must be equivalent to celluar contract. In other words, 2 year phone contract. Phone must have a 2 year warranty. 80% of the problems just got solved.

    2) Accidental Damage policies, if phone is insured against accidental damage, then device is replaced OR xxx amount is applied toward a replacement or refurb model.

    1. Re:Two simple solutions by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      1) Consumer protection laws should cover you. You don't need a warranty. If you buy a phone on a two year contract, it's reasonable to think the phone will last two years.
      Like this: https://www.govt.nz/browse/con...

      2) Yes, like any other insurance policy.

  75. There is already a solution to this problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are on t-mobile... self insure. There is no contract and since you are using an admittedly crappy phone you shouldn't have it financed.

    If it gets wet, buy another. The Galaxy light is a $100 phone that is admittedly low end but it'll do. Another option is the Galaxy Nexus 5 from Google directly (cheaper than from t-mo store)

    I have 4 lines on t-mobile.. no 'jump', no insurance, 2 phones (My Nexus 5 and an iPhone 5s) were bring your own device, one is a Galaxy Light bought outright $100 and one phone is financed - the Wife's Galaxy S5.

    Yes if any are broken / stolen it'll suck but for the cost of insurance on 4 lines I could buy a spare Galaxy light every couple months.

  76. Why do articles from this dipshit get published ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haselton must be one hell of a good cocksucker, that's all I can surmise.

  77. Agree with others, this is outright dumb by linuxguy · · Score: 1

    I agree with others. I cannot recall reading any story on Slashdot that made less sense.

    Additionally I have never understood the point of cell phone insurance. The phones do not cost that much. Just insure it yourself. If you lose it or damage it, buy another one. In the end, you'll come out ahead. Insurance companies understand this, so should you. Only stupid people pay for phone insurance.

    Also, if you cannot live without a phone for a day or so, then keep an old phone around for emergencies. If you do not have one, get one off of Craiglist or eBay. Plenty of really decent options for $50, for a backup phone. With T-Mobile and AT&T, you can swap out the SIM and you're ready to go. With Verizon and Sprint, you have to go a web page to register your new phone. Done.

    Lastly, I know other people have said it, but it is worth repeating. Don't be so damn stupid!

  78. abbreviated story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I gave the T-Mobile store rep an abbreviated version of this story

    Can we get the same courtesy, please?

  79. Noooooooo! by sootman · · Score: 1

    > Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts

    Don't! It's a trap! A long, drawn out, whiny, 6,959-word-long trap!

    Guys, wake up: Soulskill and timothy are sitting on a mountain of Dice money and they have nothing better to do than troll Slashdot's millions of loyal readers, day in, day out. It's the only explanation that I can think of.

    Well, it's either that, or they're a combination of retarded enough to think drivel like this is newsworthy and they don't give enough of a shit about their audience to bother to read the comments -- or if they do, they absolutely REFUSE to take them into account *cough*BETA*cough* -- but that thought is just way too depressing. I'd rather think they're malicious douchebags, than retards with keys to the kingdom. *sigh*

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  80. Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Regardless of B.H.'s whinging there is, however, a point he comes really close to but misses: Companies offering warranties should be forced by regulation to explain in clear, easy-to-understand language what (exactly) their replacement policy covers, and how it's covered. Consider it truth in advertising.

    For example, require more language like "A replacement refurbished unit will be shipped from our warehouse to your home via UPS ground within 3 business days, with your total cost being $90." and less language like "EXPERIENCE the CONVENIENCE of NEVER HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR PHONE AGAIN. Any conceivable situation* (except those covered on page 19) in which you experience loss of phone functionality * (see qualifying conditions, page 99), we will IMMEDIATELY * (see page 99) send you a new* (to you) phone ABSOLUTELY FREE* (see page 105, deductibles for qualifying models and markets)"

    Regardless of whether people are entitled goobers or not, most extended-service-warranties these days seem to try to hide all the actual explanations in vague words or small print, and the people at the counters at phone stores are usually only barely more informed than the people asking the questions.

  81. Self-insure, you whining idiot by enjar · · Score: 1

    Rather than shelling out whatever you paid for the insurance policy, put the same amount in a bank account. Put whatever monthly premium you would have paid into a bank account. Do this for every phone you upgrade. Given the depreciation rate of consumer electronics, you will likely hit the point where the amount you will need to pay for a replacement of the same model (if it exists at all) is less than the amount of money in your bank account. Furthermore, since you likely don't kill every phone you own, money should accumulate in this account over time to the point you could buy an entirely new phone for full price, drop it down the sewer when you walk out of the store, and not blink an eye because you already have the money to cover a replacement.

    FWIW this entire story reads like one first world problem after another. While boating for fun with girls in bikinis, you get picked up by a yacht and your phone gets wet. Puhleeze.

  82. Insuring a Phone If You Have Kids by glennrrr · · Score: 1

    By myself, it'd make little sense to insure a phone, but I have kids. And kids drop things. I've taken advantage of AppleCare's $69 replacement fee several times.

  83. Bennett needs a blog. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is not a blog - it is a news aggregator. At *MINIMUM*, these posts should be prefixed "EDITORIAL: "

  84. I know by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Let's force phone stores to stock billions of dollars worth of phones they're not allowed to sell so people don't have to go a day without their phone.

    I'm sure that's not going to cost a shitload.

    Despite the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the retailers, it's the insurance companies.

  85. è by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long, too. Read, didn't.

  86. Fourth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you take a phone on the water make fucking sure it has a tough, waterproof external CASE.

  87. Silly. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Typically the phone is in a warehouse within 50 miles of your location.

    While I oppose forcing companies to offer onsite replacements. I would say that there might be some point to encouraging companies to offer that as a feature. Now, that will likely only be viable on popular models. Then probably only in given areas. After all, a remote store in the middle of nowhere isn't going to be economical if it has to keep every replacement. However, in major cities there shouldn't be a problem and again... it would be voluntary.

    Call it something besides insurance and give it a precise legal term. Something that can only mean that. So if a company advertises something with that term, they are obligated to offer the meaning of that term indifferent to the fine print.

    Again... voluntary. No need to put a gun against people's heads over every little thing.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  88. Slashdot has come to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some nerd whinging about his phone needing to be replaced immediately? Whomever allowed this to come to the front page should be sacked. And then the person who hired them should be sacked. And then the person who WROTE this article should be forced to live in Somalia for a year to see what real tragedy looks like. You sniveling little shit! Should some horror befall you that had you not been paying attention to your phone you could have easily avoided, I don't think many people will weep for your passing.

  89. I would be in favor of a regulation requiring... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    Bennett Haselton to leave us /.ers alone, so we don't have to see his useless crap.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  90. Please stop posting Bennet's crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's junk.

  91. What is a phone store? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how is it different from a real store, like Amazon ?

  92. This service is standard in some locations by kzharv · · Score: 1

    I have insurance, USD 2.50 (two dollars 50cents) per month and then a deductible of USD50 for the replacement phone (for a Galaxy S5) . While they are getting the replacement ready I have a loaner of the same model for a week or so (I get the loaner the same day), all data transferred / backed up between changes if I want.

  93. The onus is on you. by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

    Pre-conditions for the price-demand curve??? There are only two: Monopoly and Duopoly. Internet providers almost always fall under these conditions... that's why they are regulated. Pre-conditions of the price-demand curve for cell phone insurance is a straw-man argument.

    You cite Comcast's underhanded deception of their customers as evidence? I fail to see any parallel between Comcast and your situation with your handset.

    There are DOZENS of carriers, and in most cases, you don't NEED a carrier to get a replacement handset. My local online classified system has hundreds of devices available, and I could have one in my hot little hand in 30 minutes if I wanted. You have stacked so many fallacies on top of each other that it's difficult for you to see the plainness of the situation: It is not a huge financial burden to self-insure your device... just buy a second one and you can switch devices in a matter of minutes. If you don't want to do that, then buy one on the open market. This solution is probably cheaper than perpetually paying the insurance premium to your carrier. If you buy the insurance package from the phone provider, you are bound by those terms. I currently don't buy insurance on my phone, but I have in the past... and when I did, the provider gave me a pamphlet that stated all the terms of the insurance policy. If you bought an insurance policy for your phone without understanding the terms of coverage and remediation, who's fault is that? If their terms weren't sufficient (can't deliver a replacement fast enough) then go somewhere else.

    I'm not going to waste my time looking for a citation, but I'm pretty sure you could find SOME company that would give you a premium insurance plan that would replace your phone as fast as you want, but I imagine the cost of such a policy would be greater than just buying two devices up front.

    The best I can do is distill your argument down to this: You are unhappy with the terms of service on your phone replacement plan. You project your own ignorance of the terms of your insurance contract onto others by making this unfounded statement: "most users have no idea when walk out of the store with a new phone, whether the store would give them a loaner phone(sic)." You possibly STILL don't understand that the cellular carrier who sold you the insurance policy, did so as a proxy, and that the company who insures your phone is most likely a 3rd party (citation: every insurance policy I have purchased for a mobile phone was through a 3rd party insurer, even though the transaction took place at the cellular carrier's sales floor). You hold the cellular carrier responsible for your dissatisfaction with an insurance contract to which the cellular carrier is not a party.

    Have I summed that up correctly?

    My advice to you is this: Be a better consumer. Understand the terms of a contract you enter into before signing or paying, and live by those terms. Understand that mitigating risk does happen at the societal level, but it does so FOR the society, not the individual. I you want to mitigate your individual risk, take action yourself, don't rely on others to mitigate your personal risk. And finally, my most fervent advice to you is this: Improve your situational awareness. When guys in a rental yacht pull up next to your inflatable dinghy and start chatting you up in an attempt to commandeer your bikini clad women... do not be fooled. Keep calm and row on.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  94. another self entitled mooron has posted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why do you assume they will have a stockpile of the one you lost? refering to the refurbs here. and this wont work for brand new models and for crying out loud why cant you wait for a replacement overnight? will your life end with out gps and yelp for 12 hours please -do what parents tell their kids -GO OUTSIDE that bright yellow ball is the sun -DONT STARE AT IT!

  95. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the basic argument for Brick-and-Mortar over Internet Sales/Supply Chains.

    Basically the latter and it's close cousins of Just-in-time manufacturing and inventory control are where things have gone with the internet due to the perceived cheaper cost of the internet and JIT supply chains.

    The problem is that JIT and minimized inventory does come with a cost and does create disadvantages. You DO have to pay for having inventory in B&M locations - it's not "free" but you get the benefit higher availability and higher reliability of the supply chain network. JIT and minimized inventory both create very nasty single-point failures - we saw examples during Katrina, for example, when the supply chains were cut. The benefits do cost money.

  96. You Do Realize Bennett Hasleton Is A Chatbot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that "Divided-By-Period" is having you on, right? There is no such thing as a Bennett Hasleton. This mindless drivel is just randomly churned out by a computer.

    Joke's on you!

  97. Trade up and in is a scam. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Never give up a working phone when you get a new one.

    Read above and now you know why.

    A visit to the phone store can activate the old device perhaps
    with the old SIM card...

    I use my old phones to WiFi stream music and stuff into
    my home. Bluetooth to the audio world for music.
    Chromecast for other stuff...

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  98. Or... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    ...you could just enjoy life for a day and do without a phone. I never owned a smartphone and the 20$ prepaid feature phone (although, it does have FM and games!) is sitting in the kitchen junk drawer most of the time. Honestly, you can go 24 hours without your damn phone. Further, you can also go rafting without your phone. Which call are you going to take while paddling like a mad man? Yes, I know, there is the way to and from and the mandatory visit to a local bar after returning...but even there you can do things like, well, talk to people 1:1 without playing around with your phone or checking messages every five minutes. Believe me, you are not that important to anyone that you have to be reachable 24x7, nobody is.