So what does Verizon have to say for itself? According to The Wall Street Journal, the carrier feels completely justified.
In a letter to the FCC on Friday, Verizon writes that the fee "reflects the higher costs associated with offering those devices to consumers at attractive prices, the costs and risks of investing in the broadband network to support these devices, and other costs and risks."
Reading between the lines, one can plainly see that the real costs and risks are losing customer contracts to other carriers. But does a more data-intense phone warrant a higher penalty? Is it really a riskier investment for Verizon?
Mashable Senior Editor Barb Dybwad previously wrote:
"The argument goes that because smartphones are even more expensive in actual cost value than that basic, no-frills flip phone you can get cheap or even free, the carrier needs more 'insurance' should you decide to duck out early."
The reality is that consumers are demanding more from their phones, especially when it comes to Internet access, applications and the like. It's a demand that's only going to increase, which means that Verizon should be spending the money to invest in broadband to support these devices and their extra load, regardless of which types of phones their customers are buying. After all, aren't they the same carrier that is ostentatiously pimping the Droid (an Advanced Device by their standards)?
Interestingly enough, advertising also happens to factor into Verizon's rational. WSJ writes, "In its letter, Verizon said the termination fee also covers some operating costs of the business, including some advertising."