Want to Terminate your Cell Phone Contract?
07-31-2008, 04:36 PM
#1
is learning to moonwalk i
Thread Starter
Want to Terminate your Cell Phone Contract?
This may be good news for people who want to get out of their cell phone contracts before the end without paying a termination fee. There's still going to be a lot more discussion/rulings on this, but it is a good start.
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655
California judge rules early cell phone termination fees illegal
Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:48PM EDT
In one of the most significant legal rulings in the tech industry this year, a Superior Court judge in California has ruled that the practice of charging consumers a fee for ending their cell phone contract early is illegal and violates state law.
The preliminary, tentative judgment orders Sprint Nextel to pay customers $18.2 million in reimbursements and, more importantly, orders Sprint to stop trying to collect another $54.7 million from California customers (some 2 million customers total) who have canceled their contracts but refused or failed to pay the termination fee.
While an appeal is inevitable, the ruling could have massive fallout throughout the industry. Without the threat of levying early termination fees, the cellular carriers lose the power that's enabled them to lock customers into contracts for multiple years at a time. And while those contracts can be heinously long, they also let the carriers offer cell phone hardware at reduced (subsidized) prices. AT&T's two-year contract is the only reason the iPhone 3G costs $199. If subsidies vanish, what happens to hardware lock-in? Could an era of expensive, but unlocked, hardware be just around the corner? It's highly probable.
Of course, the carriers aren't going to take this lying down. Early termination fees are seen as critical to business, so carriers are expected to look for ways to reclassify the fees (such as by calling them "rates," part of the arcane set of laws that covers the telecommunications industry). The industry is also pushing for the federal government to step in and claim oversight over the early termination fee issue, which would invalidate any state ruling. The FCC is generally more tolerant of such fees, though Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed a plan whereby the fees are decreased the closer you are to the end of your contract.
The FCC may also buy the argument that, since carriers are nationally based (and consumers can use their phones anywhere in the country), that a single policy should apply across the nation, rather than creating a patchwork of legislation that could lead to confusion and chaos caused by having 50 different policies.
Is the early termination fee dead? Not yet, but it's looking a little haggard.
Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:48PM EDT
In one of the most significant legal rulings in the tech industry this year, a Superior Court judge in California has ruled that the practice of charging consumers a fee for ending their cell phone contract early is illegal and violates state law.
The preliminary, tentative judgment orders Sprint Nextel to pay customers $18.2 million in reimbursements and, more importantly, orders Sprint to stop trying to collect another $54.7 million from California customers (some 2 million customers total) who have canceled their contracts but refused or failed to pay the termination fee.
While an appeal is inevitable, the ruling could have massive fallout throughout the industry. Without the threat of levying early termination fees, the cellular carriers lose the power that's enabled them to lock customers into contracts for multiple years at a time. And while those contracts can be heinously long, they also let the carriers offer cell phone hardware at reduced (subsidized) prices. AT&T's two-year contract is the only reason the iPhone 3G costs $199. If subsidies vanish, what happens to hardware lock-in? Could an era of expensive, but unlocked, hardware be just around the corner? It's highly probable.
Of course, the carriers aren't going to take this lying down. Early termination fees are seen as critical to business, so carriers are expected to look for ways to reclassify the fees (such as by calling them "rates," part of the arcane set of laws that covers the telecommunications industry). The industry is also pushing for the federal government to step in and claim oversight over the early termination fee issue, which would invalidate any state ruling. The FCC is generally more tolerant of such fees, though Chairman Kevin Martin has proposed a plan whereby the fees are decreased the closer you are to the end of your contract.
The FCC may also buy the argument that, since carriers are nationally based (and consumers can use their phones anywhere in the country), that a single policy should apply across the nation, rather than creating a patchwork of legislation that could lead to confusion and chaos caused by having 50 different policies.
Is the early termination fee dead? Not yet, but it's looking a little haggard.
07-31-2008, 04:42 PM
#2
Needs more Lemon Pledge
woot?
07-31-2008, 05:21 PM
#4
My Garage
Originally Posted by zot09
I hope this comes into effect soon...I want to get out of my T-mobile contract to get an iPhone, but I don't want to wait until March when it ends.
07-31-2008, 05:36 PM
#6
is learning to moonwalk i
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by zot09
I hope this comes into effect soon...I want to get out of my T-mobile contract to get an iPhone, but I don't want to wait until March when it ends.
Originally Posted by The Dougler
good telco's and handset makers are ripping people off left right and center. Hopefully this goes through.
Still, I don't like the termination fees and would rather have the phones cost what they should cost and have the service plans costs reflect the removal of the subsidies.
I'm also waiting for the US to adopt some of the same policies they have in the EU - i.e. not pay (use minutes) to receive or send calls. But I know better than to hold my breath for anything to come out of this.
Trending Topics
07-31-2008, 05:52 PM
#8
Originally Posted by moeronn
I don't think getting an iPhone would do anything to your contract. You'd just have to pay full price for the phone.
This is the way handset companies are making a profit off their phones - by having the telco's subsidizing the phones. If the termination fees do go away, expect the phones to cost more.
Still, I don't like the termination fees and would rather have the phones cost what they should cost and have the service plans costs reflect the removal of the subsidies.
I'm also waiting for the US to adopt some of the same policies they have in the EU - i.e. not pay (use minutes) to receive or send calls. But I know better than to hold my breath for anything to come out of this.
This is the way handset companies are making a profit off their phones - by having the telco's subsidizing the phones. If the termination fees do go away, expect the phones to cost more.
Still, I don't like the termination fees and would rather have the phones cost what they should cost and have the service plans costs reflect the removal of the subsidies.
I'm also waiting for the US to adopt some of the same policies they have in the EU - i.e. not pay (use minutes) to receive or send calls. But I know better than to hold my breath for anything to come out of this.
You can always out right buy a phone. I paid enough for just a year deal, could have paid less for two, but didn't know I can jump if I want. As soon as 32g iphone is here.
The one's who brought the lawsuit are a-holes, they want it both ways. They said sure you'll give me that phone and I'll sign up for two years. Now they're balking at the commitment.
07-31-2008, 06:26 PM
#9
~Da Nocturnal Cheetah~
Originally Posted by jupitersolo
You can always out right buy a phone. I paid enough for just a year deal, could have paid less for two, but didn't know I can jump if I want. As soon as 32g iphone is here.
The one's who brought the lawsuit are a-holes, they want it both ways. They said sure you'll give me that phone and I'll sign up for two years. Now they're balking at the commitment.
The one's who brought the lawsuit are a-holes, they want it both ways. They said sure you'll give me that phone and I'll sign up for two years. Now they're balking at the commitment.
07-31-2008, 06:33 PM
#10
I don't have a Ferrari in
Originally Posted by jupitersolo
You can always out right buy a phone. I paid enough for just a year deal, could have paid less for two, but didn't know I can jump if I want. As soon as 32g iphone is here.
The one's who brought the lawsuit are a-holes, they want it both ways. They said sure you'll give me that phone and I'll sign up for two years. Now they're balking at the commitment.
The one's who brought the lawsuit are a-holes, they want it both ways. They said sure you'll give me that phone and I'll sign up for two years. Now they're balking at the commitment.
While I think the 2 year contracts (that now seem standard) is pretty dumb, it serves its purpose as a way of reducing costs for phones. It is the reason why the iPhone is selling so well and why many of us now have smartphones. Anyone with a Blackberry certainly did not pay the retail, which costs as much as, if not more than the original iPhone. Many other phones are pretty damn close up there, too. They are probably subsidizing $200+ for you so you could have the phone for free or cheap. I don't get all the complaints about cellular carrier. If you hate a carrier, why not just go with the carrier you like? Sign up for short term contracts, buy your own phone, there are plenty of ways around it.
I hope the phone companies win. This isn't about customer satisfaction, this is about what is right.
07-31-2008, 08:29 PM
#13
Originally Posted by sho_nuff1997
this is nothing more than people's lack of commitment. just like the mortgage problem. don't sign up if you don't want a contract. get a pay as you go. 
The contract BS just stuck through the years. There are enough cell providers & deals for signing up for a new cell service that the contract BS is not needed.
However I don't see this happening anytime soon.
08-01-2008, 03:22 AM
#14
S E L L
I hate 2 year contracts. That being said, I don't think it's fair to force the companies to eliminate the termination fees all together. It would be much more fair for both the consumer and the company to have an early termination fee that is pro-rated depending on the amount of time. The longer you have it, the lower the fee.
08-01-2008, 03:32 AM
#15
I'd rather pay more for a phone than stick to one provider and have them try to screw me over when I want to terminate. I remember someone tried to fake their death to get out of their contract - and even then Verizon wouldn't let them.
Pretty much if you're unsatisfied with the service after only 1 month with your cell phone co, they get to say 'yeah well fuck you too, you wanna get out of the contract, pay this first, now what douchebag'
If I wanted to keep my phone but get another provider, that's pretty easy with an unlocked phone, which usually costs more anyway and isn't associated with any brands to begin with. As long as the price for unlocked phones doesn't increase too much I'm fine with it.
Pretty much if you're unsatisfied with the service after only 1 month with your cell phone co, they get to say 'yeah well fuck you too, you wanna get out of the contract, pay this first, now what douchebag'
If I wanted to keep my phone but get another provider, that's pretty easy with an unlocked phone, which usually costs more anyway and isn't associated with any brands to begin with. As long as the price for unlocked phones doesn't increase too much I'm fine with it.
08-01-2008, 07:15 AM
#16
Originally Posted by Gfaze
I hate 2 year contracts. That being said, I don't think it's fair to force the companies to eliminate the termination fees all together. It would be much more fair for both the consumer and the company to have an early termination fee that is pro-rated depending on the amount of time. The longer you have it, the lower the fee.
Verizon, already does that. Five or ten bucks a months is taking off for each month of the contract.
08-01-2008, 07:44 AM
#17
I don't even pay attention to my phone, but I"m pretty sure I'm on At&t's service without an actual contract (it's been at least 2 years).
So would I get hit with a termination fee?
So would I get hit with a termination fee?
08-01-2008, 07:47 AM
#18
Go Giants
^^no...
08-01-2008, 08:25 AM
#19
Nom Nom Nom Nom
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
you didn't try the t-mo text message rate increase method?
08-01-2008, 08:47 AM
#20
StayAtHomeDad
The question is if the MSRP on phones is inflated to lock you into the contract or if they are true cost for the industry....also, the termination fee should most definitely be prorrated, it doesn't make sense that you have to pay the same in month 1 or 11 of the contract...you should also be able to change your plan at will, without any upgrade/downgrade fees...YOu should get a new phone every two years without having to get locked into another contract. I have been with the same carrier for years because I was satisfied with the rates and services, I didn't need a contract to keep me tied up there....Instead of charging people fees, resolve their problems, listen to their complaints, retain the customer because they want to, not because they are forced to stay with you....I applaud this veredict.
08-01-2008, 09:25 AM
#21
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by SwervinCL
I just got a letter in my last bill that T-Mobile is increasing their text messaging rates again. Perfect opertunity to get out of your contract with them.... Unless you have unlimited text messaging.. Which I do... SIGH
I had a blackberry plan with unlimited texts and i believe MMS messages, but if I sent an MMS to a real email address, I was charged 0.15 for it. I called them and they qualified me to cancel without ETF, which I did. There was some confusion because they rolled out a slightly modified change to my plan after I was already signed up, which included the MMS messages to emails, but they eventually figured out I was not on the new plan but the original that did not include MMS to emails, and that was what qualified me.
08-01-2008, 09:58 AM
#22
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by wrestrepo
The question is if the MSRP on phones is inflated to lock you into the contract or if they are true cost for the industry
....also, the termination fee should most definitely be prorrated, it doesn't make sense that you have to pay the same in month 1 or 11 of the contract
...you should also be able to change your plan at will, without any upgrade/downgrade fees
...YOu should get a new phone every two years without having to get locked into another contract. I have been with the same carrier for years because I was satisfied with the rates and services, I didn't need a contract to keep me tied up there
....Instead of charging people fees, resolve their problems, listen to their complaints, retain the customer because they want to, not because they are forced to stay with you....I applaud this veredict.
I have no problem with prorated ETFs with subsidized phone prices. The bigger issue I see is the damn text message costs...dollars per MB, it costs fractions of a penny for a provider to send a text message, but they charge us hundreds (thousands?) times the cost of that per message. As cheap as it costs for them, they should give it to us for free, but currently it's a money machine for them.
08-01-2008, 10:39 AM
#23
I always love having the newest tech and I've bought my last 4 phones at retail prices (All between $400 to $599). Selling your phone will subsidize the new phone cost. This ruling won't change anything for me, I've been on the Sprint Sero plan for 3 years now and out of contract for over a year, I will not sign another contract unless I have to change carriers, and even then it will be a 1 year stent.
08-01-2008, 12:45 PM
#24
StayAtHomeDad
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
The subsidized price with contract is usually lower than without contract, because a lot of times you can buy an unsubsidized phone from a 3rd party vendor (tiger direct or some place like that).
From my experience, I have been able to change my plans (within allowable plans) without any fees. There are limits and restrictions though, like I had to have some kind of BB plan, otherwise they would extend the contract.
You CAN get a phone every 2 years without having to get into another contract. But then you'd have to pay the unsubsidized price for the phone. If you want the cheaper price, then you have to sign for another 2 years...you can't have it both ways.
There will be people who stay with a company because they are satisfied with it, but there are MANY MORE people who will change phones every 6 months if it didn't cost them any more just to get into a newer device or because a cheaper plan was introduced or whatnot, and they don't really care how good the customer service is. And everytime a customer jumps ship, it costs money especially if the phone was subsidized.
From my experience, I have been able to change my plans (within allowable plans) without any fees. There are limits and restrictions though, like I had to have some kind of BB plan, otherwise they would extend the contract.
You CAN get a phone every 2 years without having to get into another contract. But then you'd have to pay the unsubsidized price for the phone. If you want the cheaper price, then you have to sign for another 2 years...you can't have it both ways.
There will be people who stay with a company because they are satisfied with it, but there are MANY MORE people who will change phones every 6 months if it didn't cost them any more just to get into a newer device or because a cheaper plan was introduced or whatnot, and they don't really care how good the customer service is. And everytime a customer jumps ship, it costs money especially if the phone was subsidized.
You should be able to change to whatever plan, at whatever time with no penalties...it's a service they are providing and you should be able to adjust to your needs...
You can get a phone at any time paying full price...why can't I have a new phone every two years without having to prolong the contract? why can't I have it both ways? this is exactly what the lawsuit verdict is dictating...If you extend your contract and cancel there shouldn't be a penalty, right??
According to your premise people would jump ship just because it doesn't cost them, but actually it would cost them...even today, it costs to change providers...but, if you are satisfied, believe that are paying a competitive and fair price, and are overall happy with something, you stick with it...Just think about cars, people are loyal to brands, there is no commitment, you can "jump ship" anytime, but if you are pleased with what you have, at the time of upgrading you will likely stay within brand....and what's wrong with jumping around, what's wrong with taking advantages of introductory rates? why should you pay more than the "new guy"?
Another place where the cellphone companies lost to customers, they would keep you just because the phone number belonged to them...not anymore...If you are not pleased with a service and the provider is not answering you should be able to "jump ship" and go somewhere else and get the service you want/deserve without changing the number, I think that this was the biggest win for consumers...
08-01-2008, 01:39 PM
#25
Nom Nom Nom Nom
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
You actually can get out depending on what type of unlimited plan you have.
I had a blackberry plan with unlimited texts and i believe MMS messages, but if I sent an MMS to a real email address, I was charged 0.15 for it. I called them and they qualified me to cancel without ETF, which I did. There was some confusion because they rolled out a slightly modified change to my plan after I was already signed up, which included the MMS messages to emails, but they eventually figured out I was not on the new plan but the original that did not include MMS to emails, and that was what qualified me.
I had a blackberry plan with unlimited texts and i believe MMS messages, but if I sent an MMS to a real email address, I was charged 0.15 for it. I called them and they qualified me to cancel without ETF, which I did. There was some confusion because they rolled out a slightly modified change to my plan after I was already signed up, which included the MMS messages to emails, but they eventually figured out I was not on the new plan but the original that did not include MMS to emails, and that was what qualified me.
08-01-2008, 02:14 PM
#26
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by wrestrepo
The question about the price was if the MSRP was inflated to begin with...I understand the "subsidizing" thing.
You should be able to change to whatever plan, at whatever time with no penalties...it's a service they are providing and you should be able to adjust to your needs...
You can get a phone at any time paying full price...why can't I have a new phone every two years without having to prolong the contract? why can't I have it both ways? this is exactly what the lawsuit verdict is dictating...If you extend your contract and cancel there shouldn't be a penalty, right??
According to your premise people would jump ship just because it doesn't cost them, but actually it would cost them...even today, it costs to change providers...but, if you are satisfied, believe that are paying a competitive and fair price, and are overall happy with something, you stick with it...Just think about cars, people are loyal to brands, there is no commitment, you can "jump ship" anytime, but if you are pleased with what you have, at the time of upgrading you will likely stay within brand....and what's wrong with jumping around, what's wrong with taking advantages of introductory rates? why should you pay more than the "new guy"?
Another place where the cellphone companies lost to customers, they would keep you just because the phone number belonged to them...not anymore...If you are not pleased with a service and the provider is not answering you should be able to "jump ship" and go somewhere else and get the service you want/deserve without changing the number, I think that this was the biggest win for consumers...
You should be able to change to whatever plan, at whatever time with no penalties...it's a service they are providing and you should be able to adjust to your needs...
You can get a phone at any time paying full price...why can't I have a new phone every two years without having to prolong the contract? why can't I have it both ways? this is exactly what the lawsuit verdict is dictating...If you extend your contract and cancel there shouldn't be a penalty, right??
According to your premise people would jump ship just because it doesn't cost them, but actually it would cost them...even today, it costs to change providers...but, if you are satisfied, believe that are paying a competitive and fair price, and are overall happy with something, you stick with it...Just think about cars, people are loyal to brands, there is no commitment, you can "jump ship" anytime, but if you are pleased with what you have, at the time of upgrading you will likely stay within brand....and what's wrong with jumping around, what's wrong with taking advantages of introductory rates? why should you pay more than the "new guy"?
Another place where the cellphone companies lost to customers, they would keep you just because the phone number belonged to them...not anymore...If you are not pleased with a service and the provider is not answering you should be able to "jump ship" and go somewhere else and get the service you want/deserve without changing the number, I think that this was the biggest win for consumers...
I think your problem is you are looking at this from your personal point of view from what you want for yourself personally, rather than as a business point of view that applies to the general public.
Cell phone providers are first and foremost a business. They have to make money somehow, and if that means losing money on subsidizing phones, but making it back during the 2 year contract, then that's what they do. I have no problems with an ETF as long as it's prorated...they still get their money back from subsidizing my phone, but it's more fair since the longer I stay, the more they get back.
The problem with this lawsuit is that now they are going to force Sprint's hand to not subsidize phones anymore...then people will start complaining about the high price of phones. It's a trade off...cheaper phone, 2 year contract w/ ETF, or more expensive phone, no contract/ETF. Like I said before, you can't have it both ways.
And if you think customers won't jump ship even though they're happy with their current provider and the price plan, you need to get out more. I have already jumped ship 4 times, and each time I was happy with the provider. I just did it because new phones came out and were exclusive to another provider.
08-01-2008, 02:41 PM
#27
Team Owner
I consider the contract sort of like leasing. Maybe you couldn't afford the vehicle if you bought outright but you leased it for 3 years and can't get out of the lease without penalty just like the phone's termination fee. Major diff is you get to keep the phone. So why doesn't anyone bitch about leasing a car since you have to turn it in after paying thousands of dollars?
I only wish the phone had a 2 year warranty to match the contract instead of just 1 (AT&T).
I think the suit is moot anyways. They'll just rename the termination fee and call it a discount fee. When you go for new service, you can't buy the nice shiny iPhone for less than the regular price since you don't want a contract. People will take the contracts anyways just to get the phone. What pisses me off is that iPhone owners HAVE to get the Data Plan. Extra subsidization FTL.
I only wish the phone had a 2 year warranty to match the contract instead of just 1 (AT&T).
I think the suit is moot anyways. They'll just rename the termination fee and call it a discount fee. When you go for new service, you can't buy the nice shiny iPhone for less than the regular price since you don't want a contract. People will take the contracts anyways just to get the phone. What pisses me off is that iPhone owners HAVE to get the Data Plan. Extra subsidization FTL.
08-01-2008, 03:06 PM
#28
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Doom878
I consider the contract sort of like leasing. Maybe you couldn't afford the vehicle if you bought outright but you leased it for 3 years and can't get out of the lease without penalty just like the phone's termination fee. Major diff is you get to keep the phone. So why doesn't anyone bitch about leasing a car since you have to turn it in after paying thousands of dollars?
I only wish the phone had a 2 year warranty to match the contract instead of just 1 (AT&T).
I think the suit is moot anyways. They'll just rename the termination fee and call it a discount fee. When you go for new service, you can't buy the nice shiny iPhone for less than the regular price since you don't want a contract. People will take the contracts anyways just to get the phone. What pisses me off is that iPhone owners HAVE to get the Data Plan. Extra subsidization FTL.
I only wish the phone had a 2 year warranty to match the contract instead of just 1 (AT&T).
I think the suit is moot anyways. They'll just rename the termination fee and call it a discount fee. When you go for new service, you can't buy the nice shiny iPhone for less than the regular price since you don't want a contract. People will take the contracts anyways just to get the phone. What pisses me off is that iPhone owners HAVE to get the Data Plan. Extra subsidization FTL.
I think a lot of people just don't look at the whole picture. All they see is that they are required to sign a 2 year contract and that their phone costs $XXX, and they have to pay $YYY if they cancel early and don't consider that they got a discount price on the phone. People always want something for free, and as someone that deals with the general public, I see this all the time. And it's not right to compare cell phones and service to other service such as cable or power or gas. Did the power company subsidize your lights? Did the cable company subsidize your TV? Did the gas company subsidize your stove?
Hell, look at satellite TV providers...they all require some form of contract in order to get free equipment and installation. They are subsidizing the equipment and installation and therefore lock you in for a time being in order to recoup that money. If you are happy and stay with it, why cancel or complain about an ETF?
My point is that currently there are choices out there...if you want to pay less for the newest gadget, then the tradeoff is a 2 year contract. If you want to be flexible and without a contract, then you can pay full price for your device. If you are under contract and are unhappy with your service, you can cancel, pay an ETF, and keep your device.
If the lawsuit takes it to the extreme and eliminates ETFS and contracts completely, then it will ultimately end up taking away CONSUMER CHOICE...we will have only 1 option: to buy at full price. This screws over the people who have no problem staying for 2 years or the people that want the choice that best fits their needs or wants, and it'll probably end up saving the people who wanted the lawsuit very little since everything they saved by not having an ETF will be reflected in the increased price of the device.
For example...no contract pricing for iPhone (16gb): $699.
Price with contract: $299
Difference: $400.
I have no problem staying with ATT for 2 years for a phone at $299 and canceling for $175 if the need warranted (total $474), but I do have a problem with being forced to pay $699 for the phone with no other option.
08-01-2008, 07:24 PM
#29
StayAtHomeDad
MR Deeno,
I think that you are been a little narrow minded...nothing personal...phone companies could reward loyalty, you stay with them for two years, you get a discount on your next phone....yes, you would need to pay for the first one....that's just one example...We can all do math, we know the difference between 600 and 400, so no need to do that for us....don't be so afraid of the man (Sprint), they will adjust to the new regulation and stil make money....the point is that the lawsuit is good for consumers, it will give them the freedom to choose who is providing them with satisfactory service without the fear or punishment of cancelling a contract, even if that means paying extra for a phone...
You may be right, I am not the typical consumer, I use things until they break and don't just replace them because there is something "cooler" out. No, I don't have an Iphone, I don't even own a cellphone, my work pays for it...Until recently my wife's cellphone couldn't even send text...so, I guess I am different.
Oh, and some people are willing to pay anything for the newest sht, like idiots who pay triple what a PS3 cost on e-bay because the have to have it...that doesn't mean that everyone will....
I think that you are been a little narrow minded...nothing personal...phone companies could reward loyalty, you stay with them for two years, you get a discount on your next phone....yes, you would need to pay for the first one....that's just one example...We can all do math, we know the difference between 600 and 400, so no need to do that for us....don't be so afraid of the man (Sprint), they will adjust to the new regulation and stil make money....the point is that the lawsuit is good for consumers, it will give them the freedom to choose who is providing them with satisfactory service without the fear or punishment of cancelling a contract, even if that means paying extra for a phone...
You may be right, I am not the typical consumer, I use things until they break and don't just replace them because there is something "cooler" out. No, I don't have an Iphone, I don't even own a cellphone, my work pays for it...Until recently my wife's cellphone couldn't even send text...so, I guess I am different.
Oh, and some people are willing to pay anything for the newest sht, like idiots who pay triple what a PS3 cost on e-bay because the have to have it...that doesn't mean that everyone will....
08-01-2008, 08:26 PM
#30
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by wrestrepo
MR Deeno,
No, I don't have an Iphone, I don't even own a cellphone, my work pays for it...Until recently my wife's cellphone couldn't even send text...so, I guess I am different.
Oh, and some people are willing to pay anything for the newest sht, like idiots who pay triple what a PS3 cost on e-bay because the have to have it...that doesn't mean that everyone will....
No, I don't have an Iphone, I don't even own a cellphone, my work pays for it...Until recently my wife's cellphone couldn't even send text...so, I guess I am different.
Oh, and some people are willing to pay anything for the newest sht, like idiots who pay triple what a PS3 cost on e-bay because the have to have it...that doesn't mean that everyone will....
You are wrong about this decision being good for consumers and giving them more choices. I would rather have the choice of a prorated ETF if it saves me money to stay on the contract, or the choice to buy a phone at full price. I do not want the STATE to force me to only be able to buy a phone at full price.
And try to figure out what you're talking about before saying someone is narrow minded. You are looking at it from YOUR point of view at what YOU think is best for YOU. You do not consider the countless number of consumers that ARE loyal to a company, and therefore don't mind getting into a contract and thereby saving money every time they upgrade on a phone. And phone companies DO reward loyalty...after 2 years with Cingular, they gave me $100 of my next phone...which I bought, renewed contract, then canceled anyway. Sold the phone for more than I got it (since it cost less with the reward), got a newer model phone with another company.
And you severely over-estimate "loyalty" among the general public. That is very narrow minded. There are a few people who are "loyal" to a company for a certain reason, but for every one of those there are 10 others that would switch in a heartbeat just to save a buck or have a better gadget.
Last edited by mrdeeno; 08-01-2008 at 08:31 PM.
08-02-2008, 09:10 AM
#31
StayAtHomeDad
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Uh, if you don't even own a cell phone, they why are you even complaining?
You are wrong about this decision being good for consumers and giving them more choices. I would rather have the choice of a prorated ETF if it saves me money to stay on the contract, or the choice to buy a phone at full price. I do not want the STATE to force me to only be able to buy a phone at full price.
And try to figure out what you're talking about before saying someone is narrow minded. You are looking at it from YOUR point of view at what YOU think is best for YOU. You do not consider the countless number of consumers that ARE loyal to a company, and therefore don't mind getting into a contract and thereby saving money every time they upgrade on a phone. And phone companies DO reward loyalty...after 2 years with Cingular, they gave me $100 of my next phone...which I bought, renewed contract, then canceled anyway. Sold the phone for more than I got it (since it cost less with the reward), got a newer model phone with another company.
And you severely over-estimate "loyalty" among the general public. That is very narrow minded. There are a few people who are "loyal" to a company for a certain reason, but for every one of those there are 10 others that would switch in a heartbeat just to save a buck or have a better gadget.
You are wrong about this decision being good for consumers and giving them more choices. I would rather have the choice of a prorated ETF if it saves me money to stay on the contract, or the choice to buy a phone at full price. I do not want the STATE to force me to only be able to buy a phone at full price.
And try to figure out what you're talking about before saying someone is narrow minded. You are looking at it from YOUR point of view at what YOU think is best for YOU. You do not consider the countless number of consumers that ARE loyal to a company, and therefore don't mind getting into a contract and thereby saving money every time they upgrade on a phone. And phone companies DO reward loyalty...after 2 years with Cingular, they gave me $100 of my next phone...which I bought, renewed contract, then canceled anyway. Sold the phone for more than I got it (since it cost less with the reward), got a newer model phone with another company.
And you severely over-estimate "loyalty" among the general public. That is very narrow minded. There are a few people who are "loyal" to a company for a certain reason, but for every one of those there are 10 others that would switch in a heartbeat just to save a buck or have a better gadget.
08-02-2008, 10:44 AM
#32
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by wrestrepo
In sum, the market will decide what's good for consumers, if the companies were not abusing the ETF the lawsuit would not have existed to begin with...
The verdict of this suit is NOT the market deciding what is good for consumers. If customers have a problem with a certain company's ETF rules and contract, then they could choose to not buy from them. If a lot of customers don't buy from a company, the company will have to change it's policies until customers do accept. THAT is the market deciding. If you choose not to buy a cell phone because you don't like the current terms, that is the market deciding.
Look at the iPhone...expensive contract, ridiculous terms, only works officially on AT&T's network here, totally unfair. But customers CHOOSE to accept the agreement of the terms and whatnot because they want the phone. You want gov't to step in instead and say that they can't do those things because it's too strict? If customers thought the price/terms were too strict, then they have the right to go buy another smartphone with another carrier. No one is forcing them to sign a contract.
But instead, you ahve a bunch of people who see cheap deals on phones, get into it with a contract, then complain to the courts that they have to pay to get out of their contracts. I think if the ETFs are unfair, then yes, it should be revised. But making it a black/white issue and just saying ETFs are illegal? That has NOTHING to do with customers deciding and forces the phone company's hand to charge more for devices and in turn, giving customers, whether they choose to be loyal for 2 years or not, NO choice in the matter.
I am not cool with gov't taking away choices, and I do not expect to be rewarded for "loyalty". If the company chooses to reward it's loyal customers, then that is a perk that is at the discretion of the company, not something that is demanded. And I only expect to get what I agree to get and pay what I agree to pay. If I have a problem with any of those terms, I don't do the deal. I don't go into an agreement and after the fact decide not to live up to my end of the bargain...and this isn't just phones, this is large purchases and agreements such as mortgages and such, which is why this country is in the shambles that it is currently in...people who get into shit and then expect to be able to get out of it without any loss to themselves and hope the gov't bails them out.
Last edited by mrdeeno; 08-02-2008 at 10:47 AM.
08-26-2008, 03:40 PM
#33
Type- (S)low
We're so far behind in technology and services offering.
In Europe , asia, rest of the world is pretty much happy with their prepay services.
US market offer a crappy ass prepaid wireless devices + high cost of services.
In Europe , asia, rest of the world is pretty much happy with their prepay services.
US market offer a crappy ass prepaid wireless devices + high cost of services.
09-17-2008, 04:14 PM
#35
chips and smokes, lets go
I want to cancel my cell phone because my employer has provided me with a BB. I called the cell phone company and the cancellation fee for the 21 months I have remaining on my contract is approximately $400.
My other options are to either move to the lowest possible rate plan which is about $30/month and pay that for the remainder of the term, or I can try to transfer my contract to someone else.
My other options are to either move to the lowest possible rate plan which is about $30/month and pay that for the remainder of the term, or I can try to transfer my contract to someone else.
09-17-2008, 08:57 PM
#36
I want to cancel my cell phone because my employer has provided me with a BB. I called the cell phone company and the cancellation fee for the 21 months I have remaining on my contract is approximately $400.
My other options are to either move to the lowest possible rate plan which is about $30/month and pay that for the remainder of the term, or I can try to transfer my contract to someone else.
My other options are to either move to the lowest possible rate plan which is about $30/month and pay that for the remainder of the term, or I can try to transfer my contract to someone else.
09-17-2008, 09:08 PM
#37
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NY
Age: 42
Posts: 4,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's the big deal with contracts? with the advent of prorated ETF's if you want to go to another provider which better suits your needs, you can simply buy yourself out and do so.
09-17-2008, 11:35 PM
#38
chips and smokes, lets go
09-18-2008, 01:47 AM
#40
chips and smokes, lets go
Not a bad idea. But then again, if the corporate plan is a contract then they wouldn't be able to pull out easily either without a penalty fee. I'd have to look into the details.
I'll try it anyways.
I'll try it anyways.