Termination fees illegal?

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> Not really- they caved to the court of public opinion

Er, no, they caved in to the court of the State of California after it
ruled a class action suit would be allowed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13600607/



XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> No- if you don't like the terms, don't do the deal. Most cellular
> companies offer alternatives to contracts- and not just prepaid,
> AT&T and T- Mobile offer their monthly plans without contract (you
> pay full price for phones, or supply your own.) Sprint offers (or
> offered) no contract plans for a $5/monthly surcharge.

Verizon offers no-contract plans as well, they really don't want you to
know that but they do....



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

At 06 Aug 2008 23:05:52 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
> > Not really- they caved to the court of public opinion
>
> Er, no, they caved in to the court of the State of California after it
> ruled a class action suit would be allowed.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13600607/
>

Perhaps, but pro-rating future customers' contracts really wouldn't change
the outcome of a class action suit that purports to address the prior
"wrongdoings" to the class.

IMO, it was the growing ground swell (in many states) against EFTs that
prompted Verizon to get in front of the issue.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 06 Aug 2008 23:05:52 -0700 XS11E wrote:
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Not really- they caved to the court of public opinion
>>
>> Er, no, they caved in to the court of the State of California
>> after it ruled a class action suit would be allowed.
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13600607/
>>
>
> Perhaps, but pro-rating future customers' contracts really
> wouldn't change the outcome of a class action suit that purports
> to address the prior "wrongdoings" to the class.

It's handwriting on the wall, Verizon's attornies are smart enough to
read it.

You'll note Verizon's announcement came just days after the court's
ruling?





--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

On 2008-08-07, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> No- if you don't like the terms, don't do the deal. Most cellular
>> companies offer alternatives to contracts- and not just prepaid,
>> AT&T and T- Mobile offer their monthly plans without contract (you
>> pay full price for phones, or supply your own.) Sprint offers (or
>> offered) no contract plans for a $5/monthly surcharge.
>
> Verizon offers no-contract plans as well, they really don't want you to
> know that but they do....

Neither do T-Mobile and AT&T, apparently. Just three weeks ago I
phoned T-Mobile CS trying to buy a cheap plan which allowed full
international roaming (i.e. not Flexpay) with no contract and was
told that, while a 1 year contract might be possible, getting
new service without a contract was not. And while I saw the press
about no-contract plans from AT&T in January I've been by the
company stores three times since then asking about this and no
one there seems to have heard of it. I also called AT&T CS a
month ago asking about adding a phone to a family plan without
a contract and was told this wasn't possible either (though they
also may have a secret 1 year contract option). I can't find
any reference to a no-contract option on their web pages either.

I'd also note that when I bought T-Mobile service in 2001, and
again when I bought AT&T service in 2005, I had no need to or
intention of buying equipment (I like to buy my GSM phones overseas
so that I get software which can display Asian characters) but
was told in both cases that I would be signing up for the same
plans at the same prices with the same contract terms whether I
took the equipment or not. Verizon, in 2005, also told me that
buying a phone at full price would not avoid the contract for new
service.

I hence think that the behaviour of the carriers, at least
historically, has made the notion that the contract was a
quid pro quo for a phone subsidy rather mythical. If you
had to agree to the contract whether you took the phone or
not then the quid couldn't have had much to do with the quo.
And if the carriers are changing their behaviour now, something
which I have been able to find no evidence of but which I
accept could be true despite this, this behaviour change
for the better very likely have been prompted by the very
lawsuits that people are now complaining about here.

And to tell the truth, if Sprint had a $5/month option
when I was their customer I would have paid it to get them
to stop extending my contracts for no particular reason
every time I had the misfortune of having to talk to their
customer service. That Sprint lost the recent lawsuit is
both understandable and just from my point of view.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 2008-08-07, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote:

>> Verizon offers no-contract plans as well, they really don't want
>> you to know that but they do....

> I'd also note that when I bought T-Mobile service in 2001, and
> again when I bought AT&T service in 2005, I had no need to or
> intention of buying equipment (I like to buy my GSM phones
> overseas so that I get software which can display Asian
> characters) but was told in both cases that I would be signing up
> for the same plans at the same prices with the same contract terms
> whether I took the equipment or not. Verizon, in 2005, also told
> me that buying a phone at full price would not avoid the contract
> for new service.

Correct which is why I tell people who are ready for their new every
two but are happy with the current phone to go ahead and get a new
phone and sell it on Ebay if they don't mind signing up for two more
years. If they don't want to extend the contract they can continue
month to month but they don't save any money so why?

To have a no-contract plan it's certainly easiest to start with a
contract, let it run out and go month to month from then on.




--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

D wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:38:24 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Carl wrote:
>>> XS11E wrote:
>>>> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655
>>>>
>>> This is an example of cry-baby consumers shooting themselves in the
>>> foot. While I'm not a fan of Big Business, I understand that early
>>> termination fees are necessary in order to allow carriers to give
>>> away the phones at highly discounted prices. They intend to make
>>> the money back over the life of the contract. That should seem
>>> obvious. It is, after all, the goal of business to make a profit.
>>
>> Sure, but they don't have to kick you in the face doing it. I accept
>> the subsidy part but the phone companies were being awfully heavy
>> handed the way they enforced the early termination fees and that is
>> what rightfully got people mad. If the fee was say $175 and you
>> canceled the day before your contract expired they dinged you for
>> the full $175. If you canceled a day later you paid nothing. I would
>> love to hear an explanation how that was fair and reasonable.
>
> If you had contracted to have someone build you a house, would you be
> upset if he got everything done "except that last window put in?"
> surely you would expect him to finish what he agreed to, right? so
> why should a cell phone company be any differantly? you agreed to
> keep service to a certain point, or pay the etf. why is it so
> "unfair" to expect you to do as you say?
>
> To answer your question with another question, how is it not fair and
> reasonable to expect someone to do as they agreed to? Not almost do
> what they agreed to, but actually stick to the agreement?
>
Exactly what I was going to say (well, maybe not 'exactly', but pretty damn
close). I don't get posters like George who expect to be protected by Big
Brother from every mistake they can conceivably make and feel they have no
obligation to the terms of the contract they entered into. When you sign a
contract, George, read and understand the terms of it. And live with it. If
you feel you're not competent enough, don't enter into them. But let's stop
whining about everything, shall we?

George wrote:
> D wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:38:24 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Carl wrote:
>>>> XS11E wrote:
>>>>> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655
>>>>>
>>>> This is an example of cry-baby consumers shooting themselves in
>>>> the foot. While I'm not a fan of Big Business, I understand that
>>>> early termination fees are necessary in order to allow carriers to
>>>> give away the phones at highly discounted prices. They intend to
>>>> make the money back over the life of the contract. That should
>>>> seem obvious. It is, after all, the goal of business to make a
>>>> profit.
>>> Sure, but they don't have to kick you in the face doing it. I
>>> accept the subsidy part but the phone companies were being awfully
>>> heavy handed the way they enforced the early termination fees and
>>> that is what rightfully got people mad. If the fee was say $175 and
>>> you canceled the day before your contract expired they dinged you
>>> for the full $175. If you canceled a day later you paid nothing. I
>>> would love to hear an explanation how that was fair and reasonable.
>>
>> If you had contracted to have someone build you a house, would you be
>> upset if he got everything done "except that last window put in?"
>> surely you would expect him to finish what he agreed to, right? so
>> why should a cell phone company be any differantly? you agreed to
>> keep service to a certain point, or pay the etf. why is it so
>> "unfair" to expect you to do as you say?
>>
>> To answer your question with another question, how is it not fair and
>> reasonable to expect someone to do as they agreed to? Not almost do
>> what they agreed to, but actually stick to the agreement?
>
> Not disputing honoring obligations. I am complaining about the heavy
> handed way that megacorps muscle people into forcibly agreeing to such
> unilateral terms. That is what incensed people and caused a backlash
> lawsuit. Be fair and reasonable with me and there is no problem.
>
> In the case of say a $175 ETF just making a simple calculation the
> subsidy is retired at the rate of $0.24/day. So if you canceled on the
> last day you only owe $0.24 but they get a $174.76 windfall.
>
George, this is ridiculous. Why would you cancel on the day before the last
day? Couldn't you wait the day out and meet the terms of the contract? What
if they stopped providing service to you one day early? You'd be screaming
your head off, wouldn't you? Yes you would. I can tell. Guys like you seem
to only see things from one side: their own. Self-centered, are we?

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Aug 2008 11:54:23 -0400 George wrote:
>
>> I understand all of that. I am not anti business. From what you
>> describe we are to just do whatever a business tells us to do
>> because it is good for them no matter if it is unreasonable or unfair.
>
> No, you do business with companies that you feel are "fair."
>
>> Do you just accept whatever a business proposes without question
>> because it is really good for them?
>
>
> No- if you don't like the terms, don't do the deal. Most cellular
> companies offer alternatives to contracts- and not just prepaid, AT&T and T-
> Mobile offer their monthly plans without contract (you pay full price for
> phones, or supply your own.) Sprint offers (or offered) no contract plans
> for a $5/monthly surcharge.
>
>
>> For example, I recently bought a car out of state. The dealer stated
>> that the fees would include $xxx for the paperwork and the out of
>> state tags at actual cost. A friend had just done the same thing so
>> I knew what the cost would be. They built in another $90 on the
>> "actual cost" tags. I called then on it and after lots of conferencing
>> they removed the $110. Would you have just paid the $90 because
>> the car dealer obviously has overhead and needs to make a profit?
>
>
> No, I negotiate the fees off the table at the start. In reality it makes
> no difference- they need to make "x" dollars, so the $300 in "fees" I
> refuse to pay end up in the price of the car somewhere.

But really this is a serious question, why would you even think of such
a thing as questioning a fee? After all according to this thread
everything a business requires of us must be fully complied with. Did
you even sleep that night with all of the guilt?

And your rationalization sounds nice but think about it for a moment. If
you are negotiating the cost of something and the seller drops a fee as
a concession where and how exactly did it end up being reinserted into
the transaction?


>
>> At least VZW recently decided to be fair and reasonable and pro rate the
> ETF.
>
> And, like in the car example, that additional cost to them comes out
> somewhere!
>
>

George wrote on [Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:56:25 -0400]:
> Carl wrote:
>> D wrote:
> Since you mentioned my name please *explicitly* quote in detail where I
> even said anything like that.
>
> And let me ask you have you ever questioned a fee or negotiated a price
> at any time. If so why did you do it?

The time to question a fee is BEFORE you agree to it.