Termination fees illegal?

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655


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

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:25:47 -0700, XS11E wrote:

> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655

Now they'll just jack up the phone prices.

CSM101 and 007 will be relieved to hear this.

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.

So, what will happen next? Carriers will have to find other ways to lock
people into contracts or they'll have to charge full price for the phones.
How happy will those morons who participated in that self-centered class
action suit, who probably received pennies on their dollar anyway, be when
that happens? I'm sure they'll find another reason to whine then. Some
people just don't get that a deal (ie. a contract) is a 2-way street.

I don't know California law (as a matter of fact, I don't know law at all!),
but I am personally surprised that there would be anything illegal in any
state in these promotional contracts. The intent of the early-term fee is
clear and is always stated clearly to the consumer.

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.


>
> So, what will happen next? Carriers will have to find other ways to lock
> people into contracts or they'll have to charge full price for the phones.
> How happy will those morons who participated in that self-centered class
> action suit, who probably received pennies on their dollar anyway, be when
> that happens? I'm sure they'll find another reason to whine then. Some
> people just don't get that a deal (ie. a contract) is a 2-way street.
>
> I don't know California law (as a matter of fact, I don't know law at all!),
> but I am personally surprised that there would be anything illegal in any
> state in these promotional contracts. The intent of the early-term fee is
> clear and is always stated clearly to the consumer.
>
>

George wrote on [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:38:24 -0400]:
> 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.

Really?

Verizon has been pro-rating termination fees since 2006 or so

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?

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 <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Not disputing honoring obligations. I am complaining about the
> heavy handed way that megacorps muscle people into forcibly
> agreeing to such unilateral terms.

What "heavy handed way" did Verizon use force you to agree to such
"unilateral" terms?

There's absolutely no need to buy your phone from them, there's
absolutely no need to sign any contract in order to use their service
so how were you "forced" to agree to anything?

Oh, wait..... they offered you a free phone! How heavy handed of them!



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

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.

You're close to being right but there is more to the problem. They are
not only selling you a phone, they are also contracting to provide a
service. In order to provide that service, they must make a capital
investment, in towers, backhaul, equipping customer service and probably
stuff I know nothing about. They quite properly expect to earn a return
on that capital investment.