2 edits | Bill aims to limit wireless early termination fees Some what unrelated, but last week I received an email from Verizon informing me of a TOS update. It states:
said by Verizon :
If you are on a term plan and Verizon ceases offering service to
your location prior to the end of your term commitment, you will not
have to pay an Early Termination Fee Because I guess until now, they could charge you an ETF if THEY decided to cancel the service.
I've previously said we don't need more regulation, but after looking over an actual cell contract, I've come around. I understand the need for an ETF, when and only when the carrier is subsidising the phone. But lets do an actual cost ETF. The carrier can show what they actually paid for the handset, what you paid out of pocket, and charge the difference as an ETF. The only problem I see with that plan is keeping the carrier honest about the actual cost. |
|
|
|
Mce SaintPremium
join:2007-10-03
Saint Louis, MO Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| The other component is that ETF's should be amortized over the length of the contract. If you cancel after one month of service, sure - you pay the full ETF, but if you cancel at month 23 (out of 24), then the ETF should be pretty small.
Sprint started doing that . . . but ONLY for newer contracts. Another matter that probably needs regulatory attention.
Example: I'm on month 23 of 24 contract for a USB data card, but because I signed on a long time ago - before Sprint started amortizing the ETF over the length of the contract - if I canceled today, I still have to pay the FULL ETF.
One month and 2 days, Sprint . . . I AM counting. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Camelot One
This bill is a stupid idea.
ETFs are entirely optional fees that can be skipped or prevented if one doesn't feel like paying it. Get a prepaid phone or pay the full price of a phone and there will be no ETF.
Instead of going after a fee that only dings a few people who are too lazy to read the contracts that they sign, why not go after all the hidden "unfees" that are not taxes that get tacked onto your bill every month? I'd mandate that the advertised price of service is the price you pay, less any government-imposed taxes, just like any other purchase you make.
Even though this would mean the advertised price of service would increase, it would help people to better compare the prices of service and make a better informed decision about which cell provider to choose.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
