1 edit | Fat Chance Fearing that Congress or the FCC would pass tougher federal regulation, carriers have been making several "voluntary" changes, including pro-rating ETFs [...] Don't worry, Sprint. Just as soon as enough $$$$$$$$$$$ gets shoveled into the appropriate politicians collective campaigns, you won't have to pay a dime because the Congress will be sure to protect your bottom line just like they did the telcos with retroactive immunity for breaking the law. | |
|
 |
1 edit | Re: Fat Chance Most of the folks here are correct. If you want something done, try talking to Care and request a Supervisor. If the supervisor won't help you out, inform them that you'll be contacting the executive office and to please notate your account appropriately. Make sure to get their name! Once done, shoot out an email if possible to the executives. You can usually track down an email address after a little searching on Google. If you don't get a response within 5 business days, track down the corporate phone number and ask to speak to the CEO's office. They'll transfer you to a team who takes their calls and will escalate your request. As long as it's reasonable (i.e., you haven't been switching phones every month for the past six months) then they'll accommodate your request. It's a pain, but it gets the job DONE. If all else fails, make sure to join the class action case. | |
|
 HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1 | Hummm No wonder they offered me the "Home feto? Cell" device for free.
Lee | |
|
| | ETF they charged me a ETF for canceling my contract 15 days before it was up! I even told them dont do it till its over and they to this day have not refunded me the $175 they charged me! maybe now I can somehow get that back.... | |
|
| baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Future Nine Corp..
| Re: ETF Quite some time ago Sprint told me that I owed them an ETF. I told Sprint to KMA and that if they wanted to try and collect they could meet me in a California court. To bad they never tried. I could have used the class representative's share of that $73M.  | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: ETF said by baj475:Quite some time ago Sprint told me that I owed them an ETF. I told Sprint to KMA and that if they wanted to try and collect they could meet me in a California court. To bad they never tried. I could have used the class representative's share of that $73M. your share: probably around 14 cents.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA | Re: ETF Not as a class representative. My guess is that the class rep will get several hundred thousand. | |
|
| | | said by neufuse:they charged me a ETF for canceling my contract 15 days before it was up! I even told them dont do it till its over and they to this day have not refunded me the $175 they charged me! maybe now I can somehow get that back.... How did they charge you? I assume you would have tossed any bill with the $175 ETF at that point. Don't tell me you actually paid it and then tried to get your money back? | |
|
| | | | Re: ETF Probably made the mistake of using their "auto-bill" service, they just charge your bank account whenever they feel like it, and it's up to you to try to get it back. And unlike a credit card payment, its a LOT harder to get a refund from the bank side.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | said by neufuse:they charged me a ETF for canceling my contract 15 days before it was up! I even told them dont do it till its over and they to this day have not refunded me the $175 they charged me! maybe now I can somehow get that back.... File a Small Claims action to recover the ETF, and cite the court decision just handed down. Don't forget to ask for costs and fees of filing/service, and INTEREST on the ETF from the date of your payment. | |
|
| | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA | Re: ETF Trial court cases are not citeable in California. | |
|
| |
| bdeustisPremium
join:2008-02-21
Atlanta, GA Reviews:
·ooma
1 edit | Write a letter to CEO of Sprint and FCC. I guarantee 2 outcomes. 1 - you will hear from the CEO's office at Sprint looking to resolve your issue and 2 - the FCC will send a letter within 2 months saying they are investigating. Sprint will refund your ETF faster than selling you a new contract.
MMM Dd, 2008
Mr. Big, CEO
BigWire Inc.
1123 DTE
Anytown, AY 99999
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer Information Bureau
Consumer Complaints
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
RE:FCC Complaint
Account Nr. xxxxxxx
Statements Dated: February xx, 2008
March xx, 2008
Primary Phone Nr. | |
|
| | | | Re: ETF TYVM for this info. I have a complaint against the local Sprint store for selling service in a town they have no towers and thus no service. They have the gall to keep selling there when they know they have no right to! | |
|
| KiwiPremium
join:2003-05-26
USA/MidWest
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
3 edits | Well, that makes no sense, why not suck it up for just 15 days, some things posted here, makes no bloody sense @ all. Why even ask, should have let it ride out.
I don't like early term either, particularly if I got screwed with billing, but to complain and not go 15 days is and must be plain stupid.
....I can go with a year, two years seems a bit extravegant, with any provider. | |
|
| | | | Re: ETF According to neufuse, he told Sprint to cancel the contract when it was up (in 15 days). It's entirely possible that he would have been unable to call 15 days from that date. Perhaps he was going on vacation, moving, or something. In any case, you should be able to call your cell phone provider and tell them to cancel service as of a particular date. Since the cancellation actually occurs on the day that the contract expires, there shouldn't be any ETF.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|
| | | I was able to get out of my contract last year when I found out they were changing fees on me while still under agreement. I didn't have to pay no ETF's and ported my numbers over to cricKet which don't require a contract. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  What Grounds?
Were they not clearly spelled out in their contracts in the same way Verizon and AT&T spell out such fees?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
|  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: What Grounds? A California judge late Monday ruled (.pdf) that the fees, which range as high as $200 a line, were an unlawful penalty under California law and were "implemented primarily as a means to discourage customers from leaving" their contracts.
»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0···red.html | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: What Grounds? I am not following. I am pretty sure CA does not have a law that states that ETFs cannot be less than whatever Sprint was charging.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: What Grounds? said by pnh102:I am not following. I am pretty sure CA does not have a law that states that ETFs cannot be less than whatever Sprint was charging. I wouldn't be so sure that California doesn't have laws dealing with ETF-like fees - charges imposed by a business against a customer who breaches a contract. I haven't read the opinion so I'm not sure what it's based on, but in general CA leans heavier towards interjecting public policy into contract law that some other places - for better or worse. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: What Grounds? said by vpoko:I haven't read the opinion so I'm not sure what it's based on, but in general CA leans heavier towards interjecting public policy into contract law that some other places - for better or worse. Perhaps... this just seems to me like a decision based on the judge simply not liking the idea of ETFs.
The only way I could see an ETF being ruled illegal is if the terms of the ETF are not spelled out clearly in the contract, or if Sprint violated those terms.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: What Grounds? California is hard-nosed when it comes to marketing practices - which is essentially what the carriers are hanging onto.
First, they lure you in with marketing pitches about free phones and cheap plans, then footnote it all with "*with two year agreement" in small print. Sure, customers should read, but such conditions really should be prominent, in California's eyes.
Then, once you're in the contract, you get 30 days to try it and cancel if something's not to your liking or you just are unable to pay it. That's all fine and good...but to my knowledge California had to fight to get that 14 day trial extended to 30 days.
After which, you're charged $200 for canceling a month before the end of your service - resulting in profit for the carriers. In fact, unless you're on the absolute cheapest plan, the carrier is making a profit after only a few months, and they're using it almost as a strongarm to get you to stay, artificially ramping true retention figures.
That's the problem. Had the ETF been prorated properly like any other, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. It just didn't make sense for the figure to stay the same regardless of length. It's no different than rental places who, if you break the lease, can charge you for the full price of the monthly rent for as long as the apartment stays empty and they must diligently put someone in there. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | fine print in public facing business should be illegal. put it out there in normal font size that it is a 2yr contract with a 175 dollar termination fee.
TOS stuff can still be fine print but the finanacial side should be in normal print and in plain english and no lawyerese.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | ETF I don't have a problem with ETFs. Most customers doesn't want to pay the retail price for a new phone or can't afford the retail price of a phone. In exchange for getting a free phone or a phone at a discounted price, they agree to a two-year contract (which is typical in the wireless industry. One-year contracts are an option but most people can't afford the price of a phone that has a one-year contract). They also agree to pay an ETF if they cancel the contract before it ends. What is so hard to understand about that. Also, when a carrier gives a customer a free phone, do you think the manufacturer gave the phone free to the wireless carrier? The reason contracts are required is that the costs of the phones are subsidized by the carrier.
For all the people whining about the ETF, no one forces anyone to sign the contract. It isn't as if the salesperson forced them to take a contract at gunpoint.
With the pro-business Supreme Court we have now, I hope at&t files an injunction in US District Court of Washington, DC against any meritless lawsuit regarding early termination fees. Hopefully this will go all the way to Supreme Court who will rule that based upon contract law and precedents, ETF(s) are valid. | |
|
|  a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
1 edit | Re: ETF Sure, ETF's are valid, but ONLY when they're prorated. When a carrier is making at LEAST $40/month off of even the most basic subscriber, its hard to justify a constant ETF that doesn't get reduced along the length of the contract. Think of it... If Cindy consumer cancels after 31 days of service, while Joe cancels 15 days before his 2 yr contract's up, how can they BOTH pay the same ETF? It just doesn't make sense...
As a side note, prepaid services from many carriers, GoPhone for instance, offer phones that're pretty cheap, despite the lack of contract, so the point about subsidizing the price w/contracts is sorta moot here...
As proof, compare the two pages below (Both are descriptions of the same phone, a Nokia 2610):
Postpaid:
»www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-···ku980158
(IE it's $149 w/o contract)
Prepaid (GoPhone):
»www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-···ku980143
(IE it's only $49 even WITHOUT contract)
I wonder why........ | |
|
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: ETF Prepaid phones are "subsidized" as well, since they're locked to a particular network- wasn't at&t or TracFone or someone suing people who were unlocking prepaid phones awhile back? | |
|
| | | | | Re: ETF It was Tracfone. They were suing some people that were buying mass amounts of phones, unlocking them and then reselling the phones overseas. | |
|
| | | | a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
1 edit | Re: ETF Well, that was for selling them innit? And, actually, even if you buy the phone outright on postpaid, you still get a 'locked' device. Not much of a difference, really.
BTW: ALL cell companies know that unlocking a phone is not much of a chore for the tech-savvy. Honestly, all the effort they put into branding a phone is really moot. All you need is either a software flash or even simpler, a PUK/SIM unlock. Heck, walk into chinatown and pay 30 bux, and they'll be more than glad to assist.... | |
|
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by a333:Sure, ETF's are valid, but ONLY when they're prorated. When a carrier is making at LEAST $40/month off of even the most basic subscriber, its hard to justify a constant ETF that doesn't get reduced along the length of the contract. Think of it... If Cindy consumer cancels after 31 days of service, while Joe cancels 15 days before his 2 yr contract's up, how can they BOTH pay the same ETF? I agree with you. The prorating should be TRUE pro-rating not the so called "pro-rating" that the cell companies are trying to push as a replacement for the flat-rate ETF. On a 2 year contract the EFT should be reduced by 1/24 of the original EFT each month - IOW: Joe should only get charged 1/24 of the original EFT (or should be smart enough to just let the contract lapse and pay the last month's bill) while Cindy should be charged only 23/24 of the EFT (if the 31 day cancellation option is not offered). | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| I can understand both sides of this... i paid $175x3 to Cingular to get out of their contracts... switched to sprint and bought the original phones for full price and don't have to worry about an etf cause they didn't give me anything... But on the other side the $525 was cheaper than 20 more months at $100 a month to keep crappy service that i didn't like... | |
|
| | | a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
| Re: ETF I suppose that's a good option, but IF the no-contract phones are truly unlocked. Or else, you still have to pay for new no-contract phones when you switch to a new carrier. Now, the better idea, in your case, would be to buy a dual band unlocked CDMA handset and use that with either Sprint/Verizon. OR to buy an all-out world phone unlocked for about $400 and then use with either Sprint/Verizon/AT&T/T-mobile.
However, for 3 phones, the price is just absurd... | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | ETFs should only apply to the first contract. when you renew you are no longer paying back that free phone, which you paid back several times over during the first contract.
a diminishing ETF is also a good idea, the longer you are in the less it is. so if you have a week left and cancel it should be zero.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by screenoscar :
I don't have a problem with ETFs. Most customers doesn't want to pay the retail price for a new phone or can't afford the retail price of a phone. In exchange for getting a free phone or a phone at a discounted price, they agree to a two-year contract (which is typical in the wireless industry. One-year contracts are an option but most people can't afford the price of a phone that has a one-year contract). They also agree to pay an ETF if they cancel the contract before it ends. What is so hard to understand about that. Also, when a carrier gives a customer a free phone, do you think the manufacturer gave the phone free to the wireless carrier? The reason contracts are required is that the costs of the phones are subsidized by the carrier.
For all the people whining about the ETF, no one forces anyone to sign the contract. It isn't as if the salesperson forced them to take a contract at gunpoint.
With the pro-business Supreme Court we have now, I hope at&t files an injunction in US District Court of Washington, DC against any meritless lawsuit regarding early termination fees. Hopefully this will go all the way to Supreme Court who will rule that based upon contract law and precedents, ETF(s) are valid.
EFT's are valid but ONLY if they are based on the remaining term of the contract. The CellCo says that the phone subsidy is fully paid in 2 years. OK but after 1 year it has been 50% paid back so the EFT should only be 50% of the original amount (IOW: It should decline 1/24 each month).
As an alternative, an amortized schedule could apply by treating it as a 24 payment loan with the original EFT as the total payment amount (which includes the interest payment). This is a system where each month one month's interest on the remaining principle is removed and the remainder of the reduction pays off part of the principle. IOW: With an EFT of $240, this is a loan of some amount at some interest rate and the EFT owed is reduced by $10 a month but some of that goes towards the interest and the rest towards the principle so that after 1 year you owe more than $120 just like if you had pre-paid a loan with a total payment amount of $240.
A flat 1/24 reduction per month is simpler but so long as the contract DEFINES the EFT as a loan, the loan method can be used (but a loan prepayment table SHOULD/MUST be supplied). | |
|
|  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | My biggest problem with ETF's is when I already own my own equipment, and every carrier will force you into a two-year agreement regardless if you take their free phone or not. And with that two year agreement, comes a hefty ETF. I'm not being subsidized. And there isn't a carrier in the mid-west that won't make you sign a contract to get their SIM card. | |
|
| | | | Re: ETF just to let you know...through att if you have your own equipment than you don't have to sign a contract, att's policies state that if a customer has own equipment or pays full retail value that they are not subject to contract...store wont tell you that because they make commission off contracts | |
|
| | Aaaahhh...If you read your contract any disputes regarding either party is subject to binding arbitration, you can't sue them in court and if you win a judgement against them for not showing up the telcos file a motion to vacate citing the valid contract you signed when you illegally sued them.
Bottom line is the lawyers will get most of the money and we'll get a coupon for a free text message. | |
|
| | | Re: ETF said by MrFingers :
Aaaahhh...If you read your contract any disputes regarding either party is subject to binding arbitration, you can't sue them in court and if you win a judgement against them for not showing up the telcos file a motion to vacate citing the valid contract you signed when you illegally sued them.
Bottom line is the lawyers will get most of the money and we'll get a coupon for a free text message.
California law makes mandatory binding arbitration null and void. For California residents, anyway. | |
|
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | the telcos would be happy to take you to court for breach of contract. I guess the American way is to demand money you don't deserve and not take responsbility for anything. | |
|
 highhatsizeNorm, The Basset For All TimePremium
join:2001-02-08
Spring, TX
·Comcast
3 edits | I have been a customer of Verizon cell phone since 2000. Without going into detail of my experience with them, let me say that I am pleased that they settled their suit and pleased that Sprint lost theirs. However, for true justice to prevail I believe the CEOs and Marketing Directors of Verizon, AT&T & Sprint should all be required to disembowel themselves ritualistically in a manner that leaves them conscious and suffering horribly for at least an hour. No friend should be permitted to chop of their heads.
One can but hope that this object lesson would change the customer service practices of their successors. | |
|
| | Will this ruling, if upheld, go to other types of contracts like those for cable TV and internet service. I know Comcast and Verizon both have ETF fees in their cable, DSL and fiber services. | |
|
FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1 | Alameda County Superior Court decisions really don't carry a lot of weight in most juristictions!!!!!!!! | |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | My brother in law wanted to get an iPhone with AT&T, but still had 6 months left on his Verizon contract. On Monday he was able to cancel without an ETF citing the text messaging charge that was upped a few months ago. | |
|
| | | Re: Side note on Verizion.... the etf shouldn't have been waived because of the fact that the contract states that rates can increase for services that are not subscribed to...so that mean pay per use features don't count, they would have the right to increase it to whatever they want because you don't have to use text but you choose to | |
|
highhatsizeNorm, The Basset For All TimePremium
join:2001-02-08
Spring, TX Reviews:
·Comcast
| Formerly, a contract was deemed to be valid if both parties exchanged something of value. If you traded a gold coin for a Lima bean you were assumed to have exercised your "freedom to contract". The last Supremes to hold to this theory died in the Hoover Administration.
Latterly, the question of why anyone in their right mind would trade a gold coin for a Lima bean caused questions of "informed consent" and "relative bargaining power" to take over as determinative of validity.
Was one of the parties a loonie, dumb as paste, or ignorant as Tom Cruise? Was the other party a multi-national corporation with a multi-billion dollar legal budget? Hmmm? Such contracts are now considered suspect. Implicitly unfair are the contracts wherein the multi-national corporation presents an average individual with a long, abstrusely worded contract and says, "Sign", since there is no actual bargaining. These are called, "adhesion contracts". Adhesion contracts for products or services wherein all the vendors offer precisely the same terms are considered the legal equivalent of ticker-tape.
Inevitably, all adhesion contracts that contain unfair terms that fall within the above parameters are held to be void by the courts. However, the Court$$$ do not take cognizance of the unfairness until it is pressed home to them by professionals, (i.e. Lawyer$$$), who wait until the millions of victims of the multi-nationals have accumulated a big enough pot of damage$$$ so that is worth the lawyers while to $$ue. Voila! Class-action suits.
If the government protected citizens against predatory multi-national corporations, class-action suits would not exist. But the last legislators seriously interested in that died in the Carter administration.
--
Cordially,
SANFRANSON | |
|
 Hambone4Hambone
join:2007-08-11
North Hollywood, CA
2 edits | California Early Termination Fee refunds = $73 Million
This is the Washington Post article:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···030.html
And this could prove to be significant:
"Moreover, in a move expected to send shock waves through much of the industry, particularly in California, the judge said early termination fees likely violate state law." | |
|
| | So are we prepared to get rid of all ETF's? Are we really? Be prepared to pay full price for a phone and see activation fees go up ten fold. And since phones will have to be sold unlocked have fun dealing with the manufacturer instead of the service provider for trouble shooting and warranty exchanges. | |
|
|
|
