Wireless Carriers Trying To Kill ETF Lawsuits By lobbying FCC for rules they already adhere to... Tipped by Fisamo 
Verizon's facing a billion dollar, 70-million-user class action for not being clear about ETF penalties. The Associated Press reports that wireless phone companies are lobbying the FCC for new rules that would get them out of these State lawsuits. According to the AP report, phone companies would be required to pro-rate ETFs and give consumers a thirty-day no-penalty cancellation window, in exchange for immunity from these suits: Under a proposal to the Federal Communications Commission, the wireless industry would give consumers the opportunity to cancel service without any penalty for up to 30 days after they sign a cell phone contract or until 10 days after they receive their first bill. The proposal also would cap such fees and reduce them month by month over the course of a contract based on how long customers have left. Of course the reason the carriers are so eager for new rules is because they're already adhering to them. In an effort to pre-empt tougher pro-consumer laws like the " Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act," wireless carriers have already started pro-rating ETFs and offering 30 day no penalty windows. They also stopped quietly extending contracts every time you made a plan change, thanks to Minnesota's Attorney General.
|
  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits ....
By having the FCC ratify and make the new policies law instead of just phone company policy, the consumers get the break and the phone companies can't back out of them later.
All the lawsuits will do is line the pockets of a bunch of scummy law firms that would probably net the actual customer nothing more than a discount voucher on their next phone upgrade.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  | | | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... TK JUNK,
We all recognize this but you miss the big picture. While the lawyers WILL GET RICH, consumers will have laws protecting them on the books. Companies will no longer be able to get away with this crap. It has to come at someone's expense. Sure the lawyers will be the real winners monetarily, but the consumers will finally get protections in place. | |
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by jc100:TK JUNK, We all recognize this but you miss the big picture. While the lawyers WILL GET RICH, consumers will have laws protecting them on the books. Companies will no longer be able to get away with this crap. It has to come at someone's expense. Sure the lawyers will be the real winners monetarily, but the consumers will finally get protections in place. But they get the legal protections anyway when the FCC implements the new rules. So where is the need for the lawsuits? All the lawsuits do is raise the costs to the cell companies - which WILL be passed on to the customer in higher fees.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... Tk you are very very wrong. It usually takes lawsuits to spur the action of agencies. Do you think worker protections, safety measures, and many of the luxuries we enjoy were done on their own? If you say yes, you are by far mistaken. Most changes only came after legal battles occurred. While I hate that the lawyers get rich off this, it's a fact of life. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by jc100:Tk you are very very wrong. It usually takes lawsuits to spur the action of agencies. Do you think worker protections, safety measures, and many of the luxuries we enjoy were done on their own? If you say yes, you are by far mistaken. Most changes only came after legal battles occurred. While I hate that the lawyers get rich off this, it's a fact of life. Yep. How many lawsuits have changed the law, enforced it, or made it a precedent? Almost all of them. A lawsuit filed today is deep-rooted in a lawsuit filed 10-20-50-100 years ago. Read a lawsuit (the complaint) and see how many citations of case law there are--a bunch.
Example: XYZ, Inc. sues ABC, Inc. over predatory pricing. XYZ, Inc. wins setting precedent.
Actuals:
Florida capped the interest rate title loan companies could charge so they moved to Alabama.
A lawyer sued an Airline over airline safety in the 1970s. He won. It changed airline safety forever. Laws came forward to cover the airline safety procedures.
Miss. - A lawyers sues State Farm and other insurance companies saying that wind damage from hurricanes caused water damage and the insurance company had to pay. LA. then did it. Florida was doing it. Insurance companies lost big time. In Florida (absent Crist as Insurance Commish), now State Farm is dropping Wind Damage from policies this year. My question: WHAT THE HELL IS IT GOOD FOR NOW?
Did you know that class action lawyers put ALL the money out to sue, take depos, gather evidence, etc.? Class actions are complex litigation that can take 10-20 years to finish. Lawyers suing over breast implants 18 years ago have yet to see a penny even though they won.
Medical malpractice lawyers (you're best friend since State Departments of Health won't discipline a doctor if he left an Altoids box in someone while being drunk and snorting cocaine in the OR) spend $100,000 or more putting a case together.
Old saying: You hate lawyers till you need one.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | |  jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | said by Linklist:But they get the legal protections anyway when the FCC implements the new rules. So where is the need for the lawsuits? All the lawsuits do is raise the costs to the cell companies - which WILL be passed on to the customer in higher fees. Because of course, if we know something from all your posts, is that your real concern is always how this will affect the customers.  | |
| | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by jhboricua:said by Linklist:But they get the legal protections anyway when the FCC implements the new rules. So where is the need for the lawsuits? All the lawsuits do is raise the costs to the cell companies - which WILL be passed on to the customer in higher fees. Because of course, if we know something from all your posts, is that your real concern is always how this will affect the customers. I'm a customer. I care too.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | | There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by jjeffeory:There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. Without any ETF at all, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people, who would get service, quit, and then resell cellphones they got at deep discounts on eBay and elsewhere. Therefore, getting rid of ETFs would result in "no discounts" on cellphones. Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... This is why they should offer the plans unlinked to any phone.
IE "Bring your own phone" or "Buy what you like" and use our service. What they have been doing is using the gee whiz factor of the latest fancy phone to sell people their service contracts (iPhone, anyone?).
There should be no ETF options on every contract level. You buy the phone you want, or pick one they offer, and have the choice to pay normal price (or buy one off the Net). IE every phone should be unlocked and not bound to a particular carrier. That's been anti-competitive for years.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... I disagree- I know a cell-phone company will work in my area, if I can get a free phone by agreeing to sign up with them for a long-term contract why shouldn't I?
Now, non-contract options should be available, but I think for most consumers the current set-up is more cost-efficient than the one you are suggesting. | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by EPS:Now, non-contract options should be available, but I think for most consumers the current set-up is more cost-efficient than the one you are suggesting. Actusally that is what I am suggesting. That non-contract options should exist, and should be cheaper since there's no rebated hardware to cover.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Linklist:said by jjeffeory:There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. Without any ETF at all, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people, who would get service, quit, and then resell cellphones they got at deep discounts on eBay and elsewhere. Therefore, getting rid of ETFs would result in "no discounts" on cellphones. Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them. What about those that bring their own handset and get nothing in subsidies when they join and are unhappy and get hit with ETF. sorry TK i dont buy that arguement. is just an easy no cost way to make money off of unhappy subs.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| said by Linklist:Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them. Gosh, you mean we'd actually be able to do business directly with Motorola and Nokia instead of being locked into the walled garden model of carriers that see fit to disable useful features just because they don't mesh with their revenue model?
And I'd like to know why a $200 ETF is justified on a phone that retails (without a contract) for $100 and can be had in pre-paid kits for around $30-$40. | |
| | | | | | | Then why is is that Verizon is trying to get me to sign up to a new contract that still has an ETF in it even though I'm sticking with the phone I've had for 2.5 years?
Why is there an ETF for contracts that don't give you a new phone? | |
| | | | |  homenodePremium
join:2007-11-18
Bullhead City, AZ | Speaking as one of the guys that helped invent "churn", it's the "churn" that casues the need for ETFs. It used to be that phone companies had you locked-in because they were a monopoly. Then, with deregulation in the 1980's, they started competing on price. The price wars got customers "shopping" for service every few months and switching every time they got a better deal. It got worse when the phone companies started offering rebates to sweeten the churn from competitors, to the point where there were BBS's that kept the best switch deals up to date for all the phone companies out there. (Remember Dr. Bob's "Long Distance for Less"?)
Companies started instituting the ETF to add a stick to the carrot of changing vendors. Yeah, you could get 6 months free and a $100 rebate, but you had to pay it all back if you quit before the year was up. Made sense: you're going to have customer poaching going on no matter what, and most customers aren't rational consumers in that they look at the cheap price and the shiny-shiny to make a decision.
It's the air fare wars all over again. Southwest offers reasonable, fair prices in all their markets, regardless of the number of competitors they have. Other airlines, like American, Delta, Northwest, United, offer cheap fares where they compete against Southwest and HUGE fares where they don't.
Southwest doesn't have an "ETF" on its tickets - yes, you can change a ticket 5 minutes before the plane leaves and pay NO PENALTY on rebooking the flight. Every other airline has draconian ETFs - $150 change fee plus the fare change - usually double or triple the price of the original ticket.
The point in this digression: you have two completely different business models working in the airfare market. And you have customers using both - with most customers taking the "shiny-shiny" of a $100 ticket on American with no possibility of getting a refund or rebooking - instead of the $150 Southwest ticket with no strings attached. (If this wasn't true, you wouldn't have AA or DL or UA or NW in business any more.)
SO...until a telco decides to "do a Southwest" - which would be flat-rate contracts, phones purchased separately or added to the contract for a nominal or no fee, and either no ETFs or a "reasonable" ETF like one month's additional fee and the reamining cost of the phone, you'll continue to have the freebies and come-ons because customers love that "shiny-shiny" feeling...
Maybe Sprint will be the first one to do this - they need to do SOMETHING to break out of their current funk! | |
|
| | | | | You're kidding, right?
It costs time, and money, to set up a new account. Provisioning the line, activating the equipment, maintaining signal, etc etc etc...all rolled into it. It's not acceptable for the companies to eat thousands of dollars because a consumer got buyer's remorse two months in.
That said...on the flip side, state law needs to provide for a "cooling off" period. California, for example, does allow for 30 days to try a phone and service and cancel with no penalty or cost. I think that's more than reasonable. Notice I said STATE law. It shouldn't be Federally mandated, because no two states are different in their saturation of customers. California, I'm sure, has more Cingular and T-mo customers than the state of Montana.
What I would like to see here though, is a Federal ban on mandatory contract extensions due to account activity. I mean, if I'm in an apartment, my lease doesn't get extended unless I sign a new agreement to that effect. I don't think it's fair at all that they can essentially keep a customer for the long haul just because Joe Customer decided he wanted 600 minutes instead of 300. Ban the mandatory, force the cellcos to use incentives and competition to convince customers to extend on their own free will.
Of course, that would make too much sense. | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by ReVeLaTeD:You're kidding, right? It costs time, and money, to set up a new account. Provisioning the line, activating the equipment, maintaining signal, etc etc etc...all rolled into it. On a wireless new account? Please. I think the main cost is the labor cost of the employee who has to spend 30 seconds typing your info into the computer to set up your account.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by KrK:said by ReVeLaTeD:You're kidding, right? It costs time, and money, to set up a new account. Provisioning the line, activating the equipment, maintaining signal, etc etc etc...all rolled into it. On a wireless new account? Please. I think the main cost is the labor cost of the employee who has to spend 30 seconds typing your info into the computer to set up your account. You're exactly right. Sometimes, a human isn't even required. I've added 3 lines via the web with Verizon, with no human interaction whatsoever. The phones were active in 5 minutes or so.
It's the discounts on the phones that will lock the consumer into the contract. Most carriers will allow you to have a plan with no contract if you don't buy a discounted handset. | |
| | | | | | | | said by KrK:said by ReVeLaTeD:You're kidding, right? It costs time, and money, to set up a new account. Provisioning the line, activating the equipment, maintaining signal, etc etc etc...all rolled into it. On a wireless new account? Please. I think the main cost is the labor cost of the employee who has to spend 30 seconds typing your info into the computer to set up your account. And that employee has to be paid.
Again, I'm not matching dollar for dollar. What I'm saying is, there IS an investment on part of the company activating the service and they need insurance. Without the ETF and a 30-day trial, what you'd have is a bunch of people who just keep jumping ship every time a different carrier launches a phone or a feature that the individual wants. T-mobile going 3G is a perfect example - everyone's delusions of a 3G Sidekick or a 3G HTC device make them want to jump ship...when quite honestly their existing service works just fine.
Then Sprint launches 4G and boom - they want to jump back.
It'd be a bonafide nightmare and that's why I think some sort of fee for terminating contracts early without just cause is more than warranted. Don't get me wrong...I don't think ETFs should be charged if the customer can show a pattern of clearly unsatisfactory service, or that the company breached the agreement, or that multiple attempts to repair hardware have not revealed a satisfactory conclusion. IN that case and ONLY in that case, ETF should be disregarded, because you didn't get the service you signed up for.
What consumers in the US want is a free pass to jump ship whenever they please, which of course would drive up costs for those who are more stable.
Nuh uh. No thanks. | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by ReVeLaTeD:And that employee has to be paid. Yes... That's what "Labor cost" means.
Customers should be able to move to the competition when they offer better features, superior service, or better pricing. Long term contract lock-ins is purely anticompetitive.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... I don't think so. The competition is still there. T-mobile still offers the best rate plans. Sprint still offers the fastest data. Verizon still offers the "cool" phone. Then you have the sub carriers like Helio etc filling in the gaps with people who don't want long term commitments. But the competition is still there, trust and believe.
Nobody is forced to go contract. You can buy a phone at full price and get ripped off without a contract. There are plans designed to give you the minimum allowable service with no agreement. All carriers offer some flavor of prepaid. So there are options for consumers who don't want a contract. Saying that contracts are anticompetitive is missing the boat entirely. Are they anti-consumer? Maybe.
Again, don't misunderstand me. I don't like the arbitrary extension of said contracts just for changing a service or getting a subsidized phone. I think THAT should be abolished, yes. The ETF? No. Just mandate a 30-day trial period for which each consumer can try the various providers to find one that works for them, and if you don't cancel in the 30 days, you're locked.
PS, I also agree with the prorated ETF. No logic in paying $200 after I'm a year and a half into service. Forgot to mention that part. | |
|
| | | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | said by ReVeLaTeD:It's not acceptable for the companies to eat thousands of dollars because a consumer got buyer's remorse two months in. That said... state law needs to provide for a "cooling off" period. California, for example, does allow for 30 days to try a phone and service and cancel with no penalty or cost. I think that's more than reasonable. Explain your logic to me. It is unacceptable to cancel 60 days into the plan, but 30 days is reasonable? | |
|
| | | "scummy law firms"
That's redundant. | |
| | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by mod_wastrel:"scummy law firms" That's redundant. It is also insulting to scum.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | | |
| Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Linklist:... where the only winners would be the lawyers who file the class action lawsuits. By having the FCC ratify and make the new policies law instead of just phone company policy, the consumers get the break and the phone companies can't back out of them later. All the lawsuits will do is line the pockets of a bunch of scummy law firms that would probably net the actual customer nothing more than a discount voucher on their next phone upgrade. The FCC can't create laws, only regulations with fines attached. You know this.
I agree with you though that we need laws in place, rather than class-action lawsuits, to protect consumers. | |
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... said by Matt3:said by Linklist:... where the only winners would be the lawyers who file the class action lawsuits. By having the FCC ratify and make the new policies law instead of just phone company policy, the consumers get the break and the phone companies can't back out of them later. All the lawsuits will do is line the pockets of a bunch of scummy law firms that would probably net the actual customer nothing more than a discount voucher on their next phone upgrade. The FCC can't create laws, only regulations with fines attached. You know this. I agree with you though that we need laws in place, rather than class-action lawsuits, to protect consumers. But the regulations have the force of law when they are issued. This wouldn't be a policy statement like the FCC has for network neutrality, but real regulations that can be enforced by the courts.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by Linklist:By having the FCC ratify and make the new policies law instead of just phone company policy, the consumers get the break and the phone companies can't back out of them later. Yes and all it will cost us is the ability for our State Governments (typically much more responsive to their constituents than the Feds) to exercise any meaningful oversight of the wireless industry.
Personally I'd rather see the carriers overseen by the state regulatory agencies (the Public Service Commission here in NY) than the FCC. The FCC should retain it's mission to manage and protect licensed spectrum but the consumer protection aspect ought to be the responsibility of the states. | |
| | | | You should also be aware, since this particular post seems to have neglected to state, that in return for this particular FCC rule, they get a get out of jail free card for all of the current law suits against them.
While yes, law suits usually only make the lawyers rich, huge fines (Verizon is currently involved in a multi billion dollar class action lawsuit that would just go away if this goes through) however do deter some entities, even if they eventually do pass those costs back onto the consumer.
What is really needed, is a combination of legal precidents and FCC regulations on the book to keep monopolies in check... | |
|
 BSD24Tier 4Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA |  Not surprised, Verizon wants to be like movie - RoboCop
| |
| | | | Re: Not surprised, Verizon wants to be like movie - RoboCop I gives congrads to VZ on working with local gov'ts for cable franchises. They're doing something that AT&T is refusing to do. If AT$T doesnt get a state one they won't deploy. VZ on the other hand will.
Thats actually progress on their end. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | ETF Lawsuits Are Stupid Just about every cell phone provider lets you out of your contract within thirty days and most are very accommodating if you move to an area where they do not provide service.
Furthermore, anyone can get a cell phone with no contract, or a prepaid phone, and not be bothered with an ETF.
Basically, the only people suing are the idiots who were not prepared to live up to the contract that they signed that obliged them pay an ETF. These people need to get over themselves.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| |
See 20 replies to this post | |
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | pfftttt....... no company wants any law to apply to them, and why are all lawyers scumbags and money grubbers? If you like being screwed by a company, and are waiting for the government to fix the problem,you are mistaken. If you like being overcharged and hosed by companies, fine, but some people don't.Are there frivolous lawsuits yes, but it is a judge that let's it go forward, not the lawyers. For every frivolous lawsuit there are more good ones. Weather you are Repub or Dem, most of the politicians are these said lawyers. When a company makes a bad product or systematically rips customers off, what is wrong with suing them?It is ok as long as it doesn't affect the share holders? I thought that was a way to redress a grievance. Quit screwing your customer/the people, and you won't get sued, end of story.
--
BlooMe | |
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Is this a surprise? Honestly, Verizon would not be performing it's fiduciary duty to stockholders if they didn't try to get around potentially expensive lawsuits by any means they can (that are less expensive than the lawsuit, at least)- basic pursuit of self-interest. Why would you expect anything else? | |
| |  POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: Is this a surprise? said by EPS:Honestly, Verizon would not be performing it's fiduciary duty to stockholders if they didn't try to get around potentially expensive lawsuits by any means they can (that are less expensive than the lawsuit, at least)- basic pursuit of self-interest. Why would you expect anything else? LMAO. Regarding s/h interest or not, fiduciary duty does not include lobbying a federal regulatory agency to to perform an end run around the law.
--
The Toll
Shit on Pitt. Let's go Wings!
| |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Proof that you can't count on the market to protect consumer It's only when enough people unite in Class action OR the Government brings the big stick that suddenly these companies start being more reasonable in the way they treat customers.
Sad you have to force them to do what's right by force, but at least it's getting done--- after so many people have been bent over for years.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | Re: Proof that you can't count on the market to protect consumer Who forced these people into these contracts?
Nobody. You have no point, only a false premise. | |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Proof that you can't count on the market to protect consumer
Ok. Nobody forced anyone to sign up for phone service.
However that doesn't mean we should allow people to be cheated , robbed or abused, either. | |
|
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| You must pay even if you die! 6 months after my brother-in-law signed up with Verizon he died of cancer. My wife who was the executor of his estate contacted Verizon to cancel his service. She was told that because he was canceling before his 2 year contract ended the estate had to pay the early cancellation penalty. When she proved that he had indeed died by sending a copy of his death certificate they said too bad and sent the account to a collection agency to go after his estate. | |
| | vicorjhPremium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA | Re: You must pay even if you die! Are you serious?
I'm sorry to hear about your loss but as an executor, if I were in you shoes I'd refuse to pay any creditors until they bring the issue in front of the court. I don't think they can attach the estate without a court order. And, any credit dings doesn't matter at this point unless it is a joint account.
This'll be a public relations nightmare and is one of the reasons the ETFs need to be regulated. | |
| | | Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Re: You must pay even if you die! Thank you. It took 2 years to clear up the estate and in the end they only got about half of what they demanded. But it just burns my butt that they would still demand that a dead person repay their stupid fee. As far as I am concerned the contract went null and void when he died but you know this is big business. Screw the little guy. | |
|
 BenPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL | ETFs are evil I'd rather see month to month service, and no subsidies on handsets. That way, if Verizon really is "the most reliable network," they can prove it. If AT&T really does have "more bars in more places," they can prove it, and so on.
I do sympathize with those who don't want to pay full price on a brand new mobile phone, so my solution is this:
- Reduce the monthly charge by the amount that finances the subsidy. This makes the actual service cheaper.
- No more contracts and ETFs, month-to-month only.
- SIM cards should be free or extremely inexpensive, since they're cheap to make.
- Set up fees, if any, should be very small.
- Instead of subsidies, have loans to pay for the phone over time.
- This increases flexibility. Want to pay for it completely upfront and avoid interest charges? Fine. Want to finance the entire cost of the handset, and pay more each month? Fine. Want to make a down payment, and finance the rest (like subsidies work now)? Fine.
- Banks can compete for lower rates for customers' business.
- Mobile phone operators can reduce their operating costs by not providing every phone for every customer.
- Embrace the Carter phone idea. No more phone locking.
- Mobile operators will still be permitted to sell mobile phones, but whatever they sell can't be locked to their network. | |
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | What goes around comes around. . . . . As a new "un-fee" on your bill.
When will us stupid consumers understand you just can't win against these mega corps. you fine them and part of that ends up as a line item on your bill!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | If they did nothing wrong.. Then they have nothing to fear. The only cost they will suffer is a couple of million in lawyer fees...
HOWEVER, if they DID screw the customers for years on end, then guess what, they pay the price. It doesn't matter if the FCC makes new rules, that's not what the lawsuit is about. The lawsuit is about PAST behavior that is not acceptable.
Look at it this way, if the cops were to bust me for growing weed, do you think I could get off by promising not to grow weed anymore? I didn't think so. So why do the phone companies expect EXACTLY that type of treatment? They 'promise' not to do it any more, so they won't be prosecuted for what they 'used to do'. Not gonna fly.
Sure, the lawyers are going to profit the most, but more importantly, the telcos are going to realize they need to obey the law, which is a much greater benefit to the customer than the dollar penalty they will have to pay (which, by the way, they should NEVER HAVE COLLECTED in the first place)
How would you feel if Verizon and AT&T handed over all your call logs to the feds without a warrant? Do you think they should be able to walk away from that blatant violation of the law without paying any sort of penalty? I didn't think so.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | Get rid of ETF If you buy an unlocked phone, why do I have to pay the same monthly rate as somebody that bought a subsidized phone. The only thing they have to do is agree to an ETF.
The carriers should just bill the subsidized cost of the phone on somebody bill-treat it as credit. ETF prevents competition in service(Wireless Company rolls out new better service or price, the other carriers don't have to worry about their customer base leaving for 2 years). It also looks like the wireless carriers abused it use with customers...What is the cost of the wireless service and what is the price of the phone, the way it is setup now, it blurs the costs.
Sprint/Nextel was just asking for these billion dollar lawsuit, they got me with the same crap. | |
| | | You DID sign up, right? And if you signed up with a long contract and large ETF, why should you have a "right" to get out of it?
If you agreed to it, how on EARTH are you "rights" being violated? After all, it was ENTIRELY voluntary on your part to get into the contract.
I don't lock my customers into any contract length, for instance, and my competitor does. Competitive edge > me. Any rules that govern these are just a prevention of any ACTUAL competition. | |
| | | | Re: You DID sign up, right? A poster stated above that his brother-in-law passed away 6 months after signing up for Verizon and they wouldn't accept proof of death from the poster's wife (executor of the estate) as reason for canceling the contract.
I've also heard of people who sign up for service and then a year later wind up moving to a different area that that particular the cell phone company doesn't service. They can't cancel their contract, however, without paying the ETF fees.
While I agree that, in most cases, signing up for the contract should bind you to the contract terms, there should be certain allowances. The 30 day trial and prorating of the ETF fee are good starts. Having a "death or other major life change event" clause would be good also. You would be required to supply some proof of the event (death certificate, utility bill with your new address, notice from unemployment office, etc) and then you would be let out of your contract with no ETF.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: You DID sign up, right? I refuse to sign any type of contract. Was a directv long term customer without a contract and use a prepaid phone to avoid it. In terms of actual use the prepaid works out cheaper. I am from the generation that keeps customers by satisfaction, not obligation | |
|
| |
|
|
