 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / July 2008DirecTv is next ?
Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_hi_te/cell_phone_fees > Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_hi_te/cell_phone_fees Maybe, and only in California, if it's seen as a precedent. And certainly not until it's been appealed. I expect Sprint will move to appeals in California, and probably also file with the Feds claiming that the FCC has superior authority and the States can't meddle. In any event, however it shakes out, don't expect anything to change much soon. Best, R.E.F.  SignatureNever attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity. >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >that the FCC has superior authority and the States can't meddle. In any >event, however it shakes out, don't expect anything to change much soon. I'm not so sure -- If the mobile providers even suspect that this might stick, they'll probably cut back on the discounts given out to new customers sooner rather then later, knowing that the contracts might not stick. > >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > customers sooner rather then later, knowing that the contracts might not > stick. It might go that way after a meeting between the bean counters and lawyers. If the cost-to-benefit is seen favorable in a protracted court struggle, they'll go that way. If it's seen more favorable to fold their hand and move to a new business plan, they'll go that way. Best, R.E.F. SignatureNever attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity. >> >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Best, R.E.F. Two things to consider here: 1. The ruling is not final and Sprint has been given a week to respond to today's news. 2. This could have just as easily been Verizon, who has recently settled a number of these lawsuits. I would not bank on anything changing in California for quite some time to come. >> >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >It might go that way after a meeting between the bean counters and >lawyers. And that's what's wrong with the system. The bean counters will discount future income that comes from satifying customers to make a quick buck today. The lawyers, well, are lawyers. >If the cost-to-benefit is seen favorable in a protracted court >struggle, they'll go that way. If it's seen more favorable to fold >their hand and move to a new business plan, they'll go that way. > >Best, R.E.F. > Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_hi_te/cell_phone_fees Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs! >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they > did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs! What they could do is have you pay full price, then after your two years is up give you the sub'd price back as a gift. Then we all wake up. : ) > >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Then we all wake up. : ) LOL! Seriously though, I suspect if EFTs somehow get banned in Cali, carriers will probably move to a semi-subsidized model like prepaid- so we'd see $50 or $100 entry-level handsets with carriers just assuming the risk. The subsidy model has proven over time that cheap/free handsets increase sales. Another option might be high initial priced handsets, with "free" months of service at intervals- i.e. a $199 handset, with your 6th, 12th, 18th, and 24th months "free." >> >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >service at intervals- i.e. a $199 handset, with your 6th, 12th, 18th, and >24th months "free." The cheap/free handsets are what sucks in the customers. With a high initial cost many would not buy at all. >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they > did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs! When I was with Sprint I had my contract extended far more often than I bought phones. Change plan minutes, add to the contract length. Cancel a line (the "primary" as it happened) on a family plan, end up with the remaining two lines back on contract. Swap the phones you already own between lines, extend the contract. Sometimes I had no idea why my contract had been extended. I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones if the rest of that would have been made to go away. Dennis Ferguson > >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones > if the rest of that would have been made to go away. Yeah - it's probably not a coincidence that Sprint is the target here- they've got a history of "questionable" reasons for contract extentions. Personally, I have no problem with the historical quid pro quo reason for EFTs- a contract in return for handset subsidies. But carriers are getting greedier- extending conacts on all lines if you add one more line to an out- odf-contract family plan, extending contracts for switching rate plans, etc. >>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the phones you already own between lines, extend the contract. >Sometimes I had no idea why my contract had been extended. It was extended because CSRs had a quota of contracts to extend. Attorney's Genral are suing Sprint over this; and its just a matter of time before DirecTv gets simmilarly hammered. http://www.wirelessforums.org/alt-cellular-sprintpcs/sprint-sued-unapproved-cont ract-extensions-29588.html >I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones >if the rest of that would have been made to go away. > >Dennis Ferguson >>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dennis Ferguson This is what happened to me with Verizon about 2 years ago. I changed rate plans, and they stuck me with a contract extension WITHOUT TELLING ME, then hit me with a $175 early termination fee when I dropped them NINE DAYS before the end of the extension. Can you say ripoff? --Steve >>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Dennis Ferguson We recently moved to California from Florida where I was 8 months into a 2 year contract. Verizon swithched the account to a better plan for the same price and did NOT extend the contract. >>>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >a 2 year contract. Verizon swithched the account to a better plan for >the same price and did NOT extend the contract. DO you ascribe that to their softening their policies from fear of Federal Intervention, or just because you're now in California? Would they not extend your contract had you switched to a lower priced plan? >>>>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Would they not extend your contract had you switched to a lower priced >plan? There is no lower priced (family) plan. I have no idea what they would have done otherwise. > Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_hi_te/cell_phone_fees Thanks for the pointer. The sooner this UTILIITY is named a UTILITY, the better for all consumers who will have much better control over the UTILITY at the local level. They can't bribe them all....(c; |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.