• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

California Judge rules cell phone "early termination fees" are illegal

Yea, I think it'll get overturned. As much as they suck for some consumers, I can't see exactly how they would be illegal. You sign a contract... cellphones aren't the only thing that has fees for backing out of a contract.
 
Cell phone companies suck ass right now anyways. Termination fees, company specific phones and contracts, gayness.

Imagine that if you wanted to use Verizon FIOS you had to buy either an eMachine or Alienware. As soon as the iPhone is no longer bound to AT&T I hope that this setup changes.

Buy your phone, buy your service, not together.
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
Yea, I think it'll get overturned. As much as they suck for some consumers, I can't see exactly how they would be illegal. You sign a contract... cellphones aren't the only thing that has fees for backing out of a contract.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: TallBill
Cell phone companies suck ass right now anyways. Termination fees, company specific phones and contracts, gayness.

Imagine that if you wanted to use Verizon FIOS you had to buy either an eMachine or Alienware. As soon as the iPhone is no longer bound to AT&T I hope that this setup changes.

Buy your phone, buy your service, not together.
Click to expand...

You certainly can do that right now for the vast majority of phones. Just expect to shell out a couple of hundred dollars more for the phone.

Regarding the ruling, how does it actually violate California law? I searched through maybe a handful of articles very quickly and didn't see anything.
 
Originally posted by: BigJ

You certainly can do that right now for the vast majority of phones. Just expect to shell out a couple of hundred dollars more for the phone.

Regarding the ruling, how does it actually violate California law? I searched through maybe a handful of articles very quickly and didn't see anything.
Click to expand...

Thats good to hear, I havn't bought a new phone in a while. There are a lot of brand specific phones still though it seems.
 
If it's not overturned, I expect we'll see some angry Californians when you can no longer get a free phone with a contract.

Why should the company be expected to front you with a free phone if you can cancel your contract after 3 days penalty-free?
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If it's not overturned, I expect we'll see some angry Californians when you can no longer get a free phone with a contract.

Why should the company be expected to front you with a free phone if you can cancel your contract after 3 days penalty-free?
Click to expand...

But here's the catch, if there are no contracts and phones have to be purchased up front, will the monthly subscription be lower. If so would you rather:

A. purchase phone up front and pay month to month(the longer you use the phone, the more you save)
B. get free phone with a higher subscription(the longer you use the phone, the less the savings)


edit: the phone companies like option B because most people will continue paying month to month even after their contract has ended and if they do not lock in another 2 years for another free phone, the additional revenue gained for each month from holding onto the original free phone means you will have paid more and more for that phone for as long as you keep it.

Alternatively for option A, you incur a higher initial cost and the longer you use the phone, the more you save from paying less each month.
 
The only time I've ever hated early termination fees was when I had to terminate my Verizon contract. The phone wouldn't work in my house. Of course they didn't care. I'm sure it was in the contract but I wasn't about to keep a phone for another year that I couldn't even use in my new house...
 
Originally posted by: newnameman
Another idiotic California court ruling...
Click to expand...

I think its a good ruling that hopefully will stand. Here's why. One it will force better competition, service, and cell phone deals. Two when folks have a phone they like when they switch carriers, the new carrier will make a better attempt to support the phone. I always thought it was illegal to charge early termination fees because for the simple fact your paying for a service. If the service sucks or there is a better plan available with another company your stuck because you cant afford to pay the early termination fee. I can see a larger than normal reactivation fee for someone who wants to get their old service back. But to charge a early termination fee is nothing more than a form of punishment and swindling.
 
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: newnameman
Another idiotic California court ruling...
Click to expand...

I think its a good ruling that hopefully will stand. Here's why. One it will force better competition, service, and cell phone deals. Two when folks have a phone they like when they switch carriers, the new carrier will make a better attempt to support the phone. I always thought it was illegal to charge early termination fees because for the simple fact your paying for a service. If the service sucks or there is a better plan available with another company your stuck because you cant afford to pay the early termination fee. I can see a larger than normal reactivation fee for someone who wants to get their old service back. But to charge a early termination fee is nothing more than a form of punishment and swindling.
Click to expand...

How? Unless it was on another network, you could already use your existing phone across carriers. The cell phone carriers provided huge discounts on phones as a result of having customers agree to long term contracts. Why would there be better deals on phones now?
 
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: newnameman
Another idiotic California court ruling...
Click to expand...

I think its a good ruling that hopefully will stand. Here's why. One it will force better competition, service, and cell phone deals. Two when folks have a phone they like when they switch carriers, the new carrier will make a better attempt to support the phone. I always thought it was illegal to charge early termination fees because for the simple fact your paying for a service. If the service sucks or there is a better plan available with another company your stuck because you cant afford to pay the early termination fee. I can see a larger than normal reactivation fee for someone who wants to get their old service back. But to charge a early termination fee is nothing more than a form of punishment and swindling.
Click to expand...
:roll:
Here's an idea: if you don't want an early termination fee, then don't sign a fucking contract.
 
Originally posted by: newnameman
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: newnameman
Another idiotic California court ruling...
Click to expand...

I think its a good ruling that hopefully will stand. Here's why. One it will force better competition, service, and cell phone deals. Two when folks have a phone they like when they switch carriers, the new carrier will make a better attempt to support the phone. I always thought it was illegal to charge early termination fees because for the simple fact your paying for a service. If the service sucks or there is a better plan available with another company your stuck because you cant afford to pay the early termination fee. I can see a larger than normal reactivation fee for someone who wants to get their old service back. But to charge a early termination fee is nothing more than a form of punishment and swindling.
Click to expand...
:roll:
Here's an idea: if you don't want an early termination fee, then don't sign a fucking contract.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for the vulgarity. Grow up. And to say just don't sign the contract is stupid, because in most cases your forced to if you want to get decent service.
 
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: newnameman
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: newnameman
Another idiotic California court ruling...
Click to expand...

I think its a good ruling that hopefully will stand. Here's why. One it will force better competition, service, and cell phone deals. Two when folks have a phone they like when they switch carriers, the new carrier will make a better attempt to support the phone. I always thought it was illegal to charge early termination fees because for the simple fact your paying for a service. If the service sucks or there is a better plan available with another company your stuck because you cant afford to pay the early termination fee. I can see a larger than normal reactivation fee for someone who wants to get their old service back. But to charge a early termination fee is nothing more than a form of punishment and swindling.
Click to expand...
:roll:
Here's an idea: if you don't want an early termination fee, then don't sign a fucking contract.
Click to expand...

There is no reason for the vulgarity. Grow up. And to say just don't sign the contract is stupid, because in most cases your forced to if you want to get decent service.
Click to expand...

Prepaid.

Also: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2212678&enterthread=y
 
Originally posted by: George P Burdell
While I hate ETFs, I fail to see how they violate the law 😕
Click to expand...


http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_...461?source=most_viewed

But in overruling that decision, Sabraw said the jurors appear to have erred in assuming the fees were valid, and she took issue with the way Sprint Nextel determined that its customers owed the fees.

"Sprint did no damage analysis that considered the lost revenue from contracts, the avoidable costs and Sprint's expected lost profits from contract terminations," she said.

Nonetheless, Sabraw preserved a portion of the jury's verdict and used that to scale back the amount of refunds the suit initially had sought.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: AFB
Originally posted by: George P Burdell
While I hate ETFs, I fail to see how they violate the law 😕
Click to expand...


http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_...461?source=most_viewed

But in overruling that decision, Sabraw said the jurors appear to have erred in assuming the fees were valid, and she took issue with the way Sprint Nextel determined that its customers owed the fees.

"Sprint did no damage analysis that considered the lost revenue from contracts, the avoidable costs and Sprint's expected lost profits from contract terminations," she said.

Nonetheless, Sabraw preserved a portion of the jury's verdict and used that to scale back the amount of refunds the suit initially had sought.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And where's the law that says Sprint must "consider the lost revenue from contracts, the avoidable costs and Sprint's expected lost profits"?

 
Anyone got a link as to why the judge considered them illegal ?
The link says he did, but doesn't say what California law he based that on.
 
Not a fan of ETFs, but in principle I don't really have a problem with it. If you don't want to worry about ETFs, don't sign a 2-year contract -- but be ready to pay hundreds of dollars (at least) for a phone. That's the tradeoff.
 
Originally posted by: darkxshade
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If it's not overturned, I expect we'll see some angry Californians when you can no longer get a free phone with a contract.

Why should the company be expected to front you with a free phone if you can cancel your contract after 3 days penalty-free?
Click to expand...

But here's the catch, if there are no contracts and phones have to be purchased up front, will the monthly subscription be lower. If so would you rather:

A. purchase phone up front and pay month to month(the longer you use the phone, the more you save)
B. get free phone with a higher subscription(the longer you use the phone, the less the savings)


edit: the phone companies like option B because most people will continue paying month to month even after their contract has ended and if they do not lock in another 2 years for another free phone, the additional revenue gained for each month from holding onto the original free phone means you will have paid more and more for that phone for as long as you keep it.

Alternatively for option A, you incur a higher initial cost and the longer you use the phone, the more you save from paying less each month.
Click to expand...

Haha, you think they'll lower the monthly rate? Not a chance. California will pay the same rate, but there will be a big payment up front for the phone.
 
Originally posted by: darkxshade
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If it's not overturned, I expect we'll see some angry Californians when you can no longer get a free phone with a contract.

Why should the company be expected to front you with a free phone if you can cancel your contract after 3 days penalty-free?
Click to expand...

But here's the catch, if there are no contracts and phones have to be purchased up front, will the monthly subscription be lower. If so would you rather:

A. purchase phone up front and pay month to month(the longer you use the phone, the more you save)
B. get free phone with a higher subscription(the longer you use the phone, the less the savings)


edit: the phone companies like option B because most people will continue paying month to month even after their contract has ended and if they do not lock in another 2 years for another free phone, the additional revenue gained for each month from holding onto the original free phone means you will have paid more and more for that phone for as long as you keep it.

Alternatively for option A, you incur a higher initial cost and the longer you use the phone, the more you save from paying less each month.
Click to expand...

You won't pay less per month. Cell phone companies operate on thin margins already. It takes over 10 months before they show a profit on customers who have those subsidized phones. Sometimes it's over a year. They keep prices low right now because of competition. Early termination fees aren't for increasing profit, they are for preventing loss.

ZV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top