Dumping ISP May Cost Customers $150

Dumpling$9 writes with a link to an article that seems to speak volumes about the modern consumer relationship with service providers. IBT reports on the outrageous fees facing users who drop their internet service contracts before they are up. "Pricing broadband competition can be difficult. Broadband is rarely priced as a stand-alone service. Whether offered by a telephone company or a cable company, it is usually bundled with other services such as voice and video. The advantage to the customer is easier billing and usually a price break. But the down side is if they drop one of the services to pursue a better deal elsewhere, they lose the discount ... It remains to be seen whether penalties for Internet customers will cut down on churn. Consumers Union in its annual cell phone survey found that nearly half of all cell phone subscribers who were considering switching carriers were deterred from doing so because of early termination penalties."

Comments

Yeah...sucks

[DogDude]

Yeah...sucks. This is a "duh" story. Of course, you don't have to sign a contract if you don't want to, and just pay more in the short term. This hasn't been news since Ma Bell was broken up.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[pintpusher]

I get more and more cynical as time goes on but...

It all comes down to this: no matter what, you must pay. There is no getting around it. You must pay. You must pay to save money (account fees). You must pay to spend money (transaction fees). You must pay for almost everything you do. If you can find something you do that you aren't currently paying for in some way, then you are lucky.

damn. I need to get some more caffeine. or change my playlist here.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[voice_of_all_reason]

O rly?

Step 1: Blame customer for violating hidden "unlimited broadband" cap
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Collect $150 and profit

Re:Yeah...sucks

[CastrTroy]

With cell phone companies you lose either way. If you sign the contract, you get a free phone, and your monthly service costs $X. If you don't sign a contract, you have to pay $Y for the phone, and your monthly service still costs $X. So unless you plan on switching companies, and the cost to terminate your contract less than the cost of the phone ($Y) then you are better off getting the contract anyway. What I want to know is, if you plan on switching companies in the near future, then why are you signing up in the first place? The freedom to move between companies is nice, but I really don't want to be switching phone companies every 2 months. I don't sign up for a plan that I intend on switching from anyway. I would rather just sign the contract, and get the free phone, because in the end, your monthly service charges are the same, and I don't plan on switching companies anyway.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[packeteer]

It all comes down to this: no matter what, you must pay.

That's the idea behind currency. Everything you recieve someone had to work for. If you want to get anything other people want something in return. Currency allows us to trade our time and labor through a standard way. If you have something you are not paying for it is indeed lucky but also remember nobody is GETTING payed for that. Air is pretty much the only thing that takes food off somebodies table when you get for free.

With all that said, I am getting more cynical too. Disconnect fees are in my opinion against the spirit of currency and economics. I know that it is indeed a contract mutually agreed upon by 2 parties but its just rediculous. Someone should not be paying unless they are getting something. When people fork over money just "becuase the contract says so" it does not produce any new goods or services, it just makes someone wealthier.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[stevejsmith]

Slashdot, Wikipedia, the grand majority of most news sources, most of the internets useful services, credit cards (for the 40% of people who pay them on time), wireless internet in an increasing number of places...

So, pretty much a lot of the major inventions of the modern era. I'd say you're getting a lot more for free now than you could [insert any number] of years ago.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[pintpusher]

That's the idea behind currency. of course.

fork over money ... it just makes someone wealthier. hope you don't mind the editing. I think its still true to your point. This is the issue. I'm all for mark-up, added-value etc (I own a small business and do exactly this every day). Its the gratuitous fees for no other reason than pumping up someone's bottom line that I have a problem with.

Here's a classic example. I was talking to a creditor the other day about the most expeditious method of paying them. My choices were to pay by mail (and be late :( ), pay online for no charge, or pay using their automated telephone payment system for a charge of $14.95. Now review that -- pay online for no charge or pay via telephone using an automated system for $14.95. Gratuitous profiteering. This is the source of my cynicism.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[pintpusher]

As I've said, i'm all in favor of business and mark-up etc., so please don't think I'm off the deep end. I was mostly expressing my general frustration with a system that is designed, more and more, to pull money from the little guy and pass it farther and farther up the chain with more and more efficiency. Maybe I'm just too low on that chain.

regardless, your examples are not all that great, excepting wikipedia.

Slashdot requires me to pay in some fashion -- either through viewing the ads or taking the time to install and configure adblock. granted, the cost is cheap cheap cheap (especially at what my time is worth) but it is there. Same with, e.g. google.

Credit cards? hardly, do you think the merchant just eats up his 2-3% discount rate? It figures into the cost equation somewhere. I know that I have made incremental increases in my retail prices in part because of the increased cost to me of processing credit/debit cards. And not because the per transaction cost has gone up, but because the usage of such cards has gone up significantly over the past few years to the point where my credit card processing fees as a percentage of sales has doubled. The consumer pays for that somewhere.

But we could argue all these points for days. I have no complaint about paying for services rendered, product delivered, value-added etc. Its the gratuitous stuff: credit bureaus charging for services that watch your credit scores that they are preparing for someone else to use so that you can find their mistakes. I wish I could charge people for my mistakes. Charging to process payments. Claiming not to charge late fees (blockbuster) but charging a "restocking fee" for movies returned late. etc. etc. etc.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Clete2]

What about the terrible costs from cell phone providers? We were with Sprint for about a year of our two year contract and we moved to an area without signal, so we asked them if we could cancel without the $150 per phone (we had 2 phones) cancellation fee. They said sure. So, when we moved and cancelled, no matter who we talked to, they all told us that we had to pay $300. I hate cell phone companies.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[FLEB]

Termination fees and contract lengths make sense to me. I agree that in some cases it can be anticompetitive (if exorbitant termination fees are used to mask poor service quality), but in many cases they are in lieu of a connection fee for initial labor or hardware, and it allows the customer not to get hit with overwhelming initial costs, but still lets the company bank on recouping their initial expenses-- It's recouped bit-by-bit, but still as good as guaranteed.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[FLEB]

It could be a PITA charge-- they either have cost or difficulty involved in handling phone charges, so they mark it up to discourage it.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[FLEB]

Step 1: Read service reviews.
Step 2: Read the fine print.
Step 3: Run!

(Opt. Step 4: Realize there's a broadband monopoly or that only one company's interested in serving your area. Slink back. Take it.)

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Along the same lines, how come nobody stood up to take Hitler's place in eliminating the world of those whiney, greedy, kike bastards?

You fail it

Re:Yeah...sucks

[blincoln]

you don't have to sign a contract if you don't want to

Unless you are not told of a contract when you sign up for service and your "acceptance" of one is allegedly implied by your not cancelling your service within 25 days.

I would *never* have actually signed a contract with an ISP, because the lack of flexibility isn't worth the savings IMO.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Captain Splendid]

Or they're just marking it up because banks are effectively a monopoly? I don't know about you, but I was reliably informed that banks made money by basically being an aggregator: Once you have a few thousand "small" eggnests, you could leverage the whole, usually in the form of large corporate loans which you would charge interest on, enabling you to make a profit, and pass a small fraction of it to the people who's capital you just used. It was a proper symbiotic relationship, mutually advantageous to both parties.

Now they just squeeze you for everything they can. I understand doing things costs money, but I was under the distinct impression I wasn't going to be footing so much of the bill.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[YrWrstNtmr]

Its the gratuitous fees for no other reason than pumping up someone's bottom line that I have a problem with.

Those are not gratuitous fees, those are marketing tools.
[WHAT??]
Yes...marketing tools. It allows them to lower the 'advertised price', and still earn the same profits.

$100/month looks better than $120/month. But they don't tell you up front about that extra $20 in fees.

I'm not saying they should earn less profit. That's another argument. But if they can snag you in at $100/month, and still earn $120 month, that's a win.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[hazem]

This creditor is most likely a credit card company and I hardly doubt they want to discourage people from using the phone system.

Rather, they know that the people most likely to need the phone service are poor people without computers who have few other options. These people are more likely to be living hand-to-mouth and not have the money to make a payment until close to when their bill is due. These are the easiest people to screw over while they're down... either pay $15 to post an on-time payment, or send it by mail and pay a $30 late fee (oh yeah, and your new 39.9% interest rate).

They don't charge $15 to recoup fees. They do it because it will extract the most money possible from people who have the fewest options.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't get the money if THEY cut off your service, just if you leave on your own.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Ajehals]

this is one of those weird areas where the charges sound sane but are often not - for example, my current broadband provider waived a connection fee (£70) and the cost of a router ("valued at" £159.99).

Sound reasonable except that the connection doesn't actually cost them anything (it was an existing phone line that I had used with broadband before - I checked with my phone company when I dumped their broadband and was told that if I was getting a different supplier they would simply move the line I'd pay a termination fee (£1.99) that covers the administration and the other company could simply enable it, they gave me a number, which apparently identified my line and all would be well (not sure what that means in terms of adsl, but it was implied that it was an update on a computer). So that's £70 that probably is simply profit, with no service to render, or at least not £70 worth.

Next to the router, I didn't ask for a router, I didn't want a router (I have a couple of Linksys boxes that I use). I was told however that I had to have the router, and that I would have to use the router. I did get the router (nasty box with no access whatsoever) plugged in set up (as you do) found that there was a firewall on board that I couldn't play with (no way to pass through to the router that I actually trust to do my fire-walling...).

One phone call to customer services and it turns out that I can use whatever router I want with the service (which I was pretty much going to do anyway), but that I have to keep the router so that I can have no excuse about not being able to use the service, and also so that if there is a problem they can trouble-shoot directly. So again £159.99 for no benefit. If I cancel the contract, then I owe them both sums (and nope I can't return the router) plus some additional fees for early termination (three months service I think...). So that's a pain. However, I did walk into this with open eyes, and frankly, their service is good (well if you don't use their kit or their DNS, and I have never even looked at the free web space or email bits that were bundled...). I guess the main thing is that you need to go and find the best deal you can, and include any fees or other costs in your comparison and then stick with it.

After all (warning - poor car analogy) its not as though you can buy a petrol car and then return it three months down the line because you have found that diesel is cheaper and expect not to lose out on some cash, or indeed return a car after you have bought it with no consequence simply because you have found a different car that is cheaper or better etc...

Re:Yeah...sucks

[pintpusher]

This creditor is most likely a credit card company and I hardly doubt they want to discourage people from using the phone system. exactly right. luckily for me I wasn't in a position where I was forced to pay the $15 or the $30 plus more interest. I've been there. That sucks.

And I think you are right, that was why I originally emphasised the "automated" aspect of the telephone payment system. They are not incurring any additional costs by accepting the telephone payment. In fact they are probably saving money as it means they can free up a call-center employee for the next call instead of keeping them on the line to take the payment information.

Effectively what they are doing is trying to get as much of their bill payment as possible onto the internet as that is likely the cheapest alternative for them. I would imagine (without bothering to research it) that they are prohibited from charging for manually processing a mailed in payment (and that's pretty automated too). But you can bet that when enough people are paying their cc bills online they'll start charging for that. meh.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[geekoid]

"Its the gratuitous fees for no other reason than pumping up someone's bottom line that I have a problem with."

study some of the larger companies tactics over the last 12 years, you'll figure it out.

oh wait..That is what you meant, right? ;)

Re:Yeah...sucks

[stfvon007]

In my area:

Cable company: $140 /month for tv phone and internet. inc. all fees. No cancellation penalties.

Phone company: $60 month for 1 year $100 month for the second year for tv phone and internet, required 2 year commitment, $20/month extra in fees. $550 cancellation fee if you terminate early. In other words if you have to move or cancel, they take your money anyway.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Skater]

Buy stock. Most of these companies are public. Then you're the little guy and an investor that gets dividends.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a Sprint cell phone. I moved. Because of the Sprint-Nextel merger, when I moved, Sprint wouldn't let me out of my contract, yet I had almost no service. I would lose all contact for several hours per day. I had no cell service in my home, or for a mile in any direction.
Sprint said that because they were offering service in the area, they wouldn't allow me to drop my plan. I ended up paying $150 to get out of that stupid contract. They actually contacted a credit agency. I disputed the charges. I even wrote a letter to the public utilities commission. The creditor basically said pay up or you're going to have this on your record for 7 years. I switched to Verizon, and frankly, Verizon has pulled some CRAP lately that makes me angry. "Unlimited data plan" is not unlimited anymore, even though when I signed up, I agreed to a 2 year "unlimited data plan". If Verizon thinks they can change the terms of service in the middle of my contract, they can stick it. I'm sick and tired of this crap. I can't stand AT&T. Tmobile only works near the interstates and major freeways. And the stupid politicians can't bother to figure out the consumers are getting the shaft.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[TempeTerra]

I agree with you in principle, however my experience has only ever been with termination fees as a duplicitous tool - that is, no connection fee but over a hundred dollars early termination fee. This is a way to hide charges from the user - you'll only hear about the termination fee if you read the small print before you sign or you actually try to terminate early. I wouldn't have a problem with that kind of plan if there were a range available, but last time I checked I couldn't get a DSL plan from any local provider on less than a 12 month contract for any price (YMMV). That totally sucks if you're a student and you're not sure if you'll be living in the same place nine months from now.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Bazer]

However, I did walk into this with open eyes, and frankly, their service is good (well if you don't use their kit or their DNS, and I have never even looked at the free web space or email bits that were bundled...). I guess the main thing is that you need to go and find the best deal you can, and include any fees or other costs in your comparison and then stick with it.

I don't want to sound like a troll but I'm astonished by the amount of the ISP's BS you were able to suck up. If you represent the majority of the client base in the UK then I can't blame them for doing such a shoddy service.

Did you sign for a fixed time contract or was it unspecified?
I think I should really appreciate the offer of my national monopolist's I signed up for a couple of years back.

They charged an arm and a leg for a fixed time service (and still do) but you could sign-up for an unspecified time contract.
It cost me 20% more than the standard offer but I could terminate it with no additional fees and 1 month notice. Also you could change it into a fixed time service at any time and get the lower fees.

An ADSL modem was supplied with every offer - you didn't pay for it up front but terminating the contract meant you had to turn it in or pay it's price reduced by 3.3% per month of the service's duration (you owned it after 30 months).

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Shakrai]

Tmobile only works near the interstates and major freeways

Might want to check and see if you can roam on Cingular if you had a T-Mobile phone. T-Mo works at my house and in my city (Binghamton NY) -- if I leave the city and wander off the highway I can often roam on Cingular and use their network.

T-Mobile is the only decent provider if you care about customer service IMHO. Hopefully they remember where they came from if they become one of the big boys....

Re:Yeah...sucks

[nobaloney]

No rules I know of prohibiting charging people to accept their checks in the mail. When I owned an ISP (about the turn of the century) we did automated billing and took automated payments at no charge, and we charged $5 to send paper bills and accept and deposits the checks.

You probably won't want to believe this, but it most likely cost us about $5 per accepted check; our bank account at the time was the kind that charged for actual teller interaction but not for automation (because the banks know and understand how costly humans are compared to electronics), and someone had to go to the bank to process the check, pay for the parking, etc.

I no longer own that company, and I no longer do that. But I did.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[bagofbeans]

Last time I used SBC there was no penalty for moving if you moved the account too.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Do You Smell That]

I know that it is indeed a contract mutually agreed upon by 2 parties but its just rediculous. Someone should not be paying unless they are getting something.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but today I'll play a little devil's advocate.

[Simpsons pinball reference]

Anyway, yesterday I went into a T-Mobile store, because both my wife's and my phones were broken (yeah... don't ask...). Since my contract had expired almost a year earlier, I could freely at this point cancel with them at absolutely no charge. As an incentive to remain their customer, they offered me a total of $300 off of 2 replacement phones (yes, I did shop around online, and these prices were just barely better than what I could get for a used version on Ebay). To get this incentive, of course, I had to willingly submit to making myself a T-mobile customer for 24 more months, with a pentalty of $200 for early termination.

Do I agree that early-termination fees are called for? No. I think they're a way of extorting customers who have very few options when it comes to avoiding them. From a business point of view, however, I can't help but hope the guy who thought it up got a big fat bonus that year.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

A credit union doesn't charge you those fees. Honestly, I have no idea why individuals (or even small businesses) use banks at all.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[hackstraw]

Termination fees and contract lengths make sense to me. I agree that in some cases it can be anticompetitive

They do not make sense to me. Well, at least from a consumper point of view, I don't see where they every make sense.

I've never worked at a place where there was any kind of contract either way regarding a time that I was supposed to work. I've litterally been thrown out the door of a couple of jobs in my lifetime, and the others I left without any fear of recourse.

I refuse to do business with cell phone prividers because of my first experience with them. A) the coverage sucked in my area at the time, which was unknown to me before agreeing to a 1 year contract and B) I got a bill over $400 one month because I went over my minutes. C) the phone got damaged, and worked less reliably than it did when I first bought it. As soon as I could get rid of the phone, I gladly paid what BS payment was required for the beneifit of getting rid of my cell phone, and never looked back. Paying to get out of the contract seemed really stupid, but I looked at it as though it was cheaper than keeping the phone, and I just wanted out of the thing.

As of this writing, I have zero contracts for services in my life. I can call up today and cancel any of them at any time without any exit fees or whatever. This is how it should be. Agreeing to a contract does _nothing_ to benefit me. Sure, they can make it _look_ like it benefits me by offering a contractless service at an outragously overpriced amount, but that is just extortion so that you go with the contract offer instead.

Contracts with extra fees associated with them to break said contract is a setup for failure for the end user, and a buffer and insurance plan for the provider so that they don't have to provide a competitive service in terms of cost or reliability, and in my opinion this is against a free market economy.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Ajehals]

to answer your question, Its a fixed contract - But I'm confused;

I'm not sure what ISP BS I am supposed to have sucked up... the router and the connection charges are either present in all the contracts that I looked at or are obviously reflected in the monthly cost of the plans, some are bare bones plans that require neither, however they are often capped, not something I could accept. As far as their service is concerned, it is decent, everything happened on time, and billing has been smooth. Connectivity is good, no down time at all so far and a connection at either the claimed rate or faster. The only problem I have with them is their DNS servers, they will redirect to an advert laden page rather than return a negative (but that is becoming common), so I use my own DNS server.

SO are you suggesting that after looking at all the varied contracts available I was duped? or that there was some sort of action I could have taken to get the same contract at the same terms without the negatives (router, connection fee, DNS issues)? As far as I see it, I have a range of options and considered them all, then made a decision based on what I needed, and what the various contracts, and TOS's offered, sure I didn't get everything that I wanted, but I got as much as I could, and much better than most.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Bazer]

I'm suggesting that:
1) They have shoved you a pricy piece of their "diagnostic" equipment and you can't use it (no configuration). Requiring you to buy a router for £159.99 was just so they can troubleshoot in case of problems. Their techs should do that for free if it was their fault and you would had pay if it wasn't.
2) Signing for an unspecified time and then changing to a fixed time contract would be a good idea if you don't know about their Quality of Service. Most ISPs should allow you to get all the discounts you'd get when signing for a fixed time service straight-away (if there are any). But in your case this is more of an afterthought because you seem to be satisified.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Ajehals]

I think you are missing the point then, which may indicate that I wasn't clear in describing it, I'll try to do better;

They have shoved you a pricey piece of their "diagnostic" equipment and you can't use it (no configuration). Requiring you to buy a router for £159.99 was just so they can troubleshoot in case of problems. Their techs should do that for free if it was their fault and you would had pay if it wasn't.

They have and they should, but if I included the price of the hardware into the cost of the contract, (£159.99 + (12x£15.99)) and indeed added the cost of connection (£70) I get a total for the contract of £421.87, 0r £35.16 a month. That is a little more than I would have had to pay with some of the other contracts I was looking at, (mostly they were between £30 - £65pm) however, these other contracts also had either connection charges or other charges (invoice charges for a printed bill (£1.99) being the favourite), that when factored in brought the cost above the @£36. Now baring in mind that I did not have to pay the connection charge or for the router, and that they are only factors if I wish to cancel the contract, I currently have a net gain from the deal. Now if I had taken the contract and the service provider had not delivered an acceptable service, then I am certain that I would have been able to cancel the contract and had any expenditures returned to me.

So in short, I pay very little for a good service, the only risk to me as far as cost is concerned is early cancellation. Had I taken a non contract connection then a) I would not have gotten the service I would require, (often these are PAYG, capped, or otherwise limited, and none offered what I was after at reasonable cost) and b) would be in a worse position.

The support situation is even more convoluted, primarily because no ISP is capable of giving decent support to all their customers, me in particular. Having far too much time on my hands means that my internal network is growing to ridiculous proportions, 4 PC's in server roles (3x Debian 1x Solaris) 2 PDA's (Familiar Linux) (wireless access), 2 Laptops (Debian, wireless access), 1 Desktop (Debian again but wired), not to mention internal DNS and DHCP servers, 2 Internal routers with wireless and their own firewalls, and a switch. I cant figure out a way to spell it all out sensibly here (nor cover what I am doing with them all :) ) but its quite a large amount of kit.

Now if I have an issue with network access I know that I need to do my own fault finding, if it IS a problem with the service I need to identify that, the best way of doing that (after fault finding my own kit) is simply to drop my router, plug the supplied router and see if the issue is still present (using one of the laptops, but wired). If so then I can contact support (and pretend I am running XP with internet explorer to get any sort of support or escalation). I can hardly call my ISP to complain that their is a problem with their service because my Debian Laptop that is wireless and behind 2 firewalls, cannot connect to a POP3 server...)

So I think that covers your first point,

Secondly:

Signing for an unspecified time and then changing to a fixed time contract would be a good idea if you don't know about their Quality of Service. Most ISPs should allow you to get all the discounts you'd get when signing for a fixed time service straight-away (if there are any). But in your case this is more of an afterthought because you seem to be satisfied.

I haven't seen a single ISP who will allow you to "try before you buy" this may be a location thing, but the only options are 1) huge layout (connection, router, on site installation etc..) and no contract, or 2) contract, typically 1 year.

as far as QOS is concerned, they must supply what they claim to supply (always read the TOS), if they don't, cancel, they are in breach of contract, you are unlikely to get any kind of SLA (I haven't seen one) without a contract.

Hope that covers it, and clarifies my point.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[TClevenger]

On the other hand, a lot of cell companies will charge between $150 and $200 to break a 2-year contract. If I save more than that amount by buying the phone on the contract (i.e. a $500 smart phone for $199, and maybe a waived activation fee), I'll just get the contract. If I break it later, I'm still money ahead over paying the up-front costs.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[pintpusher]

yeah, I won't disagree with you, but it wouldn't surprise me to find something like that in the piles of rules that credit card companies have to follow. but, if there is no such rule, why do they not charge for accepting paper checks? is it just because they already have the infrastructure? of course they *are* banks and as such don't have to go to the bank, just process the check like any other bank would. or is it just because they haven't thought of it yet? I mean if the online payment is actually cheaper, I would think they'd want to encourage its use and also generate another revenue stream by charging for paper checks. meh.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Bazer]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. You have quite a bit of hardware there. I don't have a set-up anywhere near yours. Now I finally realize why the ISP's DNS and the router weren't an issue for you. :)

I frequently had to change my ISP because I had plenty to choose from but none provided a decent service. One required me to buy their router and refused to take it in when they wouldn't meet the TOS (severe down-time, ignored support inquires). Eventually they took it in.

I signed up for an unspecified time with the second so I could bail out within 1 month's notice (but paid more), in case anything went wrong. They didn't force me to buy a router but had the same problem as the first : downtime. When I terminated the service I was cut off 2 weeks early but got an invoice for the whole month (although the downtime was reported immediately). I'm still waiting for their reply about the refund and that was a month ago.

I'm now connected to the third ISP and all seems well.

Re:Yeah...sucks

[Ajehals]

Yeah I can see you have had some pretty poor experiences, to be honest I haven't seen that many problems (recently) with service, but I would hate to rely on an ISP for anything other than general connectivity, mail, DNS, etc.. are just too easy to break. as far as support is concerned its usually a non starter unless you have a vanilla set up. as for downtime - just don't accept it, - dont pay for anything you haven't received, and if you have an SLA go at them for breach of contract.

This is *news?*

[anomaly]

So, in summary, if you sign a contract which has a clause which requires a penalty for early termination, service providers charge you that penalty. Duh!

The business is very competitive, and there are lots of incentives to switch carriers. If you're not renegotiating with your cellular and broadband carriers when the contract comes close to ending, you're unwise.

I don't excuse the size of the fees, but they will be disclosed if you ask the terms of the agreement. Don't want to pay a fee? Don't sign up, or don't break the agreement.

Re:This is *news?*

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting about monopolies.

In my area, if you want broadband there is one option: Comcast.

What a choice.

Re:This is *news?*

[Grishnakh]

The business is very competitive, and there are lots of incentives to switch carriers. If you're not renegotiating with your cellular and broadband carriers when the contract comes close to ending, you're unwise.

I don't know about your country, but here in the US, there is very little competition for broadband. (Cellular is another story.) Most people have only two realistic options: cable or DSL, each from its respective monopoly. With each one, there's usually some discount for bundling, though the usefulness of bundling DSL is debatable since so many people have abandoned landlines in the past decade.

So if you get sick of your cable internet, your only option is probably DSL from your local phone monopoly. Here in the southwest, that means Qwest, with MSN as your ISP (yuk). It is possible to get a different ISP, but that'll cost you more money, probably more than your service with cable internet was. The way I see it, DSP is only useful if 1) you're really cheap, and are willing to put up with 256k and MSN just to save $10/month, or 2) you want to run your own server(s) at home and are willing to pay extra for that privelege (this is what those higher-price DSL ISPs have over everything else). For everyone else, there's cable.

Anyway, two or three choices isn't what I'd call "very competitive".

And I've never seen any option for "renegotiating" with any of these options. They're all flat-rate, and cost the same for everyone. It's not like cellular with all the wacky service plans, pricing schemes, and promotions.

Re:This is *news?*

[bahwi]

Agreed. I switched to speakeasy DSL and I pay 2.5x what I paid for cable. I could've gone with sbc, I mean AT&T now, but I've already tried that before and just had too many problems. Why do I pay more? I need internet, I work from home, and Time Warner apparently doesn't make enough money to give me anything other than a busy signal or a "We're working on it..." answer(my net was done for over a week, I spent 4 hours on hold throughout the week, couldn't get an answer or anyone to come out, and more than 75% of my calls were given a busy signal). After this, I can have an actual T1 put in, or move into a datacenter. But speakeasy answers the phone, and I haven't had any trouble at all(despite my neighbor on DSL who is having mucho mucho trouble and borrowing my wifi now).

Re:This is *news?*

[zCyl]

Competitive? Negotiating? Don't sign up? In many places the first two don't exist, and in many cases the latter results in not having internet access (hardly a solution).

In the modern world, most companies are competing to gain shareholders, not customers. Customers are merely a means to an end.

Re:This is *news?*

[Grishnakh]

Wow. I guess I'm lucky in my experiences with Cox Cable here in AZ. While I wouldn't say they're anywhere near "5-nines" reliability, it's not bad overall, when it goes out (every few months perhaps) it's usually pretty short, and when I need service I don't really have much trouble there. Compared to the competition, I think it's the best deal going here.

I actually tried Qwest/MSN back in 2002/3, despite my anti-MS bias. What a mistake. I had so many problems with that service actually working, plus all kinds of problems when I tried calling for support. I'd never try them again. I've heard good things about Speakeasy, but as you point out, it's pretty pricey, and since I don't need to run a public webserver or anything like that at home, cable seems to be the best deal for me. (For my own uses, I can use Dyndns to SSH to my machine from outside.)

Re:This is *news?*

[alisson]

Indeed. Utilities generally have no choice whatsoever. So, say you live in my area, and you want cable? Your choices are:
1) Comcast

Say you want land-line phone service? Your choices are:
1) Qwest

Say you want natural gas? Your choices are:
1) Center-point

Want electricity? Oh, gobs of choices here:
1) Xcel

Is this legal? Perfectly! Does it create competition? Not in any possible way. Does it always screw the customer, every time? Naturally. The US has essentially decided that as long as your monopoly only covers a county or two, it's not a monopoly. Because of course, no one's forcing me to live here. But if I choose to? My utility companies are forced on me.

Re:This is *news?*

[vertinox]

So, in summary, if you sign a contract which has a clause which requires a penalty for early termination, service providers charge you that penalty.

Actually, with ISP's with self install kits you sign nothing, but the contract is implied.

I worked for a rather major ISP once that did self install DSL kits (and they weren't the actually lin owners... like Bell South, Covad, and SBC... of course any of my former coworkers... all several hundred of you that were laid off... already know who i am talking about) and we would have people calling into the tech lines screaming about the $150 cancellation fee.

In fact we were told we couldn't send them over the customer service without dangling this threat over their head if they wouldn't let us help them.

However, in truth these people signed nothing... They often signed up through the web page or over the phone and there was no contract. It was simply implied.

I've had several people screaming about their lawyers are going to sue us and so on... But I really doubt most of these people ever saw their money back (heck I was an employee and my DSL didn't work either reliably and got the same fee)

So I recommend cable since there is no disconnect fees since it doesn't cost them a buttload of money to go to the central office and setup the DSLAM correctly each time they get or loose a customer.

Which is why I'm still leery of DSL today.

Re:This is *news?*

[vertinox]

And before I forget... Our web page and sales department were very skimpy when it came to letting people know about this fee.

Re:This is *news?*

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't particularly feasible to have a lot of competition in utilities. It involves infrastructure that's incredibly expensive to create/maintain and extremely limited in where it can be placed physically.

Consider a town where there are four independent phone companies (four times the phone lines), four independent gas companies (four times the gas mains), four independent water companies (four times the water pipes), four independent power companies (four times the power lines).... The reason this scenario is rarely the case should be self-evident.

Re:This is *news?*

[DarkPengu]

At least Comcast doesn't have an early termination fee for residental customers.

Re:This is *news?*

[ptbarnett]

I've had several people screaming about their lawyers are going to sue us and so on... But I really doubt most of these people ever saw their money back

Forget the lawyers. Call your credit card issuer.

I paid for a year's DSL in advance (at a discount) from a local DSL provider that had a good reputation. They even agreed to a refund if I left before the year was up. But shortly thereafter, they were bought by another ISP that had a well-deserved bad reputation.

A few months later, my DSL went down for a week -- the second or third outage since the acquisition, but the longest one so far. It was some sort of administrative screwup that cut off the ISP's link to the rest of the 'Net. I had already planned to change providers when my year's pre-paid service was up. But, the long outage was enough to accelerate my switch.

Fortunately, I had a second phone line at the time. So, I didn't have to wait for them to release their claim on my primary line. For a brief time, I actually had DSL from two different ISP's on the two different lines. But, when I called to cancel my service and request a refund, they replied: "no refunds". I pointed out my agreement with the ISP they bought, and they were unmoved. I offered them one last chance, saying that I would get my refund -- the only issue was whether they got dinged by their credit card processor for a charge-back.

They still refused, so I called American Express -- who I used to pay the original bill. I explained the situation to Amex, and their only question was: "did you sign anything that committed you to pay for a year of service?" I said "no" -- knowing they would pose the same question to the ISP. I also knew that the ISP couldn't produce any such agreement.

Within a week, American Express credited my account for an amount that was pro-rated according to the remaining (unused) months of service.

My point: if you can, pay your ISP with a credit card. It gives you a lot more leverage, because they are bound by the merchant agreement.

Re:This is *news?*

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a monopoly is legal. (It's only certain anti-competitive practices and mergers which increase market concentration too much that are illegal.) You will note that, often, utility companies such as these are regulated.

Re:This is *news?*

[Keith Russell]

My local landline monopoly/DSL ISP is ahead of that game. They'll have none of that "[X] I agree to the TOS and AUP" web form nonsense.

Their Self-install kit included my hardware (modem, filters, cables), a cheat sheet with the particulars of the account (IP, gateway, DNS, POP3, etc.), a sheet with the TOS and AUP, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. I had to return the top sheet of the TOS/AUP (retain the yellow copy for your records), signed and dated, within 30 days, or else my account would be suspended.

Of course, the coverage area of the entire phone company is less than two counties, so it's a little easier for them to run a tight ship.

Re:This is *news?*

[OzoneLad]

"The business is very competitive, and there are lots of incentives to switch carriers. If you're not renegotiating with your cellular and broadband carriers when the contract comes close to ending, you're unwise."

You'd think that in such a climate, they'd work harder to attract new clients and retain old ones instead of scaring / hosing existing clients into staying with them to the bitter end. This is customer retension through bullying, not through good service. Welcome to the free market, where you're free to chose whose bitch you get to be.

-OL

Re:This is *news?*

[phulegart]

You should probably redefine a bit of your terminology.

If you want cable... do you mean cable television? Because you can most likely get satellite TV from one of several different providers. DirecTV is only one of them.

If you want cable internet... do you mean broadband internet access? Maybe your telephone company doesn't offer DSL, but you do have other options for broadband... one of which is Wildblue (wildblue.com) satellite internet. Yes, it is satellite up and down (no telephone line required) and it is offered at DSL speeds at the moment. You might even be able to become a Wildblue dealer in your area, and make money getting others on the program.

You want natural gas? If you only have one option, then step away from natural gas and move to electricity... which points me now to...

You want electricity? How about solar? Huge improvements recently, including solar panels that come on a self-adhesive roll you can just roll out in strips on your roof. How about a Sterling engine or two that converts sunlight directly to mechanical power, enough to turn a generator or three? How about wind? How about a diesel-electric generator, running on bio-diesel? Did you know that you can run a regular diesel engine on used vegetable oil, without ANY conversion at all, other than simple filtering to remove the majority of particulate matter? Don't believe me? That's your problem. I drive around in a Mercedes on occasion that is running on exactly this fuel. So, you collect the used fryer oil from the restaurants in your area, which they have to normally PAY to get rid of, and you use it to fuel a small diesel engine that runs your generator, and now you have all the electricity you need.

Sounds like too much effort? Then shut your mouth and send your money to Xcel, Center-point, Qwest, and Comcast. You have options. You have just decided that the options require too much work and money UPFRONT, to justify the savings down the road.

Too many people don't bother to look at what they are getting into before they sign the paperwork. Then they complain when what the paperwork actually said works against them. Too many people don't open their eyes to the options that are all around them, and then complain that not enough choice is being spoon-fed to them. If you don't see enough choice, go out and actually look. If you still don't see enough choice, then create new choices.

Hell. Modern procedures for separating water into hydrogen and oxygen are getting faster every day, and can be done with very little electricity (i.e. solar)... and that hydrogen can be fed directly into the cylinders of a standard gasoline engine INSTEAD of gasoline, or in conjunction with gasoline, diesel, vegetable oil, propane, methane, etc... for it seems using hydrogen with any number of fuels allows for combustion in an internal combustion engine. Thus, you could be getting your electricity from rainwater, if you wanted to put the work and money into setting up the system. Or I could be wrong, and your only option for electricity is Xcel.

Re:This is *news?*

[heinousjay]

I guess we should close down the free market so someone else can make that choice for us? I'm not sure what other option there would be.

Re:This is *news?*

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true, but if you want voice+data+Tv connection you can choose to get the whole deal from either Comcast or Qwest in my area. Comcast gave me a price I could live with when I signed up (+ a huge conncetion fee) and I'm living with it. If they ever try to raise the price I plan to at least threaten to switch to Qwest for the whole enchilada. At least I can play the predatory monopolies off against each other as they both own telecom cables leading to my house. This is a big improvement over 5-years ago.

Re:This is *news?*

[toadlife]

And I've never seen any option for "renegotiating" with any of these options. For DSL (in most areas) you can in a way "renegotiate" with providers when your contract expires. I've been doing it for the last three years with SBC/AT&T. In 2004 I signed up for their 3Mb service at 39.99 a month. This was their "introductory" rate. After my contract expired I called up and told them that I wanted the new introductory rate which was 29.99. They gave it to me. A year later I asked for the new introducory rate which was $19.99. This time the support person I spoke to said that they couldn't give me that rate and that I would have to switch over to month to month at 39.99. I told them to please cancel my service when it expired.

A couple of days later, I was all set to switch over to sonic (for 19.99 a month, which was the same rate At&T wouldn't give me) when my wife called them for an unrelated issue and they offered us the new 19.99 intro rate to stay with them.

Now At&T has done away with the contracts completely and offers my 3Mb package for 24.95 a month. It's five more bucks a month that I've paid the last year, but not being bound by the contract makes it a decent deal for me.

Most people don't realize that if they can get DSL they can get it from multiple providers. While all of the providers may offer similar rates, it's still competition. Being able to buy my DSL from sonic or dslextreme is the reason why I've been able to pay less and less to SBC/At&T for the same internet service over the last three years.

Re:This is *news?*

[alisson]

Oh, of course I have other options for electricity. But do I have the capitol to finance them? Of course not. If I did, why would I care in the first place? Producing my own electricity is NOT comparable to buying it. I have ONE choice of where to purchase electricity, and alternatives to purchasing it aren't cost effective without a fairly high amount of startup.

As fro dropping gas, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the idea of a furnace, but it's much more efficient to run on gas than electricity.

As for cable, I do mean cable. Internet and/or television. Not satellite, not DSL. If you even want to bother calling mid-range DSL "broadband," it's still more expensive. So for internet? Yes, I do have choices. I could get any number of dialup providers, I could get DSL, I could even go for satellite. But, are any of these services really comparable? No.

So yes, you're right. I do have a choice. I can go without food or utilities for a few years, save up money, and get a different option later. So do i see alternatives? Yes. Are they reasonably available to me, the average consumer? A resounding NO. Have I dead the contracts? Of course. Do I have any say? Nope. So until I get this money, I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.

Re:This is *news?*

[mackyrae]

You do not understand economics. Those are examples of natural monopolies. They have extraordinarily high barriers to entry (if you want in on the cable thing, you have to lay cable *everywhere*), so for another company to even attempt to compete requires shelling out extremely large amounts of money just in startup costs before they will ever see any sort of profit. Also, the diminishing marginal returns are different than in a regular market. In a regular market, the marginal returns diminish to the point where producing one more of something will mean paying for its production but not making nearly anything from it, or possibly losing money. This is the average cost (AC). The regular market AC curve is parabolic with the vertex at the lowest point. In the case of a natural monopoly, the AC curve is negatively sloped the entire way because variable costs (costs such as "it costs $5 to produce 1000 watts of electricity" and therefore increase with each increase in units produced) are so thoroughly outweighed by fixed costs (capital, like the building in which the electricity is produced, the wires which had to be laid at the outset, but are fine left on their own, etc.) that they become negligible and it would be realistically impossible to produce at any point where the AC was higher than the money received in exchange for the product. It's a simple matter of economies of scale. It would be just plain stupid for anyone to even try competing because it would cost too much out of pocket to do so.

Re:This is *news?*

[mackyrae]

Just so you're aware, if you set up a windmill in your yard and produce your own electricity you CAN go off the power grid and have electricity for free. Staying on the power grid is a better deal though. The power company then pays YOU for the electricity you're producing.

Re:This is *news?*

[alisson]

Right, once again missing the point. If I had the money to set up a windmill, or for that matter a yard, why do I care that the monopolistic system stops competition?

Re:This is *news?*

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it's similar but different:

Cable? Comcast

Phone? AT&T (ironically, they used to own the cable TV system but sold that off to Comcast, otherwise they'd own phone AND cable TV)

Gas? Well, there are multiple marketers but there's only one pipe and choice has NOT driven prices down. Prices went up.

Water? The City

Power? The City, who buys it from a major utility and marks it up before reselling it to residents. Lucky us!

Trash? The City

Satellite? Ah, we do have DirecTV or Dish. Not much of a choice but there is one.

DSL: In theory, there are choices here. But everything runs over AT&T's copper. When it breaks, do you want to fight with a third-party DSL company who blames AT&T who blames the third party, or would you want to just deal with AT&T denying it's their fault?

Since ISP is the topic here, I don't actually know of anyone who'd be dumb enough to sign up for an internet plan that had a contract. Mine does not, in part because I've had the same DSL provider for almost 9 years. I was the very first customer they had at my CO. But there was never any contract. I also keep an independent dial-up service with a different company, which costs me about 9 bucks a month and gives me nationwide dial-up for emergencies or trips. NO contract.

I can't actually imagine signing up for a contract. How can you know if the service will be any good until you use it, and if it's no good, you're stuck with it for years??? Hell no.

Re:This is *news?*

[general_re]

At least Comcast doesn't have an early termination fee for residental customers. They do, but only for the "Triple Play" bundle (digital voice/digital TV/broadband), which isn't even available in a lot of places yet. And even then, the fee only applies if you sign up for the two-year price guarantee - if you only take the one year deal, there's no penalty at all for bailing out.

Re:This is *news?*

[Anonymous Coward]

What this response boils down to is yes there are obviously worse options. For instance the poster even suggested wildblue, and that is an outright joke compared to real broadband of any type. Neither is it practical or cost effective for most people to create their own electricity. Competition is a nice idea, when it exists, but companies go through great lengths to reduce it. Out here in Illinois not far from St. Louis, MO the electric rates are now 2.7x what they are at my parents house thanks to their "deregulation", yet, while I"ve not confirmed it all, from what I've read Ameren was making money before they were allowed the rate increase. Will competition one day fix that? Maybe, but no time soon probably. About my only realistic alternative would be a natural gas powered generator, and I really doubt that would save any money, as its efficiency would be low compared to what the power companies can do.

What I don't quite get is the logic that he should shut up and pay the bills without complaining. While complaining is nearly useless, in that I'd argue that these monopolies just don't care unless they think the complaints will lead to a competitor, I still think complaining is a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do. If nothing else it might lead to a small effect on their bottom line if people choose not to move to places with utilities with a poor price/service history.

The poster even makes arguments like you can make hydrogen from water with electricity. Well yes this is technically true, but not remotely efficient. Wikipedia lists high temperature Electrolysis at around 50%, with anything done in your house probably much less. Combine that with the lousy efficiency of the internal combustion engine and I seriously doubt that theory will save any money either. The bottom line is saying you have options and then listing a mess of generally worse options is not really helpful. [The one obvious exception I saw was satellite tv.] Of course, that doesn't excuse not doing the little things you can do. I, myself just my hard drives to spin down, enabled cpu throttling, and make sure to turn off lights/heat when i'm not using it/not here. [I'll program the thermostat fairly soon with more ideal settings at different times.]

Re:This is *news?*

[Eil]

Most people have only two realistic options: cable or DSL, each from its respective monopoly.

I think that even among the geek element, this is more of a myth than a reality in many locations around the country. Sometimes you have to look hard to find them, but there are usually decent-quality DSL providers owned by independent companies. They might have to lease the last-mile lines from the local monopoly, but their service is otherwise quite separate and you'll usually find that their prices and performance are better while their restrictions are fewer.

Re:This is *news?*

[Anonymous Coward]

"customer retension"
Is this a euphemism for putting them on the rack?

"free to chose"
Beg pardon?

Re:This is *news?*

[mackyrae]

Well, I didn't know you lacked a yard, but I was pointing out that for people who think windmills are too expensive in general, they can get money back for it from the electric company, so the cost really comes down quite a bit.

Re:This is *news?*

[pla]

If you're not renegotiating with your cellular and broadband carriers when the contract comes close to ending, you're unwise.

whawha What???

I've had the same cell carrier for about 3 years now. They still offer roughly the same plan I have for the same price (I think my "evening hours" could start an hour earlier if I renegotiated, nothing else obviously different).

By NOT renegotiating, I get the same deal as you would if you signed up today, except if my company starts neglecting service in my area, I can drop them tomorrow with no penalty.

So what possible incentive do I have to ask them to stick me with another two-year contract?



Don't want to pay a fee? Don't sign up

While that sounds good in theory, in practice it amounts to saying "you don't need cable/electric/phone/ISP, so don't sign up". I have exactly one choice for cable and electric, one choice for landline phone (which somewhat supports your statement but don't miss the point) I did skip and only have a cell phone. I have two choices for ISP - Cable or DSL. Saying "Don't sign up" really doesn't exist as an option, and the local-monopolist scum fully well know that.



The business is very competitive, and there are lots of incentives to switch carriers.

Competitive??? Sorry, my bad - I must have erred in presuming you as an American. Where do you live, that you actually have a real choice of service providers?

Re:This is *news?*

[phulegart]

I completely understand how a lack of startup capitol can hinder the idea of producing your own electricity. You could Co-op with neighbors to reduce the cost. You could start with small investments in hardware first. And like the post that followed your reply, if you stay on the grid while producing your own electricity, the electric company has to buy from YOU everything you don't use.

Again, you *have* other options. You just don't like them. That is very different than not having other options at all.

Of course using a furnace is cheaper than heating with electricity.. unless you are producing your own electricity. Guess what is cheaper than natural gas and a furnace? WOOD! Then, all you need is a wood stove or two, an axe, and some elbow grease.

You absolutely positively need the speed of cable internet as opposed to dsl? Instant Gratification in your Download Department? Are you always using that 6mb or 8mb speed? I'm not assuming that you aren't, but rather I am asking you to take a closer look at your own useage. And Exactly what is wrong with satellite TV? Too many channels? Outages prone to adverse weather? Seems to me that the fact that you even have the ability to get cable internet and television is a long stretch better than those who are still without it. I'm sorry that you only have one cable provider available. Guess what? It's the same for MOST of the USA.

Face it. As you essentially said in your reply, you just don't like the other choices that are available to you, and you say they don't compare, in order to justify why you discount them. But they do compare. They are improving every month. You couldn't get bi-directional satellite internet not too long ago. Now, the speeds are slow, compared to cable internet, which is slow compared to fiber optics. However, It's getting better all the time.

You might as well complain that there aren't equal alternatives to Gold available, because you don't have the money to afford to have solid gold fixtures in your bathroom. Let me put it another way. Does having the option to switch to satellite TV make the cable company lower their rates? Nope. Having multiple hard line telephone companies in one area doesn't make them all lower their rates to be competitive either. Plenty of evidence of that. No, I'm not just picking on you. I've felt that same pinch before. I've wished that these companies would stop charging outrageous sums for the services. This is why if you don't like the choices available, you have to either suck it up, or create new choices. There is NO CHEAP SOLUTION in the short run. Unless you are willing to give up on the instant gratification of no effort electricity and fast cable internet, it looks like you are screwed. No use crying.

Re:This is *news?*

[Paulrothrock]

The content coming over the wires or through the pipes isn't a natural monopoly. The wires themselves are the natural monopolies. That's why I think that the wires and pipes should be controlled by government-owned corporations who lease access to companies.

I'm able to choose who I buy my electricity, natural gas, and local phone service from, and I can get satellite Internet, but I've got two choices when it comes to broadband Internet, and they both suck. (Satellite broadband has too much lag for my purposes.) It would be much better for my city to buy the dark fiber under the streets, send it the 20 feet into my house, and have me buy Internet service from a company who leases the lines.

This would make broadband ISPs much more like dial-up ISPs were in the mid-1990s. Anyone could start a company with a modem bank. If they had good service, they survived. If they didn't, they folded. But creating a duopoly does nothing to help protect the consumer or ensure good service.

Re:This is *news?*

[Phroggy]

Well, I didn't know you lacked a yard, but I was pointing out that for people who think windmills are too expensive in general, they can get money back for it from the electric company, so the cost really comes down quite a bit. And his point that if you don't have the money up front, it doesn't matter how much you can get back from the electric company by dumping excess power onto the grid. If you don't have the money to buy a windmill, and the additional expertise or money to set it up correctly (the money would be to hire someone who has the expertise), then it's simply not an option.

Re:This is *news?*

[Phroggy]

Guess what is cheaper than natural gas and a furnace? WOOD! Then, all you need is a wood stove or two, an axe, and some elbow grease. Only if you have a cheap supply of wood. Not everyone does. Not everyone even has a wood stove, and can't get one without spending thousands of dollars to have it installed properly.

If there is only one company willing to sell me beef and milk, I can always buy chicken and orange juice instead. That's not the same as having multiple suppliers of beef and milk.

Dry Line DSL + Month to Month ==No Termination fee

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a dry line DSL (verizon), you get a phone number (your ID) and a 3.0Mb D/L 756K U/L a crappy westell router (you pay for) and $36/Month -> includes the cost of a dry line (month-to-Month service agreement). I will get rid of the DSL as soon as I can get strand of fiber here...

my .02

Locally Owned ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a major reason I've never used anything other than locally owned ISPs. Sure I pay slightly higher a month but they have a clue and treat customers like, well, customers.

Re:Locally Owned ISPs

[SydShamino]

And you're still on dial-up, then?

Seriously, I can't get anything faster without going to a national company.

Re:Locally Owned ISPs

[DragonWriter]

OTOH, I was forced to switch to a smaller, locally-owned DSL provider (selling service on the local phone co's lines, oddly enough) when I moved and the phone company (who had previously told me that DSL was available at the new address, and then cut-off my service at the old address two weeks earlier than I requested, supposedly because it took that long to transfer service and they wanted to make sure it was available at the new address on the date I requested) spent a several months stringing me along with various stories and finally told me that DSL service wasn't available at my new address, despite the fact that their online "check for access" service said it was.

Been with them for years (and through another move) with no problems, and gotten much better service than with the phone company, though I guess I missed out on all the "customized browser" and "special software" that the phone company was pushing through their marketing partnership with Yahoo!

This is stupid.

[Seumas]

You have a choice of cell phone carriers. You don't have a choice of internet service providers. You have whoever has a monopoly on your phone service in your region and whoever has a monopoly on your cable service in your region. If you terminate your service early, exactly where are you going to go?!

Fuck this. Just a further attempt to fuck the consumer over.

Re:This is stupid.

[pintpusher]

crap. I really posted to the wrong thread...

Fuck this. Just a further attempt to fuck the consumer over.

my comments really belong in this thread.

Re:This is stupid.

[garcia]

You have a choice of cell phone carriers. You don't have a choice of internet service providers. You have whoever has a monopoly on your phone service in your region and whoever has a monopoly on your cable service in your region. If you terminate your service early, exactly where are you going to go?!

You do have a choice about whether or not you are going to enter into a multi-month contract with the provider to receive a reduced rate for the services they provide. You aren't required, by any means, to accept their $29.95/month for 6 month deals that they offer when you start new service -- if you think that you might not be able to keep the service for that long, don't fucking take the deal and instead pay the full price.

Do I like the fact that the CATV and Telcos have legal monopolies? No. Do I care if someone is fucking stupid, enters a contract with the devil, tries to get out early and gets burned? No.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I care if someone is fucking stupid, enters a contract with the devil, tries to get out early and gets burned? No. Dude, just shut the fuck up, nobody wants to hear your worthless indifference. You are almost as much of a fucking idiot as Bob Weir.

Re:This is stupid.

[garcia]

Yay, another pussy comment from an AC. Douche.

Re:This is stupid.

[dpiven]

You have a choice of cell phone carriers.
Yep. At least where I am in the Chicago area.

You don't have a choice of internet service providers.
Gotta call bullshit on this one.

You have whoever has a monopoly on your phone service in your region and whoever has a monopoly on your cable service in your region.
Do the letters DSL ring a bell? I just checked my local exchange number in DSL Reports and learned that there are over 50 companies who are willing to set me up with DSL service. Sure, they actually resell DSL circuits from a handful of providers, but if DSL Company 1 pisses me off, I can always contract with DSL Company 2 and possibly not even incur any downtime over and above having to change my IP address. I even have a choice of a couple dozen wireless providers.

It's not just cable and voice-phone service out there.

Watch out for Roadrunner/free AOL

[Quila]

If you get Roadrunner cable with the free AOL, then cancel Roadrunner, your AOL contract will cease to be free and it will continue running. You have to wade through the horror that is canceling AOL, preferably before you drop Roadrunner.

A lot of people have been bitten by this.

Re:Watch out for Roadrunner/free AOL

[chuckymonkey]

Why do people still wade through the horror that is AOL? I once found AOL standing over some files in my computer with a bloody knife shouting maniacally "All your information is belong to me!", thankfully I had a boot nuke disk to destroy that horror.

Re:Watch out for Roadrunner/free AOL

[Quila]

It's offered for free, and most people won't pass up free stuff.

If this is news to you...

[gEvil (beta)]

If this is news to you, then it shows that you didn't bother reading through your contract before signing it. In which case, all I can say is tough shit!

Re:If this is news to you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, "tough crap."

Many years ago I moved into a new apartment. I stayed for a year before moving to a new city. I stayed in the apartment for 12 months exactly. Before I moved in, I arranged for Earthlink to move my account over to my new address. It was supposed to start the first week I moved in. Somehow, they managed to "lose" my request for service - so I had to wait a month for them to get around to getting it setup. Okay, not the end of the world. But when I moved they refused to waive this "early termination fee" because I had not been there a year. I explained the situation and was accused of lying. They didn't seem to care that I had been a paying customer for years prior to all of this. They wanted to gouge. Not much I could do. "Tough crap."

It all played out well in the end. Earthlink has lost out on years of me being a paying customer. And when people ask me for advice, I be sure to pass this info on and convince them to go with something else.

Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[EmbeddedJanitor]

This is "Entering Contracts 101" and applies to everything from signing a mortgage, 5 year property rental, book club or video rental program.

Don't sign up for a contract you might want to break out of.

If you do sign up, then don't bitch about your own stupidity.

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[bahwi]

Yeah, but with little other option, it's kind of a cartel, or monopoly, as they all have those steep fees. Because of the forced monopolies, perhaps there should be limits to the fees that they can charge, after all, we don't have a choice, why do they have a choice to freely set the fees? I agree, you entered the contract and have to deal with it, but we're talking lawful monopolies here.

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[zCyl]

Don't sign up for a contract you might want to break out of.

If you do sign up, then don't bitch about your own stupidity.

And what's your brilliant solution when you have to choose between signing up for a contract and not having service?

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There have been cases that I've heard about when the customer has a legitimate break out of their contract, the provider still tries to make life hard for the customer anyways.

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[Detritus]

In the real world, you may not have much of a choice. In areas where there is little competition, you will often find that all of the providers have the same onerous terms in their contracts. That's why there are consumer protection laws, to curb the worst abuses.

At a minimum, early termination fees should be prorated.

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[Rob the Bold]

Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

WTF, man? It's about ISP contracts! How could this be any more about your rights online, unless you're taking that completely literally?

I don't regard contracts between two unequal parties quite the same as I would a contract between two individuals. If one can find a way to get out of paying this sneak-wrapped exit charges, one should. You're just maximizing return for your shareholder -- you. And don't worry, Baby Jesus doesn't really kill a kitten if you drop your ISP a month early.

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[toleraen]

I'm pretty sure you have the option of not having Internet access. It's not like we're talking necessities like electricity or water here.

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[rhombic]

A cantenna & your neighbor's open access point?

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[hal2814]

"And what's your brilliant solution when you have to choose between signing up for a contract and not having service?"

If the contract is not worth it, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that solution. To quote the WOPR, sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

Re:Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

[heinousjay]

It's not even "not have internet access." It's "not have broadband."

Reading this entire topic reminds me of listening to my grandmother bitch because the newspaper was up to 50 cents.

Bah.

[SatanicPuppy]

I am the anti-consumer, when it comes to broadband. I will dump all service at the drop of a hat, and switch to a competitor...The whole deal. I mean, cable, phone, I don't care. I have all the equipment to switch between Direct TV and Cable, and Cable and DSL, Phone and IPtelephony (direct TV is bundled through the phone company in my area), and whichever company pisses me off, I dump 'em.

When we moved to a new place, the first thing I did was run cable to my office. Not because I want to watch TV there, but because the first time the phone company pisses me off, I dump 'em.

I think they're scared of me...Last time my service went down (morons from the phone company screwed up my settings working on a neighbors equipment), they told me three days. I told them if it wasn't done before I got home from work the next day, I was calling the cable company...It was done when I went home for lunch.

These days, if you have more than one option, make the most of it...Treat them like the bitches they are, and make them grovel for your money.

Re:Bah.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Great idea until they laugh at you.

What are ypu going to do when everyone you just dicked around are the only options?

"John Smith of 321 road? Nah, he's a trouble maker" x a couple of times = you screwed.

Re:Bah.

[potat0man]

Ahh, so you're one of those 5% of customers foolish companies spend 95% of their time on. You're the kind of client who barely hears me say 'fuck off' right as the phone slams down onto the receiver. And I'll tell you what else, you're going to have a pretty hard time getting that check back. The other 95% of my clients thank you for the great price they're getting because you made it so easy to identify a simple cost-cutting measure.

Re:Bah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome defense of letting companies fuck over their customers. The service person working on a neighbor's connection screwed things up for this user.

Re:Bah.

[SatanicPuppy]

Pssh. I didn't start off this way. I'm normal about other things. I never send my food back when the order is wrong, I tip people when I pick up the food myself.

But I've been dealing with ISPs since early early dialup, and they are out to screw the consumer 100%. They provide substandard service, substandard support, and they do it because they know that 90% of their damn customer base can't tell the difference.

Well I can tell the difference, and I am long done dealing with their crap. "Waaa, waaa, I want my money back," that's the cry of the suburban dickhead who'll come crying back in a week because he doesn't know how to set up anything different that what he already had. Me? They can keep the money. They can shove that check where it gives them the most pleasure, and it is a rare rare ISP that looks at what I pay every month and says, "Well that's no loss."

Re:Bah.

[SatanicPuppy]

Shrug. Usually they spend about a year trying to get me to sign back up. Sometimes I even do, if the deal is good enough.

I pay the premium for for premium broadband; if they're not going to treat me like I do, then clearly they don't want the money.

Re:Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see the connection between you not being able to pay your bills and George Bush.

What's the problem here?

[J. T. MacLeod]

Your ISP is subsidizing the cost of equipment instead of charging you an up-front sign-up fee. If you leave, your monthly payment is no longer paying that off. It makes perfect sense.

It stinks that we can't get it for free, but that's the way it works.

Re:What's the problem here?

[geekoid]

What equipment?
The modem? well, no I can get my own.
The wires? no, that's already in place and paid for.
The hardware system? nope leased out or bought, so no need for subsidizing there.
hmm,,, Mayge we are subsidizing the chairs they sit on?

Re:What's the problem here?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

You are correct, if they supply the equipment, then they are entitled to recoup their costs. I will not argue with you there.

When it comes to cell phone service however, I disagree, I have not owned a subsidized phone in years, my last 6 phones, all after market unlocked, 3 of them well over $600 each. I still have to pay $170 to cancel my service. Thats not recouping costs, thats blackmailing the consumer. Sure I signed the agreement, what choice did I have, they all have the same agreement, stay with us or we fuck you up the ass. Well, I am about to tear cingular a new one and refusing to pay the ETF, I am leaving because of shoddy service and I use my phone for business purposes, its not reliable, so I will switch, and damn if I will give them a cent, I will spend $500 an hour on lawyers to screw them out of 2 lines at $170 each.

Re:What's the problem here?

[Rob the Bold]

Your ISP is subsidizing the cost of equipment instead of charging you an up-front sign-up fee. If you leave, your monthly payment is no longer paying that off. It makes perfect sense.

I've known people that bought all their equipment -- cable modem or DSL modem and line filters -- and still got hit with the "early termination" fee. It's not about the equipment.

Re:What's the problem here?

[mypalmike]

What equipment?
The modem? well, no I can get my own.

Many of the intro rate contract plans include the DSL modem.

Re:What's the problem here?

[mypalmike]

I'm pretty sure you can get Cingular service on a month-to-month basis with no contract if you don't opt for a subsidized phone.

Re:What's the problem here?

[blincoln]

I've known people that bought all their equipment -- cable modem or DSL modem and line filters -- and still got hit with the "early termination" fee. It's not about the equipment.

Yes, I am one of those people. And Speakeasy's ridiculous $300 termination fee is about three times the price of the modem that I bought from them.

Re:What's the problem here?

[Technician]

Your ISP is subsidizing the cost of equipment instead of charging you an up-front sign-up fee. If you leave, your monthly payment is no longer paying that off. It makes perfect sense.

What sucked for me is the non-negotiable new consumer set-up fee. I told them I was changing ISP's, already had a LAN, had pre-configured my router, etc. Still it was about $100 for the guy to come out and plug in the modem. I got a DHCP lease and was online right after the modem booted up. The installer was suprised that I even had pre-set the DNS servers ahead of time. (found it online). Working with dumbed down forced pro-installation and having to foot the bill is an issue that needs fixed. Now if I can get them to quit calling trying to get me to sign up for the triple play package... Every time they call, I remind them why I am not interested in more fees. I do let them know their VOIP offering is not competitive in either calling area, features, price, and of course professional installation. I then ask if the plan has a early termination fee. No thanks! I hope they keep a database of reasons given for rejection.

I have noticed lately that they now have some self install kits at a local retailer.

Do somethign about it!

[dcgirl20006]

Read the blog post that started it all. And then do something about it.

Why do we do these things?

[writermike]

I am waiting for the corporate apologists to show up.

"Hey! Why don't you read the fine print."
"Gimp! Research your damn options and pay the extra $60/month for a contract-free options."
"GUH! I have no patience for stupid consumers."

But, seriously folks, why are these things okay?

Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay?
Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?
Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false?
Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not?
Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?

But, I know, I'm stupid because I didn't understand the legalese. I'm an ass because I didn't pay the extra fee for the contract-free option. I'm stupid because I didn't pay the extra $60/month.

Of course, I'm stupid until one of these little things hits the one that accuses me. Then they're like, "HeeeeeY! WTF, yo?"

As though...

m

Re:Why do we do these things?

[merreborn]

Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay?
Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?
Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false?
Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not?
Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?

Because consumers tolerate it, and the government doesn't regulate it.

Ideally, in pure capitalism, consumers would either be savvy enough to see through these 'deceptions', or at least principled enough to refuse to purchase from merchants they deem to use deceptive business practices.

It's a trade-off between consumer protections and free enterprise.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay?

Last time I switched ISPs(about a month ago), the entire service contract was in one font size. There was no "fine print". A bit of legalese, but nothing that can't be understood by a competant consumer. If you can't understand legalese in the USA, your screwed. A basic course on law really should be mandatory in the public schools.

Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?
See above. Read the entire contract. If there really is "fine print" to the point where it is difficult to locate and read, you "might" have a case for fraud or misrepresentation(IANAL-though intentionally shrinking print should qualify as the "intention to deceive" part for such a suit; it would if I were the judge. You would still need to show damages.)

Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false?
If you can show that it is false, contact the FTC and file a complaint. Notify the provider that you are doing such. Do both by certified mail(always use certified mail when dealing with corporations. ALWAYS) If nothing is done, consider filing suit under the Lanham act. Their may also be grounds to sue based on state law, but that would depend on your state.

Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not?
See above. I personally have never had any serious issues with my current ISP(if I did, they wouldn't be my ISP.)

Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?
See above. Deliberate obfuscation may rise to the level of fraud or misrepresentation. If you think you have a case, find a lawyer.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because consumers tolerate it, and the government doesn't regulate it.

"Don't regulate it"?

What exactly is the FTC and the Lanham act for then? There is also the possibility of fraud/misrepresentation suits(have to prove damages and intent to defraud though.) State laws may provide additional avenues of dealing with those who lie openly.

Punishing fraud is not a "trade-off." Fraud is an offense against property rights, the foundation of capitalism.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[owlstead]

"Ideally, in pure capitalism, consumers would either be savvy enough to see through these 'deceptions', or at least principled enough to refuse to purchase from merchants they deem to use deceptive business practices."

Indeed, that's the ideal situation. In practice, this becomes impossible and there is a strong need for governmental regulation. If, e.g. I want to choose an ISP, there are the following (possible) variables to consider:
* mail service
* mail scanning (free, not free)
* helpdesk
* news service
* binary news service
* monthly fee
* setup fee
* run my own server
* server if you are a business
* geeky features (home mail server with backup, shell access)
* mobile phone access
* wifi access
* well, you get the point, glad you made this so far
* ...

For an average consumer this is simply too much to handle. It's like going to the supermarket and having to check each and every good-until date for each and every product that you buy. It's like having to check on the internet what food product uses good or bad embalage for the environment.

There has got to be stronger rules in force, both to protect the customer, and in this case, to have better competition. Capitalism fails if these anti-compatitative measures are allowed to take place. Just relying on the consumer is bound to fail - even if there was choice.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[asninn]

Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay? Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?

Because text size doesn't matter. Anyone who signs a contract without actually reading all of it (and *especially* the "fine print") has only themselves to blame. And I'm not talking about people who sign contracts written in legalese and who are thus confused about the true conditions set forth therein - I'm talking about people who argue "it's difficult to read, so I didn't read it at all, and thus I shouldn't be bound by it".

You probably still could argue that there was no meeting of minds, but people do have a certain responsibility when entering contracts, too.

Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false? Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not?

Free speech. I don't think companies should be allowed to outright lie, but I also don't think that they usually do - they just try to mislead you as much as possible without outright lying.

Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?

If capitalism is working, then companies who do this will ultimately fail in the market. (Make of that statement what you will...)

Re:Why do we do these things?

[thopkins]

News service? Is this 1997? Let's be honest here.

(and this is coming from a former USENET junkie)

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Jeff Molby]

But, I know, I'm stupid because I didn't understand the legalese. I'm an ass because I didn't pay the extra fee for the contract-free option. I'm stupid because I didn't pay the extra $60/month.

No, you're "stupid" because you don't seem to realize that gaining a new customer is expensive (marketing, equipment, and installation) and there's no way a company could stay profitable offering service with razor thin margins unless they're guaranteed to have that customer long enough to make up for the initial hit. You have a legitimate beef when it comes to deceptive practices, so don't do business with such companies. If it's too late for that, files complaints and lawsuits as appropriate.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[kindbud]

Ideally, in pure capitalism, consumers would either be savvy enough to see through these 'deceptions', or at least principled enough to refuse to purchase from merchants they deem to use deceptive business practices.

In other words for capitalism to realize its true potential, human nature must change or be changed to accomodate it.

That's what the communists say about their system, too.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[bnenning]

In other words for capitalism to realize its true potential, human nature must change or be changed to accomodate it. That's what the communists say about their system, too.

True as far as it goes, but failure modes matter. When capitalism fails, you get unfair fees and corporate-written laws like the DMCA. When communism fails, you get starvation, gulags and mass executions.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[poot_rootbeer]

Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay?

The size of the text isn't the problem; I wouldn't be surprised if companies are required to provide large-type copies of their contracts upon request. The problem is that few people ever read in full the contracts they agree to, even though it is their duty to do so.

Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?

Again, the size of the text isn't the problem. Consumers need to read what they're agreeing to.

Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false?

Generally, they can't. But issues of truthfulness are rarely that black-and-white. An ISP advertising "unlimited" internet if they cap data transfer to 10GB/month may not be lying if there's no artificial cap on instantaneous transfer rate, for example. It depends on what "unlimited" is defined as.

Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not?

Consumers, knowing that nothing can be perfect except God, reasonably should take the term as a figure of speech rather than literally.

Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?

It's in their best interests to do so. Any law or regulation that forced companies to put the best interests of other parties (such as customers) before their own would be ruinous.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[kindbud]

True as far as it goes, but failure modes matter. When capitalism fails, you get unfair fees and corporate-written laws like the DMCA.

I don't understand. The DMCA is a triumph of crony capitalism. In what way does it signal the failure of our system?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

"For an average consumer this is simply too much to handle. It's like going to the supermarket and having to check each and every good-until date for each and every product that you buy."

WTF?! Do you buy expired groceries a lot?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[owlstead]

Check out xs4all.general, xs4all.voip and xs4all.adsl and *then* say that again.

Can your landlord sue you if you move out early?

[mark-t]

Because it seems to me that this is more or less how this should be treated.

Re:Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you got four cell phones and 4 credit cards that you couldn't afford? Good job! However, if the nation had put a Democrat in office, presumably you would not have gone on such a spending spree with money you didn't have? I will keep that in mind next November!

Watch out for Comcast's % early term fees!

[terrahertz]

I recently looked at signing up for Comcast business service at one of my employer's new locations, and Comcast's attempt to get me to bite on the "free" installation was a real eye-opener.

The "free" installation is only "free" if you agree to a two or three year contract -- with the early termination fee being 75% of the remaining term's balance.

So either you can "save" $150 to $250 on installation and risk potentially paying out thousands in the event that Comcast decides your early termination of their service is subject to the fee (totally at their discretion unless you want to take them to court), or you can just sign up for a one year contract, pay the installation fee, and still get some sleep at night.

Guess which one I picked.

Re:Watch out for Comcast's % early term fees!

[Doctor-Optimal]

Court? El oh el...

I think you'll see that there's a binding arbitration clause, with an arbitrator of their choosing making the decision.

Re:Watch out for Comcast's % early term fees!

[terrahertz]

Actually, I've read the TOS, and you can opt out of agreeing to binding arbitration. Read it for yourself. ;P

Re:Watch out for Comcast's % early term fees!

[Doctor-Optimal]

You are correct, sir. I guess I should RTFTOS more...

Tagging

[physicsboy500]

Can we add a "duh" tag to this one

Bobbi Henson needs a dictionary

[geekoid]

"Basically, we are charging the (early termination) fee to regain what we have been giving the customer for free," says Bobbi Henson

Dear Bobbi,
Please look up the word 'free'. Ig you give someone something for FREE, then you have nothing to regain.

OTOH, if you leased someone something you may have a point.

In other words srop using the word free when something is not free. Perhaps someone should give you a christmas gift, and when you through it away when your done, charge you a 200 dollar termination fee?

Re:Bobbi Henson needs a dictionary

[mypalmike]

In other words srop using the word free when something is not free. Perhaps someone should give you a christmas gift, and when you through it away when your done, charge you a 200 dollar termination fee?

If you hold up your end of the deal by staying through the length of the contract, you don't pay a fee. You keep the phone, and you can walk away. What's wrong with calling that "free"?

Re:Bobbi Henson needs a dictionary

[geekoid]

If you are obligaied by it in some way, it is not free.

from ditionary.com:
11. provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment: free parking; a free sample.

Re:Bobbi Henson needs a dictionary

[mr_matticus]

What you're looking for is "no strings attached" and it is not synonymous with "free." It's the same story in all kinds of business--there is a clear distinction between gratis and libre. Cell phones are gratis, but not libre. You don't pay for them directly, but you get them by paying for something else.

This is just like the free toothbrush that comes with some toothpaste. You're not charged anything for the toothbrush, but you can't just rip it off and not buy the toothpaste, because they're bundled together.

use file-sharing against them

[solitarian]

It's easy to get your ISP to drop you.
download a lot of non-copyrighted material (you don't want to get in trouble) off of a file-sharing network. they will get rid of you and you won't be responsible for the disconnect charge.
easy.

Re:use file-sharing against them

[BlueTrin]

As an added bonus you may get your hour of fame for free !

Get a chance to have your name, your children's name and your dog name in an article about the RIAA on Slashdot !

...

Cat Option available depending of stocks.

Re:use file-sharing against them

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect, they can terminate the contract for any reason and still charge you the termination fee....

Re:use file-sharing against them

[Anonymous Coward]

And wouldn't you love to try to initial in a correction to the asymmetry, such that if they terminate early, they pay *you* $150?

Re:use file-sharing against them

[chuckymonkey]

It's easy, fire up your p2p of choice and start to download as many linux distros as you can into the /home/me/distro folder then make this little script a daemon. (find /home/me/distro -n *) > /dev/null and let it go ad infinitum

Re:use file-sharing against them

[asninn]

All material is copyrighted by default: what you're probably referring to is material where the copyright owner allows sharing. But I don't want to pick nits, so I'll just say that this doesn't work with all ISPs; some genuinely don't care about how much bandwidth you use. (Although why you'd want to leave one that doesn't is probably another question entirely.)

Generally speaking, it's an interesting idea, though, if a rather Dilbert-esque one (there actually is an old Dilbert strip where Wally tries to get fired so he'll qualify for the bonus he won't get if he quits on his own and where he mentions that this has given him a degree of freedom in dealing with "local management").

Re:use file-sharing against them

[TooMuchToDo]

Or they could, ya know, just bone you and throttle your connection to some speed that doesn't cause them any problems. Did someone not read their TOS?

Re:use file-sharing against them

[Stevecrox]

Actually this has happened with me with Tiscali in the UK, There are five of us using the router and between us we can move through about 5GB of legitimate traffic in a week (I used to run a server for a podcast group and backing that thing up could come to 30GB) For the first three months we were plagued by Tiscali applying their Fair Usage Policy (basically turning the net off whenever the felt we had used to much) then we got a letter saying our 1 year contract didn't apply they would continue to supply a 2Mbps line but wuold prefer if we left their service (the router would be given for free and no early cancellation fee, even offering to pay the fee to move to anouther provider (at the time it cost £20 for instant transferal)) I was sorely tempted until I realised the letter seemed to be offering something outside of their T&C. I would leave but I've had a constant good connection since then (march 2006) am not tied into any contract despite my net usuage going up the FUP hasn't been applied once (although three days a week (6pm - 11:30pm) they do seem to block a port that stops CS/MO:UL from working.)

Re:use file-sharing against them

[nosferatu1001]

Nope, they cannot terminate a contract and charge you a fee - the fee is stated as if YOU not THEM terminate it early. They could try to charge the fee, and be hauled over unfair contract terms for it./..

Re:use file-sharing against them

[Slashdot Parent]

Care to link to a contract that specifies an ISP can dump you for any reason and you also have to pay the termination fee?

I didn't think so.

Re:use file-sharing against them

[nytes]

How about section 12 of DSLExtreme's TOS:

12. TERMINATION BY DSLEXTREME. If, in DSLExtreme's sole discretion, (a) a Subscriber is in breach of any of the terms of this Agreement (including but not limited to the Acceptable Use Policy); (b) a Subscriber's use of the Service is prohibited by law or is disruptive to, adversely impacts or causes a malfunction to the Service, DSLExtreme's servers or other equipment, or the use and enjoyment of other users; (c) a Subscriber acts in an abusive or menacing manner when dealing with DSLExtreme's technical support staff, customer service staff or any other DSLExtreme employees or representatives; (d) DSLExtreme receives an order from a court to terminate a Subscriber's Service; or (e) DSLExtreme for any reason ceases to offer the Service, then DSLExtreme at its sole election may terminate or suspend such Subscriber's Service immediately without notice. For a termination in accordance with this paragraph, Subscriber remains liable for all unpaid fees and other charges accrued or otherwise payable under the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation the Early Termination Fee and equipment charges set forth herein, if applicable.

Re:use file-sharing against them

[Slashdot Parent]

Nice work. I didn't think any company would have that type of gall.

Of course, I thnk they would have some difficulty collecting on that type of fee.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Timesprout]

I think you will find many rent contracts have no break clauses whereby you are liable for the full term of the contract should you decide to leave early.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[MyNameIsFred]

It depends on your lease agreement. Most agreements that I have seen, have an early termination penalty. For example, you may forfeit your security deposit. In other agreements, you are liable for a full year of rent. If you move out early, you still have to pay the rent until the year is complete. If don't pay, you can be sued. Watch your favorite afternoon court program (e.g., The People's Court), they have these types of lawsuits all the time.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[mark-t]

What if you move out early because you've had an unexpected change in income, and can no longer afford to live there?

Ever heard the expression "blood from a stone"?

Cell phone companies have a reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

That big discount on your phone? Subsidized by the carrier. Nokia/Samsung/etc will charge you that full price if you want a phone.

So you sign up for 2 years and they give you a deal on a phone. So right from the start the provider ends up in the hole because of your phone. If you got out of your contract after 2 days, now they just spent money on you for nothing.

ISP contracts are bogus and I would never sign one. That's just crooked.

Earthlink & FiOS

[MSTCrow5429]

Verizon FiOS just rolled out in my area a couple weeks ago. I've been using Earthlink since late fall, and it will cost me $149.95 to move from Earthlink to FiOS. I'd get several megabits more down for less cost with Verizon, but Earthlink has trapped me into its mediocre services (customer service is all over the place, and it can take multiple phone calls to straighten things out). Keeping customers in sub-par service with extremely high termination fees will just anger customers. Earthlink, this means you.

Re:Earthlink & FiOS

[Creepy Crawler]

Then you're stupid.

They are BREAKING TERMS OF SERVICE by not providing... SERVICE.

The next time they do stupid shit, log a bunch of calls, while recording them (give a disclaimer when they do). Then when they "bill" you, sue them for fraud.

People just dont get when SERVICE is not given, TERMS OF SERVICE dont apply.

Re:Earthlink & FiOS

[MSTCrow5429]

Well, I managed to have them pay back the "termination" charge. They gave me 1.5MBps instead of 3Mbps originally, had to re-provision the line for 3.0Mbps, which meant terminating and reestablishing DSL service. After yelling at them for an hour, they said they'd waive the charge. Then of course later, when I got DSL back, the charge re-appeared. So that took yelling at them for 45 minutes. So firm persuasion can be far easier and more efficient than a lawsuit. Any good lawyer will tell you, suing is the last resort. They didn't violate the TOS. They violated common sense and coordination.

You know

[geekoid]

If you were ever smart enough to get past contracts 101, you might have not made your self look so ignorant with your post.

Can't you read?

[mschuyler]

Note: In case of monopolized areas, none of this applies.

Every contract I have ever had with a cell phone provider or internet provider or cable provider had a set expected length of contract AND a set date when that contract would be terminated. I may be mis-remembering, but I'm pretty sure NONE of them have been over two years. In EACH case there was some sort of incentive to get a lower price and some sort of incentive to switch carriers. Many times the switch incentive is enough to pay for the termination fees, if any.

It seems to me that if you sign a contract with a company for a couple of years, you were paid to do it with a lower price. If you want to cut and run, you pay and should. This is not anti-consumer, this is stupid-consumer who didn't read the contract and now wants to bail ahead of time.

It's the same with 'bundled' services. They are always trying to get you to 'bundle' everything with one carrier. You take them up on it at your peril. If you never bundle services you keep your versatility intact. yeah, it may cost you more, but are you sheep and go ga ga eyed every time they offer you ten bucks?

Don't get me wrong. My Starband sucked so bad I dumped it the month my contract was up. My Dish Network was so bad and the customer service so God-awful I fired them on the spot and threw the dishes in the dump. But I'll tell ya, my DSL is so reliable and fast that it's worth my while to sign a contract. Absolutely no problems.

Re:Can't you read?

[profplump]

My problem with cell phone contracts is that it's not an optional incentive to use their services -- it's required. Just trying bring in your own phone as a new customer and buying month-to-month service. They won't let you do it. You have to sign a contract and take their "free" phone even if you have no use for it. Such a contract provides no benefit to me, and there's no way to avoid it, at least not at any of the three national providers I've tried.

Re:Can't you read?

[cdrguru]

Absolutely untrue. You can't bring in just any phone, however. You need a phone that (a) works with their system and (b) they are capable of supporting. This means you pretty much need a phone that they consider to be current in their lineup of phones. There are a bunch of reasons why they do this, some good ones and some bad.

I have stood next to people trying to get their CDMA phone accepted for use with a PCS carrier and the "customer" had no clue what was going on. To them a phone is a phone is a phone and the sales person saying over and over again "But your phone will not work on our system" was not colliding with any brain cells.

I have also experienced the situation where the phone would actually work, but their people are clueless as to how one would activate it because it isn't in their book. This means it isn't in the customer service book either and the carrier does not want to be in the position of telling you they can't help you figure out how to listen to your voice mail with your particular model phone. Or turn off the ringer. Or reset the phone because of Java problems.

You will also pay more for service without a contract. Just the way that is.

Some carriers are a lot less open about this than others, so you may have varying degrees of success and it may depend on the specific customer service people you encounter. But I know of no carrier that will not let you activate a "current" phone in their lineup that they didn't sell you and do so without a contract.

Re:Can't you read?

[mr_matticus]

I've brought my phone to six different service providers on three continents with no problems since I got it in 2005 (it's a Windows Mobile device, and the tradeoff is no access to the carriers' multimedia crap and ringtones stores--which I couldn't possibly care less about). I've never had a problem. When I had to return to the US for two months, I used Cingular's pay as you go service and had no problems whatsoever. I wasn't even charged for the SIM card or the activation. The device is even very plainly branded T-Mobile.

Re:Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[NeutronCowboy]

Interestingly enough, this seems to be the same guy who just hangs out at the Auction House in Ironforge or Stormwind.... in a tux. Dunno about you, but I think a crash course in priorities is required.

Summer break?

[tepples]

What I want to know is, if you plan on switching companies in the near future, then why are you signing up in the first place? A lot of people live at one address nine months out of the year (September through May) and another address during the summer (June through August). If the same mobile phone provider doesn't serve both areas, what should the customer do? Even for people other than students, how can the customer know, before he signs the contract, which features of the phone the network operator has shut off?

You spend money you don't have

[Ogemaniac]

and you blame Bush.

Get a clue and get a life. And for the love of God, stay off the dole. I absolutely do not want one red cent of my tax dollars going to the likes of you, when there are billions of people around the world who deserve it far, far, far more than you ever will.

And don't give me excuses. You screwed up. It's your own darned fault.

Re:You spend money you don't have

[Rob the Bold]

Get a clue and get a life.

So what's your magical plan to avoid unforeseen catastrophes?

Re:You spend money you don't have

[Ogemaniac]

Health insurance, disability insurance, $100 bucks a month in my healh savings account, six months or more of income in readily accessable accounts, a job that I could do even with fairly severe handicaps, a good education (paid for by me, not mommy and daddy) that allows me to do a number of jobs, some virtually certain to be avaiable regardless of circumstance, little or no credit card debt, and a circle of family and friends that would help me out if all else fails.

It's called responsibility. Look into it.

Re:You spend money you don't have

[Rob the Bold]

It's called responsibility. Look into it.

Cute.

Been there

[geekoid]

don't despair.

You may have done this already, but find a Not For Profit credit counsiling, they may be able to get verizon to drop the fees. They can also help with credit cards. They basicallt call the credit agency and they work out a plan.
Every case is different.
In my case, I didn't have to pay car payments, credit payments, or a home mortgage for 6 months. Yes, the car and mortgage payments were put at the end of the loan, but even then it was a life saver. We didn't have to much on credit cards, so we eventually got that paid off and never got another one.

Do it today, now...right now.

It was a year of finacial hell, but if I didn't go to that credit counsiling I would be in a lot worse shape today.
Just be sure it's a not for profit company, and if you have to paty them anything, leave. Find another. You don't need more payments.

But is the full price plan available?

[tepples]

You aren't required, by any means, to accept their $29.95/month for 6 month deals that they offer when you start new service -- if you think that you might not be able to keep the service for that long, don't fucking take the deal and instead pay the full price. Nor is the ISP required to even offer service without a commitment of at least twelve months. This situation can make broadband prohibitively expensive for students who live on campus during the school year but live at home over the summer with family members who are otherwise happy with dial-up (if they even have a computer).

DSL in the US

[anomaly]

I live in suburban MD near DC. I just checked and I have at least five options for DSL, and two cable companies offering broadband. None are super cheap, but I have options....

Re:DSL in the US

[Grishnakh]

That's interesting that you have two cable companies offering broadband. Do they both have separate lines running to your house?

As for DSL, don't you just have one telco, and then 5 different DSL ISP options? That's the way it is here. But as I pointed out before, that's not much of a choice. Here, there's one ISP (MSN) which is the "preferred" ISP; you only get a reasonable price if you use MSN. If you select a different ISP, Qwest won't give them the same rates as they give MSN, so your price ends up being much higher. So yeah, there's a "choice", but it's not competitive in the least. The only way selecting one of these other ISPs makes any sense is if you *must* be able to run public servers at home, and/or *must* have a high upstream data rate, and are willing to pay the premium for this since it'll cost much more than any other option (including cable internet). For regular people who just want broadband at home for downloading, those options don't make much sense.

tag...

[oraclese]

slownewsday :p

Speakeasy is about to go to hell in a handbasket

[sconeu]

Speakeasy got bought by Best^H^H^H^HWorst Buy.

hospital bills

[tepples]

They can get in line behind 4 credit cards, the hospital bills Wow, you got four cell phones and 4 credit cards that you couldn't afford? Good job! I noticed "hospital bills". Perhaps Impy the Impiuos Imp could afford the phones and credit cards when he signed the contract but could no longer afford them after the injury or illness began.

Destroy all ILECs

[ebunga]

Bellsouth, err, AT&T is evil. They've made sure DSL is unprofitable for ISPs other than their own. Why in the hell it's not regulated like other services is beyond me. The sad part is that Bell even gets tax payer money to pay for their infrastructure. Any other entity that comes in and wants to offer alternatives, even going so far as to roll out their own fiber and copper, can't get those some benefits.

The telcos need to be trimmed down and split up. One company needs to be responsible for the actual outside plant and the network that carries that to the actual central offices. Exchange (voice) and data services could then be carried by any telco that interconnects to that network. No telco would be an ILEC. The outside plant/carrier company would be barred from offering any other goods or services other than getting voice or bits from point A and point B within a limited region.

Re:Destroy all ILECs

[Rob the Bold]

The telcos need to be trimmed down and split up.

We did that once, and they re-formed. This time, make sure to dump the remains into molten steel.

Re:Destroy all ILECs

[ebunga]

Actually they didn't do that last time. They split Ma' Bell into her individual operating units. Even the LATA thing replicated pre-divestiture business plans. The post-divestiture restrictions weren't tight enough. They worked for a few years until the correct palms were greased...

Re:Destroy all ILECs

[cdrguru]

They tried to unbundle DSL and allow competition. There are a few problems with that.

The first being one of resources. A competitive DSL carrier needs to have equipment colocated with the switchgear and there isn't infinte space. In Illinois they tried opening the market up and discovered this lack of infinite space. Several court cases ensued. The end result is pretty much that until there is sufficient space in the CO for all potential competitors, none could be accomodated because otherwise it was discriminatory.

SpeakEasy

[Anonymous Coward]

The cancellation fees aren't the problem, if you are getting what you expect. Take SpeakEasy's terrible service. You could be down weeks in a row, but if you want to cancel SpeakEasy's terrible service they will charge you. Of all the service providers for everything in the country (electricity, phone, etc) SpeakEasy sucks most. Don't use their service unless you like being down or dealing with the 3rd party lackies (who suck as well).

Re:SpeakEasy

[stinerman]

Is that you again, Michael? ;-)

Re:SpeakEasy

[Anonymous Coward]

If they aren't providing the service you paid for, sue for recission of contract. Part of your contract consist of them providing the service. If they won't provide the service, you have a recission case. Get a lawyer.

So where can I buy such an unlocked phone?

[tepples]

That big discount on your phone? Subsidized by the carrier. Nokia/Samsung/etc will charge you that full price if you want a phone. So why can't someone walk into any phone store in the USA, pay full price for an unlocked phone, and then use it to negotiate a better contract with a service provider? What should a student, who only wants service during the three months that she's home from school because the network at school doesn't have coverage in her home town, do?

Re:So where can I buy such an unlocked phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy a prepaid phone. If you use a GSM carrier like T-Mobile or Cingular, you can buy an unlocked phone (and SIM card) online (I bought mine on eBay). You can also walk into a T-Mobile or Cingular store and buy a prepaid phone with SIM, and airtime cards are available at grocery stores, convenience stores, etc, or you can buy over the phone or online with a credit card. Looks like T-Mobile's cheapest option right now is $30. http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/prepaid.aspx

Re:So where can I buy such an unlocked phone?

[tepples]

Buy a prepaid phone. Problem solved. So now, carrying the analogy back to the topic of the article, is prepaid land-line broadband available in a similar manner? If not, why does the analogy break?

Re:Speakeasy is about to go to hell in a handbaske

[Anonymous Coward]

Best Buy might suck, but not as much as not having one around for 300mi. Convenience and ease of returns justifies a slightly higher price than online any day. Sure they have shady advertising/rebate/sales forces, and while my heart goes out to all the befuddled grandmothers (really, my own included, who I escorted when she needed a new computer), it only really affects the people with whom money is soon parted anyway -- the fools. Of course I'd much prefer to have a Fry's nearby, but they're no saints either, and sometimes it's nearly impossible to find an unopened/non-returned item on their shelves (the last time I lived near one at least, but it's been a few years).

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[MyNameIsFred]

...What if you move out early because you've had an unexpected change in income, and can no longer afford to live there? ...

Bankruptcy can get you out of all sorts of contracts. But I also note, that bankruptcy will not get you out of many (most?) civil court penalties. Once the court accesses the penalty, they can wait years to collect. Look at OJ Simpson, the Goldman's are still hounding him.

What cable companies are these?

[SeaFox]

"Pricing broadband competition can be difficult. Broadband is rarely priced as a stand-alone service. Whether offered by a telephone company or a cable company, it is usually bundled with other services such as voice and video."

Wow, is this a DSL FUD campaign?

I work for a support outsourcing company. I've worked for three different cablecos and there are three more here right now, included in that six are all the major players (Time Warner, COX, Comcast). Not one of these six do not offer cable modem service as a stand-alone service. Also, except for special bundled pricing arrangements, all of them are month-to-month (no contracts).

Where are these mythical cable companies that force your to take video service and have contracts? Sounds like AT&T and co. are trying to draw parallels that don't exist between their refusal to sell naked DSL and their standard contracts vs. cable internet.

The problem is I know Verizon has contract-free DSL service, and I'm sure they offer service without phone included as well.

To me, the idea of signing up for any kind of contract for internet service with no quality-of-service guarantee is just stupid.

The reason for the excessive churn is simple: poor customer service, and poor billing policies to prevent it. To stop it, all companies would have to get together and agree to these rules.

• Full promotional pricing only for new customers.
  
• "Retention" promos need to be significantly less than full promotions in savings/length of time.
  
• If a customer leaves for another provider, the waiting time before they would be eligible for another "new customer" promotion needs to be longer than the promotions themselves.

The way things are right now, the standard promotion is 6 mos-1 yr, and there is a 1 mos-3 mos waiting period for a new full promo. All that does is encourage "promotion hopping". Throw in the standard free installation and customers will happily jack-knife between providers each year so they're always on a promotion. If they call and threaten to cancel, they can many times get a temporary price cut that is close to what new customers get.

This all sounds great to customers, but it can mess with the market as a whole in terms of what the "standard rate of service" is. Many people think that broadband service is too expensive in the U.S. compared to what you get in other countries, and I'm not going to get into that, but when it's so easy to get a discounted price for service the very term "regular price" becomes meaningless. If broadband providers want to keep their customers around, they are going to have to work together so they eventually are stuck paying the "market rate". Once you have people having to evaluate service based on what the providers think its really worth, you're going to see some changes in what's considered acceptable service for the price and what the price is. Right now the people who lose out are the ones not on promotion who are having to subsidize the huge numbers that are on the provider's balance sheet. Customers who don't call and bitch about their bill every week should not be penalized like this.

Re:What cable companies are these?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem is I know Verizon has contract-free DSL service, and I'm sure they offer service without phone included as well."

I have it, I posted about it but since I am anonymous right now, it was modded to 0. Basically you still have to pay for a "Dry-Line" or basic service (10-14$) and then the DSL. With a month-to-Month contract they charge about $36 a month for 3mbit up 756k down. You have to call them up and talk to them to get the service, it isn't listed on the website.

Peace,
SQL Monkey

Re:What cable companies are these?

[SeaFox]

Yeah, that's what I said. Reread my sentence. I can't think of a reason for the DSL providers to spread the idea you have to buy video and take a contract with a cableco, when they are breaking out of similar restrictions on their side already.

A Novel Idea

[Luscious868]

Here's a novel idea: Read the fine print before you sign on the dotted line.

You don't always have to sign a contract.

[PeterChenoweth]

Did anyone try asking?

I have Dish Network for TV. When I signed up, the phone rep wanted me to sign a 2 year contract. I simply told them that I wasn't interested, and so they countered with a 1 year contract. Didn't really feel like that either, and so they finally offered a no-contract plan but required like a $49 activation fee. Fine by me.

Same deal with Cingular. They say a 2 year contract is required, but it isn't. All you have to do is ask for less. They'll do a 1 year and might charge you $25 or $50 more for the phone. Big deal. Bring your own phone and tell them you want a month-to-month plan, and they'll do that too.

Same deal with Verizon DSL. They have a month-to-month plan with DSL that costs a couple bucks a month more than the contract price. You just have to ask for it.

The point is, you have to stand up for your rights as a consumer. Tell the company, "I'm here, I'd like to pay for your services, but your terms are unacceptable. What can you do about it?" If they won't bend, find another company that will. I have no sympathy for people that blindly sign contracts and then whine about the consequences later.

Re:You don't always have to sign a contract.

[/dev/trash]

yeah I thought the same thing. But I was wrong. read the fine fine fine print.

Re:You don't always have to sign a contract.

[noidentity]

"The point is, you have to stand up for your rights as a consumer."
One way to start is to refer to yourself as a customer, not a consumer. A customer is a person; a consumer is a metaphorical mouth that is always hungry for more and can't say no.

Re:You don't always have to sign a contract.

[Paulrothrock]

I tried that method when I was shopping for broadband. Both companies laughed at me when I said I'd go somewhere else.

In other words: Your methodology only works when there's more than one competitor in the marketplace.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Detritus]

Normally, the landlord is expected to make reasonable efforts to find a new tenant. He can't just sit on his ass, leaving the property empty while collecting lease payments from the lessee. A lease isn't a lottery ticket, the landlord shouldn't expect to receive more than his actual damages.

Seems completely reasonable to me

[midnighttoadstool]

It's a contract, after all. Even the price looks about right. It's actually nice of them to even allow it.

Wait, we have to pay for shit now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dood. Lame.

This is news???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been like this for over a decade. READ YOUR CONTRACTS PEOPLE!!!

How to cancel TalkTalk

[paj1234]

In the UK, TalkTalk is a combined telephone and Internet service. After signing up, you should have:

1. The TalkTalk Broadband Start Up Pack.
2. A BT line with TalkTalk broadband activated on it. The date when you should be able to use the broadband service for the first time is called the Commencement Date.

If you don't have items 1 and 2 more than 28 days from the end of the month you were given in TalkTalk's online "Availability Checker", then you are allowed to cancel all of your TalkTalk services completely at no charge. Refer to Section 11.13 of your TalkTalk contract.

Re:How to cancel TalkTalk

[pandrijeczko]

See my other post for how I got out of my TalkTalk contract but, in my experience, TalkTalk are in breach of their own contract because the level of service they were providing (at least around October/November last year when I left them) was not an "unlimited" broadband service - it was quite definitely throttled at peak periods to allow for their over-subscription of the service and I suffered a number of 48 hour plus outages while I was using them.

I wrote directly to their MD (Charles Dunstone) declaring my contract null and void due to their breach of contract with not providing the "unlimited" service I'd signed up for. Within 2 weeks I had a MAC code to go elsewhere...

My view is just not to take any sh*t from this big faceless corporations - kick up a stink and tell them the way it is, don't let them bully you.

Dumping the ISP may cost the consumer, but what if

[Organic Brain Damage]

the ISP dumps the consumer?

I've got 3 friends who have had their Cable Modems turned off because "they used excessive bandwidth." In those cases, I suspect the early termination fees are not recoverable. If that's the way it works, and you want out, just write up a little program that downloads lots of big files...put it in an infinite loop and voila...in a month or two, the ISP will cancel you.

We the consumer; We the goatse!

[v3xt0r]

I've conformed to cellphone-contract slavery only because all the providers in my area who don't require contracts, simply suck (dropped calls, unattainable service, etc). I'm glad that there are alternatives, but unfortunately they don't provide the quality of service I need/expect.

I also have Cable TV+Net, and am also a victim of said 'bundle' deal from my cable provider. If I switch to DSL, I'll save myself $20/mo if I were to base the cost of cable-net vs. dsl, but since it's in a package, that $20 difference would account for the increase in cost of my remaining items included in that package, so it leaves me w/ no sensible alternative.

I could say 'f U' to it all and move back in to the 1800's way of life, which I'll probably have to do after another year of this unsustainable global economic model that has been thrown in our laps thanks to our short-sighted political and corporate overlords.

Meanwhile in Nokialand...

[vuo]

In Finland, "bundling" of different goods was outlawed in the 1970's, when the businesses overshot it and started giving free washing powder with gasoline and so on. Bundling was disallowed; legistlation permitted basically only deals like "pen with a notepad". An operator bundling a cellphone with a contract would've clearly violated this law. The practice of bundling the cellphone with the contract is clearly anticompetetive, as you can see from TFA.

Also, if we're talking about Nokia, the company's main problem is the problem of getting these contracts with cellphone operators. This requires a lot of shady backroom deals and is very anti-democratic in the sense that the consumers are not the ones who get to decide. My theory is that Nokia has enormously benefited from a home market where you must provide quality phones and where you can charge the matching price. It'd be one of the "thirteen in a dozen" cellphone manufacturers without a competetive, democratic home market.

Unfortunately, the poor sales of expensive 3G phones led to extensive lobbying and finally, the anticompetetive practice was allowed again in 2006. Now, operators have two-year contracts where you may not change operators, with a small price discount (about 40 euros). The hard-core libertarians actually see this as a "liberalization": see this blog.

Re:Meanwhile in Nokialand...

[cdrguru]

Let's see... in the US a cell phone costs $350 or more. That is the list price from the manufacturer. You can find deals where you buy a phone and all the carrier does is provide the connectivity. Almost nobody does this in the US.

The other option is you pay $3-4 more a month and get a "free" cell phone with a minimum length contract. Almost everyone does this because phones break and they have zero resale value.

Also, different carriers in the US have different requirements for phones, different standards and different technicians. For the most part you can get them to activate any phone, as long as it is one they support. By "support" I mean that it works on the right frequencies (remember, three systems in the US) and they have it in their books so they can provide information about the phone when you call up and say something isn't working right.

This pretty much means that you need a new phone when you switch carriers, period. Selling used phones works, but only when the buyer uses the same carrier. And every carrier has their own testing program and vendor qualifications so the fact that you have a Nokia phone on Cingular doesn't mean that Verizon has qualified that phone model to work on their system, even if it would work on their equipment.

What this means is in the US until something changes with cell phones a plan is useless without a phone and a phone is useless without the plan that it came with. Value of phone without plan = 0. Can carriers be utterly unreasonable about termination? Sure. But they will also often waive the termination fee if you aren't coming in with too much attitude.

Re:Meanwhile in Nokialand...

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Value of phone without plan = 0. As far as making and receiving calls goes I would agree, but I know that in my old home of Nova Scotia, any cell phone with a charged battery could connect to 911. Every time I bought a new phone, the old one and it's car-charger went into the glove box of whatever vehicle I happened to own at the time. Though really, it was probably little good with the amount of time I spent in areas with no cellphone coverage (those maps they give you lie like the devil).

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[UbuntuDupe]

Yeah, it does suck, I agree, but you do have an option: for a usurious premium, you can do a month-to-month lease. I don't understand why it's so common in contracts. Why don't they typically have buyout fees as the default exit clause rather than "hahahaha! sucker! you have to pay for the rest, regardless!" clauses. I mean, yeah you can negotiate such a clause before signing. Try it some time, and they're likely too stupid to understand the concept, and the market in some cities is illiquid or small enough that competitors don't deftly scoop up your businesses.

I have a hard time believing my apartment puts everyone in these clauses. There are some real irresponsible idiots, and I don't know how they can possibly manage if they lose their job. I feel like I'm being punished for saving: I actually have significant assets: 55 months' worth of rent at my last count, and I don't get to discharge that debt in bankruptcy like the other idiots because I can actually pay it. (If you're going to respond, PLEASE do not refer to that money as "in the bank". It is *invested*. No one should keep that much in a low-yield account.)

What's worse, most of them have no problems about making you sign a "blank check" contract. Specifically: when renewing, I asked them to give me a new lease that doesn't have my parents attached as co-signers (so as not to be a burden on them). They said, basically, "sign the new lease, and then we'll tell you if they can be removed [due to sufficient credit on your own]." UM, excuse me? I'm signing a contract before the terms are determined? Hey, sounds like a good idea -- it's invalid on its face, so I can't be expected to live up to the full lease, right?

Headline and 1st paragraph don't match quote

[BBandCMKRNL]

The Slashdot headline and 1st paragraph of the story don't match the quote from the linked article. The headline and 1st paragraph talk about termination fees, while the quote discusses the loss of bundling discounts. The two are completely different things.

I have a bundle from TimeWarner for my cable TV and Road Runner internet service. The way they keep jacking up the cable TV rates, I'm considering switching to another provider for my TV which will cause my Road Runner bill to go up. If the cost of TV from another provider + my increased cost for Road Runner is less than my current bundled price, or I get annoyed enough at the price increases, I'll switch my TV.

Re:Headline and 1st paragraph don't match quote

[DogDude]

Dump the TV. After a few weeks, you won't miss it. It's harder quitting caffeine than TV. Besides, with TV, you're paying them to watch advertisements.

Re:Headline and 1st paragraph don't match quote

[Saganaga]

OOA (Obligatory Onion Article):

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Re:Headline and 1st paragraph don't match quote

[MetalPhalanx]

I agree. I haven't watched TV in over 7 years. Mostly because I can't justify paying so much for so very little.

rant:
Also, as you say, you are paying to watch a ton of advertising. The TV watchers don't even see how much they are bombarded by ads every day. If they took a 2 month break from TV, they'd realize that the world keeps on turning and the world doesn't come to an end without TV. They might even *gasp* take back those 4.5 hours of their life per day and do something like exercise, or take the time to cook a healthy meal, rather than pound back another McDonald's cheeseburger and extra large fries and extra large drink.
/rant

Re:Headline and 1st paragraph don't match quote

[BBandCMKRNL]

Dump the TV. After a few weeks, you won't miss it. It's harder quitting caffeine than TV. Besides, with TV, you're paying them to watch advertisements.

We don't watch network TV and the DVR takes care of the advertisements on the cable and allows us to watch the shows when we want.

I don't get just TV from my cable subscription. I also get digital music. I live in the 7th largest city in the U.S., but there is no Jazz radio station. If I dump the TV as you suggest, I also dump the music I want to listen to.

Yeah, cell phones can be just as bad....

[PanchoVilla]

My company moved us from one site to another. Now we are all in a 6 story building. NOBODY'S cell phones work, unless they are Cingular who as the company service provider has a tower on the roof, or very close. But if I take the elevator downstairs and step 5 feet away from the door I get fine reception. Ok no big deal, I will just have to call Verizon and find out how I can cancel my contract since my phone is unusable about 50% of the time. Sorry, you are out of luck. The only have a clause that covers you if you move to an area that has no tower nearby, if you just don't get reception due to the actual building then you have to pay the full termination fee....... It almost cheaper to just pay them for the next 6 months and put my phone in a drawer. (i would just do that but then I lose my phone number which I have had for about 7 years now....) Arg. Pancho PS Won't get better at the new place. I think the only way to get an iPhone is to sign up for 2 more years......

Re:Yeah, cell phones can be just as bad....

[Technician]

My company moved us from one site to another. Now we are all in a 6 story building. NOBODY'S cell phones work, unless they are Cingular who as the company service provider has a tower on the roof, or very close.

I found this to be helpful sometimes. Sit at your desk. Call them on the land line and complain about the cell outage in your area. Play dumb. Ask when the service will be restored.

Keep it up. Either they will contract with the building to install a micro-cell, or will offer an early termination due to the inability to provide service. Keep a service ticket open until they drop you or fix reception in your building.

Your milage may vary. Calling and asking to terminate is not the answer. Calling and asking for service is a strong lever against fees if they can't provide service. Going elsewhere to place calls is not an option. You need to recieve calls.

Your milage may vary.

Not quite the same

[phorm]

With a mortgage, the bank gives me the cash, and the house is my responsibility. It's a pretty simple agreement, and things only get dicey if you're on variable-rate and the interest really goes crazy. The same applies for a lot of contracts. However, will cell phones and other such things, the difference is that you are paying for a continual service with unspecified guarantees of quality. If your internet is down for two weeks, are you entitled to refunds? If you cellphone service starts sucking (dropped calls, routing issues, etc), do you get refunds? Nope, under the contract they just keep taking your money and you can't get out.

I was a customer with the local cellphone provider, Telus, for many years. As a provider, they were excellent for many years. Good customer service, good network quality, competitive rates, and good local (shopside) service. Over the last several years, they made a lot of cutbacks. Suddenly I had calls which were going straight to voicemail (phone didn't ring, even if I was in a call - which means I definately had service - I didn't get the call-waiting beep). I know these issues were not phone-related as several other people I know on the same network experienced similar issues, however my phone also started acting up... the battery didn't last well beyond the first year, and it would decide to crash on occasion. I have a service contract, but according to the phone company it's the local retailer's responsibility, and the local retails never had any loaner phones (to replace the cellphone which is my *only* phone). Whenever I talk to the shop I get the runaround (they're not making a profit on the repair, after all) and when I talk to the phone company I'm lucky if I don't wait an hour on hold before getting cut off during a transfer (which happens a LOT).

So I check into canceling the contract with 1 year left, and the cost is barely below what it would be to keep up the phone on the minimal plan for the rest of the year. I gave the stupid thing to my dad (ordering a new battery) on a basic plan with a new number and had mine ported to another carrier. At the very least he'll be able to use the phone at home, since I couldn't get the damn thing to carry a call at my place without standing by a window since I moved about 9 months ago.

Your rights online?

[Brandybuck]

Your rights online? The only "right" I see here is the "right" to be a whiny bitch that wants to get out of the contract easy. I can see it now, thousands of surfers marching on Washington demanding their rights to "No Fault Divorce from ISPs". Big cluestick time: You signed a contract, If you didn't want to pay these fees for early termination, you shouldn't have signed that contract. Most ISPs will gladly let you sign up month-by-month if you either pay additional setup fees or pay a higher monthly charge.

You're right.

[Mr. Arbusto]

All of those services are natural monopolies and are to the point where they are considered essential. There is a good case that the government (or a separate entity who sole purpose is to expand, and maintain infrastructure) should own and operate the means of distribution, and other companies should be able to offer services, or if you like the current model, force infrastructure services to be compatible via regulation. Common Carrier status was supposed to allow competition, but has been severely weakened in recent years to the point it means nothing in a lot of markets. In the case of the Telephone companies, the big G and state G and local G all gave and continue to give teclo's money because simply to maintain their current infrastructure, with little incentive to upgrade the infrastructure as a whole, just in areas where it is profitable.

Re:You're right.

[heinousjay]

Since the infrastructure is the prime investment for the major business of the companies, how would you intend to wrest control from their hands? An edict? A buyout?

Re:Dry Line DSL + Month to Month ==No Termination

[zoomshorts]

And WHO will own the fiber??? Riddle me that Batman.

Re:Dry Line DSL + Month to Month ==No Termination

[Anonymous Coward]

And WHO will own the fiber??? Riddle me that Batman. -> Verizon, the same people WHO own the Copper! I don't have a problem they are better than comcast, local ISP (major suckage), or satellite internet (too expensive). I actually don't think I will get much gain with FiOS being 5-6 blocks from the DSLAM already. I did have to clean up the wiring at my end then all was cool.

Not even PERMITTED to complete my contract...

[CheckeredFlag]

I was within 2 months of fulfilling my 12 month DSL contract with SBC when I got married. My wife already had RoadRunner so after I moved, I called SBC (AT&T by then) asking them to disconnect my service. But since I fully intended to complete my financial obligation of the contract I wanted to pay for the remaining two months.

They refused! I even tried asking them to disconnect my phone, but keep my DSL account and/or service active - even though I wouldn't be using it. Nope - no deal! They said that anything short of transferring my wife's phone and internet service to AT&T would result in a $200 termination fee. I honestly tried my best to fulfill my financial obligation, but that was apparently not good enough for them.

I've had RoadRunner bend over backwards to woo me, saying "Call us if you're even THINKING of switching - we'll work with you..." Thanks AT&T, for not being willing to work with me at all, you've forever lost me as a customer.

Treat Them Mean

[pandrijeczko]

About six months ago, we got suckered into changing my ADSL service over to the "free unlimited" broadband service offered by Talk Talk (a subsidiary of The Carphone Warehouse) over here in the UK. My better half also had a mobile phone contract with them.

To cut a long story short, after 3 months we'd had enough of the endless outages and slowness of the Talk Talk ADSL service, even though we'd signed up for a minimum of a year with them. Having done some research on the web, I realised cancellation of the contract wouldn't be easy - so rather than wasting time with an underling in a call centre, I wrote a letter directly to their managing director, explaining how Talk Talk were in breach of contract for not providing us with the service that they'd advertised. Within 5 days of sending the letter, a senior manager from Talk Talk called me, promised me a £20 credit to my account and my MAC number within 7 days so I could go to another provider - no arguments whatsoever.

I never got the £20 credit but had no problems with changing ISP.

Cut to March of this year, my missus' 12 month mobile contract with Talk Talk ends and she decides to swap provider to a better deal. Talk Talk decide to invoice us £24 upon cessation of the service and when I ring in to their call centre, I'm told £4 is for call charges and £20 is a *LATE PAYMENT CHARGE* on an account we have been paying by monthly Direct Debit from our bank account.

I offer to pay the £4 call charges but tell the agent that if he insists I pay the late payment charge, then I would have to invoice him directly for the £20 ADSL account credit that I never got, along with an additional £20 late payment charge I was adding on top of that.

Suffice it to say, having put the guy in a situation of not being able to read a script from a screen, he accepted the £4 call charge and credited my account with £20 to cover the late payment charge.

The moral of this story is to to give them as good as they give you.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[mr_matticus]

Well here on planet Earth, landlords who have signed lease agreements have the right to collect the total amount of rent agreed upon in the contract (the total dollar amount is always disclosed in California, for example "rent to be paid at so-and-so monthly for a total of $27,849 per year"). If you move out early and your agreement does not allow for breaking the contract at all, you're stuck until you pay every penny of that agreed-upon amount, whether you're physically present in the unit or not. The landlord does not have to rent the unit to anyone else, nor does he have to look for a replacement tenant prior to the expiration of your lease.

That's why you should never sign that kind of lease. The ones with early move-out penalties are far more desirable.

Early Termination

[kahrytan]

  People are charged with early termination fees because of equipment. Someone has to pay for it and that someone is the customer. And let's not forget the discounts. Those have to be paid for.

I am glad I have had my DSL 7+ years. My DSL Modem is paid for. I got a second modem as backup.

Yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both right and wrong. You usually don't get choices for electricity but that's about it (and even then you can generate your own)

For TV, there's usually a local cable company, sometimes free OTA HDTV feeds, and a couple satellite providers (e.g. Dish Network and DirectTV for USA, Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice for Canada). We're starting to see some IPTV services too. There's definitely competition here.

Internet, there's usually 2 main companies: the local telco (DSL, and sometimes other companies leasing those too), and the local cableco (cable). There's some competition, but not enough for sure.

Phone service? A PSTN with the local telco (Bell), most cable providers now have some sort of VoIP plan (even Bell has one here), and hundreds of VoIP companies (like Vonage). If that's not competition...

When I lived in Ontario, there were a few natural gas providers. Either ways it's not a necessity: there's always electricity, furnace oil, wood, etc for heating, and you can use electrical appliances too.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Detritus]

In Maryland, the landlord has a legal obligation to mitigate his damages.

Q -"What is the responsibility of the landlord when a lease is broken?"

A - The landlord must make a reasonable effort to mitigate his damages by trying to rent the apartment as soon as possible. He can't hide the fact that your apartment is now available, but he doesn't have to put your apartment ahead of other vacancies.

Some people don't even have Cellular options...

[Kamokazi]

I'm stuck in a backwater area of Ohio that pretty much only gets Verizon (and then it's spotty). You can get Sprint signal some in the northern area of where I live, and some Cingular to the west. T-Mobile is miles away. And the Verizon providers around here know it. Since neither of them are an actual Verizon Store, they don't have to honor any promos, and they can charge their own BS fees. If you're smart, you drive an hour and a half to the nearest Verizon or electronics retailer that sells them. What is odd, is that a local (once dial-up only, and they had a monopoly then, because no other ISP had a local access number) ISP is laying fiber all over town, so I can get off our horrid Road Runner service. 5 down 2 up dedicated for $50/mo, yay!

clearwire

[collinc]

My current ISP ClearWire not only slaps you with a 180 dollar early cancelation fee, but after the term of the contract (1 or 2 years) they automatically enroll you into another identicle contract. So if you don't cancel at the end of your term you automatically get sucked into another 1 or 2 year term. Probably the nastiest Terms of Service I've seen from a company regardless of if their service was good or not. I hope other companies don't end up following suit and start turning their business into a flat out money grab.

bell does not charge for dry loop charges reseller

[Anonymous Coward]

Bell in canada!! does not charge to hook up a dry loop .. But the catch is ONLY if you hook up with there internet package!

So its sorta you can not win! There was a CRT ruling if you search CRTC web site on dry loop (involves Allstream and a company called terminal!)

The reseller will have no choice but to charge the client.. and Bell will not charge for it to use there service..

Sorta a price pinch monopoly

Seems unfair

well it is

I hear they still charge dry loop for light broadband

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[mr_matticus]

All that means is that the landlord has to list the property as vacant and make it available in his listings of available properties, respond to inquiries, and rent the unit if an offer is made. He does not need to seek replacement tenants. With the vacancy rates in most places, a unit will be rented within a reasonable time frame.

The requirement is in place to prevent landlords from refusing to rent the unit (and instead benefitting from the lower costs of collecting on an empty unit for an extended period).

Duh

[Kenrod]

In other news, snow is wet when it melts. Film at 11.

One non-contract option is not enough!

[RealGrouchy]

Here in Ottawa, Canada, I have a DSL connection with a non-profit organization (www.ncf.ca) that has been around for over a decade.

But if all the other ISPs can have their way with their customers via high-penalty contracts, then theoretically NCF could also have its way too, by virtue of being the only non-contract alternative.

I guess what I'm geting at is there's no such thing as "a little competition". There's either a lot of it, or none at all.

- RG>

Offtopic reply to offtopic post

[shoemilk]

I can't remember who it was, but I read a column on ESPN.com once about this football player who did situps and push ups during every comercial break. Many people who watch TV change the channel during commercials. Other people get up and use the bathroom, or do something else. With the advent of Tivo and other such devices, people skip the commercials and those 30min shows become 22min.

I appretiate the fact that you don't like TV. I, however, do. I also cook regularly (at least 5 times a week), I run every other day, go to the gym three times a week, read a book at least an hour before sleeping. So please, don't think that TV is the cause of all the world's ills.

yup...

[Khyber]

chage my money when I'm not using the advertised resources, nor are the advertised resources worth a fuck. We know better yet you wanna charge us... FUCK YOU. We'll wipe out your country with illegal species of creatures/business first since you bastards don't care about real animal intrusion. Now wake up and think about it, which I doubt you do (even if I force the US news to cover it.. welll, the best I can do is call you out for denying Americans their !st amendment rights. Yuop, I see you lying and denying. You can't stop me, because you'd all die.

Re:Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush just can't stop borrowing my 'phone to vote on American Idol, and buying stuff from the shopping channel with my Amex. I just wish he wasn't living in my basement.

If your ISP requests you leave, take the offer

[zrenneh]

Ha, damn right.
I share a net connection with my flatmates, we abuse it heavily. They wrote to us within about three weeks of being connected and asked us to leave, said they would waive all the connection charges (about £50 or nearly $100) and the yearly contract.
If you do get one of these letters, take the ISP's offer: they might drastically cut your line-speed if you don't. We didn't leave, a particular flatmate didn't want to, so they massively slowed our line speed down, it's supposed to be 8Mbps, but sometimes my 2G phone's internet runs faster...

that's easy - I expect getting paid to quit!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229417&cid=186 02243

Stop complaining!

[Dan541]

What the hell are people complaining about Its $150!!! Come to Australia were you will pay $500 or so.

So the unforseen consequence of GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

being a twat is that it is all his fault.

He should just live with it and stop complaining. You should too.

Moving Clause?

[beerdini]

When I canceled cable and satellite tv, gym memberships, and cell phones in the past I've told the companies that I'm being relocated for work. In the past, many of the companies have a clause that say if you are moving out of the local service area your contract can be terminated without penalties. I don't know if that is still the case but it worked for me in the past.

Not in Perry by any chance?

[Vermifax]

Just curious.

Is the charge punitive? Or just paying on credit?

[karlandtanya]

For the lawyers in the room--

Do I understand correctly that parts of a contract can be voided if a judge determines them to be punitive?

I've never seen punitive terms in the contract e.g. By purchasing this Jeep at Big Bog's Discount Autohaus, you agree not to purchase a vehicle from anyone else for a period of 5 years. Violation of this agreement will result in a $1000 penalty. We have a lien on your house.)

Any of the Lock-in contracts I've ever signed are presented as ownership of some item of value in exchange for my agreement to pay for a service for some period.
I've also seen contracts (e.g. Amerigas, my propane supplier) where you pay for the right to lock in a price.
With ISPs, the item of value would be the guaranteed price.

When I read those contracts, it seems that the "early termination fee" is justified by saying "well, we gave you the satellite boxes, cell phones, etc... and you're just paying for them over time."

So, here's some questions for the lawyers--

If the customer doesn't get fair consideration for their money, is the part of the contract where they have to pay a termination fee punitive?
And if it is punitive, how hard is it to get it voided--do you have to go to court?
Finally, if the justification is that you're paying for something over time, do the penalties have to be pro-rated to not be considered punitive?

$150?! That's a year and a half of dial-up here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I was only paying $8.25 a month on dial-up. Of course now that I have a job where the company provides wireless on my work laptop, it's a non-issue. :)

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

I am a landlord.

Can your landlord sue you if you move out early?

Your landlord can sue you if you owe money.

By moving out early, you most likely owe money (there are certain exceptions). If you don't pay what you owe, you can be sued.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

I am a landlord.

I think you will find many rent contracts have no break clauses whereby you are liable for the full term of the contract should you decide to leave early.

I know that a lot of leases say that, but most states have laws that disallow clauses like that in residential leases. They're ok in commercial leases, though.

In most jurisdictions, you will owe for your residential lease until the landlord is able to get a replacement tenant. You will owe rent and rerental costs (advertising, etc. Whatever the landlord has to spend to get another tenant, within reason). The landlord is required to make a reasonable effort to replace you to mitigate your damages.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

I am a landlord.

What if you move out early because you've had an unexpected change in income, and can no longer afford to live there?

Ever heard the expression "blood from a stone"?

You still owe your landlord, and your landlord can sue you.

Of course, your "blood from a stone" expression applies here more than ever. When I sue a tenant and win, all the judge can do is say the tenant owes me money. I still have to figure out how to collect that money.

My strategy is as follows: over the years I've learned to take steps to get insolvent tenants out of their leases as quickly as possible so that they don't owe me much money. It sounds heartless when you put it that way, but really it's a win-win. This way they don't owe me too much money (I'm happy), and they are then free to go find a different apartment that they can afford (they're happy).

Typically, I will sue them anyway and record the judgment. I realize that they aren't going to pay me now because they can't, but many people get back on their feet and do pay eventually. We're generally not talking huge sums of money, 'cuz I work quickly in the beginning to minimize their liability.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

I am a landlord.

(the total dollar amount is always disclosed in California, for example "rent to be paid at so-and-so monthly for a total of $27,849 per year"). If you move out early and your agreement does not allow for breaking the contract at all, you're stuck until you pay every penny of that agreed-upon amount

I don't have any units in CA, but I really doubt that this is the case in sunny, tenant-friendly CA.

Let me tell you a few reasons why this is unlikely to be the case (I could look it up, but I don't really care enough to slog through CA code since I have no units there):

1. Every jurisdiction that I've ever heard of disallows this in residential leases. It's fine for commercial, but not residential. In residential, the landlord must mitigate the tenants damages by finding a replacement renter. The lease-breaking tenant is even free to help the landlord (I've had this happen and gotten quality tenants that way. It's a win win.) find someone.
2. $28k is way outside of small claims court land. Landlords only sue in SCC because it costs little money. In regular civil courts, you have high fees and you need a lawyer. And what would the landlord get for his effort and expense? A judge that says, "Yeah, lease breaker owes you $28k. Good luck collecting it, smarty-pants."

Re:Dumping the ISP may cost the consumer, but what

[nytes]

I posted this in another thread but it was deeply embedded, so I'll repost it here where more people might see it and have this question answered.

Unless I'm misinterpreting it, DSLExtreme's TOS (for example) says:

12. TERMINATION BY DSLEXTREME. If, in DSLExtreme's sole discretion, (a) a Subscriber is in breach of any of the terms of this Agreement (including but not limited to the Acceptable Use Policy); ...snip...
or (e) DSLExtreme for any reason ceases to offer the Service, then DSLExtreme at its sole election may terminate or suspend such Subscriber's Service immediately without notice. For a termination in accordance with this paragraph, Subscriber remains liable for all unpaid fees and other charges accrued or otherwise payable under the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation the Early Termination Fee and equipment charges set forth herein, if applicable.

So, yeah, some companies explicitly say they can shut you off and you're still on the hook to early termination fees.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

I am a landlord.

Yeah, it does suck, I agree, but you do have an option: for a usurious premium, you can do a month-to-month lease.

Personally, I've never understood that. For reasons that you probably don't care about, m2m contracts are better for landlords. I only offer m2m for residential.

They said, basically, "sign the new lease, and then we'll tell you if they can be removed [due to sufficient credit on your own]."

Unfortunately, you were talking to a low-level leasing agent who gets a bonus when you renew and lacks the authority do what you requested. If you truly do qualify on your own, you can hunt down a real manager who can do it for you. On the flip side, it's more a matter of principle whether or not your parents are cosigning your lease. As long as you pay your rent, that is. ;)

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[UbuntuDupe]

Unfortunately, you were talking to a low-level leasing agent who gets a bonus when you renew and lacks the authority do what you requested.

Nope, the head manager.

the flip side, it's more a matter of principle whether or not your parents are cosigning your lease.

Yes, it is.

As long as you pay your rent, that is.

Yes, I do.

Again, it shouldn't even be an issue when I have steady, well-documented employment (earning over 6x rental payment) and rental history there, plus assets sufficient to pay 55 months of rent if I felt like it.

The problem is, I guess, you work in a more liquid market, whereas I'm renting in a town, metro area ~200,000, and there aren't many apartments this high quality.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[mark-t]

Well... let's say that a tenant gave you damage deposit when he moved in, and each month's rent is due at the beginning of the month.

But sometime before his lease is up, he has an unexpected change in income he is not going to be able to pay the next month's rent. He's already paid for the current month's rent, and he moves out, notifying you and leaving the apartment vacant for a few days near the end of the month, which happens to be insufficient time for you to arrange to get another tenant.

While I can agree he may not be entitled to get any of his damage deposit back, what, exactly, does he really owe you?

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

Nope, the head manager.

Sad. Well, next year you might try, "My parents asked that I attempt to qualify on my own. I can go back to them and ask if they'd be willing to cosign for another year, but every time I talk housing with them they encourage me to move." ;) See if that gets this bozo's attention.

From your LL's perspective, he's currently got another party he can go after should you flake out and not pay rent, for whatever reason. They're not going to give it up if they don't think they have to. It's like a security blanket that helps us sleep at night. ;)

(earning over 6x rental payment)

This should be sufficient for just about any landlord. I require 4x.

plus assets sufficient to pay 55 months of rent if I felt like it.

This is less important, since you could blow it all on a car or trip to Vegas tomorrow. ;)

I'm renting in a town, metro area ~200,000, and there aren't many apartments this high quality.

You forgot to add "At this price". ;)

At any rate, a thinly-veiled threat to move should take care of that cosigner issue next go-around.

Good luck!

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[UbuntuDupe]

Sad. Well, next year you might try, "My parents asked that I attempt to qualify on my own. I can go back to them and ask if they'd be willing to cosign for another year, but every time I talk housing with them they encourage me to move." ;) See if that gets this bozo's attention.

It wouldn't. You give them way too much credit. Maybe if I went to one of the partners of the firms that owns it...

From your LL's perspective, he's currently got another party he can go after should you flake out and not pay rent, for whatever reason. They're not going to give it up if they don't think they have to. It's like a security blanket that helps us sleep at night. ;)

I'm going to tell you what I've told every other potential creditor: if it's just a matter of you worrying about not getting paid, I can escrow cash or securities. And every one of them has a mental breakdown when that happens.

This should be sufficient for just about any landlord.

Wrong. I made about the same 2 years ago (~3% less), about the same ratio, and it wasn't enough.

Go ahead: falsely assume I had a history of non-payment at the time.

This is less important, since you could blow it all on a car or trip to Vegas tomorrow. ;)

See bolded.

You forgot to add "At this price".

Actually, I didn't. This is the highest quality apartment in the area, *and* the highest price. Now, if you want to talk about house rentals, they're generally way too much space, or older. Plus, they're generally not much better in quality, yet require more maintenance.

At any rate, a thinly-veiled threat to move should take care of that cosigner issue next go-around.

Yes, for anyone else in the world.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

let's say that a tenant gave you damage deposit when he moved in

First of all, that's the tenant's money, not mine. I can deduct from it for various legal reasons (rent, damage, etc.), but if there is no legal reason for me to deduct, that money must be refunded when the tenant leaves.

But sometime before his lease is up, he has an unexpected change in income he is not going to be able to pay the next month's rent. He's already paid for the current month's rent, and he moves out, notifying you and leaving the apartment vacant for a few days near the end of the month, which happens to be insufficient time for you to arrange to get another tenant.

While I can agree he may not be entitled to get any of his damage deposit back, what, exactly, does he really owe you?

Whatever the judge says he owes me when I sue his balls off. ;)

Kidding, sort of.

Let's assume that he is in month 3, day 28 of a 12 month lease (so the lease doesn't sneak up and expire on us). Rent is $500/mo and he's paid $500 security.

He owes me:

1. Rent for every day until I can get another renter in there
2. Any damage he's caused
3. Any fees he's incurred (court fees, late fees, etc.)
4. Whatever reasonable costs I incur to rerent the unit

So, let's say he leaves so I don't have to evict him (no court costs), he hasn't done any damage (hey, he's a good person, just ran into a bump in the road), and he even cleans the unit for me, top to bottom (Landlord's fantasy, I know... but he's trying to minimize his expenses here). I put an ad in the local paper for $50 and get a new renter in there in 2 weeks.

He would then owe me (if there is no lease-termination fee):

1. $50 for the newspaper ad
2. $200 for 12 days' rent (he's already paid for 2 of the 14 days)
3. Whatever his late fee is (which I'd waive in a heartbeat if he actually cleaned my unit.)

So basically $250, which I would deduct from his security deposit and return the remaining $250. For being so responsible, the tenant would escape with no evictions on his record and no black marks on his credit. In fact, if this ever happened, I might even have a handyman help him move.

Of course, that is never how it happens. Here's how it works in the real world, unfortunately:

1. Tenant's rent is missing. I send Pay or Quit notice, along with a list of charities that help renters facing eviction.
   
2. Tenant asks if I can "work with them on the rent", to which I reply, "I'm sorry, I cannot do that, but did you get the list of charities that will work with you?"
   
3. As soon as PorQ timer expires, I file for eviction.
   
4. Tenant calls frantically and says, "Why did you file? I can pay you by next Monday." I say, "No problem. When you pay, I'll dismiss the eviction. Did you get the list of charities I sent you?"
   
5. Tenant doesn't pay next Monday, and further doesn't show up in court next Wed so loses by default.
   
6. I schedule eviction with the sheriff and notify tenant.
   
7. Tenant says, "Please don't evict. I can pay by next Monday." I say, "No problem. When you pay, I'll cancel the sheriff. Did you get the list of charities I sent you?"
   
8. Eviction day comes, tenant is long gone, there's some damage but mostly lots of garbage left in the unit.
   
9. I haul trash and repair unit
   
10. I rerent unit.
    
11. I total up everything the tenant owes me using the formula above, subtract whatever his security was, and sue for money judgment on the remainder
    
12. Tenant doesn't show up so I win by default and record the judgment and report to the credit bureaus.
    
13. 5 years later the tenant tries to buy a car and the loan officer says, "Sorry. You've got to pay this old judgment or no loan for you."
    
14. Tenant calls me and offers me half of what he owes so he can buy more car than he can afford.
    
15. I say, "Pay in full if you want those wheels, my friend."
    
16. He pays in full.

As for me, I try to figure out what went wrong with this guy and adjust my rental application criteria to try to screen out for it the next go-around.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[Slashdot Parent]

Well, your landlord is behaving irrationally. Not sure what else we can say about him.

Anyhow, if you ever move out to the east coast, look me up. I'd rent to you. ;)

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, your landlord is behaving irrationally. Not sure what else we can say about him.

Except that that behavior is typical in my (ever atypical) experience.

Anyhow, if you ever move out to the east coast, look me up. I'd rent to you. ;)

I don't think I'd still be making 6x your rent charge for any job I'd find on the east coast :-P

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[mark-t]

But the situation that the article was discussing was the implications of somebody bailing out early on a contract... which, in particular, if a person's financial situation has changed and made it so they are no longer able to fulfill their obligation on their part of the contract, it is only proper that the contract be terminated, immediately. But it seems to me that if there is a significant financial obligation that is supposed to be part of any early termination of a contract and it is because of a change in finances that the person wants out of the contract in the first place, then throwing a fee at them just for bailing out is really just kicking someone when they are down. Remember, this about the implication of cancellations fees only.

Of course, in the case of a tenant who is moving out before his lease is up, a landlord certainly has the ability to deduct any such fees from the tenant's damage deposit. So what I think that this then becomes that if an ISP is going to want to charge a customer for cancelling early, should the ISP also require a deposit? I'm inclined to think so, personally.

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[mr_matticus]

Number 1 is not categorically true of residential units (not that this thread ever limited itself to such). The contracts are generally rare, because most landlords and leasing companies use an "early termination penalty" as a boilerplate standard. They are not precluded from drawing up an unbreakable lease, however. Many will make this arrangement for luxury condos, particularly in LA and San Francisco, where monthly rents for one-bedroom units can and do exceed $6000. There cannot be a deadline for finding a replacement--the only mitigation measures necessary are the ones used to rent the unit in the first place (put the unit in available listings, answer inquiries about it, and entertain offers for leasing). Departing tenants certainly may assist, and landlords may actively recruit tenants, but this is not required. Nearly all leases have early termination provisions (must give notice and pay rent during notice period; forfeit security deposit/last month's rent; must pay $x penalty to break lease; must find replacement tenants), but those that do not should be renegotiated.

Who said anything about small claims court? If someone did have $28k to collect, they certainly wouldn't file in small claims court, where the limit is $7500. The landlord wouldn't file at all in all likelihood, because they would have found a replacement tenant on their own--perhaps filing for upaid rent during the notice period might occur. If, however, you sign a $28,000 lease and only pay the first $8000 of it, you will probably be evicted and then taken to court for the unpaid difference between last payment and eviction. The court indeed might order payment of the full term amount, but it's not likely in a personal residential case. The measure must remain in place, however, to protect landlords who depend on rent income for their own wellbeing. This is not usually true of the management companies (which are the dominant force in rentals in California due to the complex residential codes and the high dollar amounts of rent payments).

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[lorcha]

But the situation that the article was discussing was the implications of somebody bailing out early on a contract... which, in particular, if a person's financial situation has changed and made it so they are no longer able to fulfill their obligation on their part of the contract, it is only proper that the contract be terminated, immediately.

I'm not sure how you can say that. Let's say I hire you to mow my lawn for the summer. You faithfully mow my lawn every two weeks, but at the end of the summer, can I say, "Sorry, my financial situations has changed, and it is only proper that our contract be terminated immediately. I hope you didn't need to be paid for all that work."

Well, the law says that I need to pay, and if you took me to court over the matter, I would lose.

But it seems to me that if there is a significant financial obligation that is supposed to be part of any early termination of a contract and it is because of a change in finances that the person wants out of the contract in the first place, then throwing a fee at them just for bailing out is really just kicking someone when they are down.

Well, that isn't really the point. If you think of it from the part of the ISP, typically these early termination fees are for the "free modem" or "free installation" offers. They come with strings attached: you have to subscribe for a whole year. If you cancel early, then the ISP doesn't recoup their costs associated with giving you a "free modem" or whatever. That is what the termination fee is about.

Think of it this way: you can either pay a $150 installation fee, or you can get free installation, but you have to pay a $150 termination fee if you terminate inside of 12 months.

Of course, in the case of a tenant who is moving out before his lease is up, a landlord certainly has the ability to deduct any such fees from the tenant's damage deposit. So what I think that this then becomes that if an ISP is going to want to charge a customer for cancelling early, should the ISP also require a deposit? I'm inclined to think so, personally.

Let me see if I can get the following point across, because it is very important: A security deposit belongs to the depositor. So when one of my tenants gives me his security deposit, it is still his money! I may be holding onto it for him, but it is not mine. I cannot just take it willy-nilly, and there are laws governing how I am to care for this money.

In other words, a security deposit has nothing to do with early termination fees. My tenant's security deposits belong to them just the same whether they are deposited in their bank account or mine.

The same would go for an ISP, if they held a deposit (and, indeed, sometimes cellphone companies and other utilities will hold a deposit). That money belongs to the customer. It doesn't matter if a termination fee comes out of a security deposit or the customer's bank account, because that money is still the customer's.

Did that make any sense?

Re:Can your landlord sue you if you move out early

[mark-t]

You keep citing examples where services or facilities rendered are already done and gone, and of course the person that used them would have an obligation to pay for them, regardless of what his financial situation is.

I'm talking about situations where a person doesn't really owe money for anything at the moment, but the process of terminating the contract carries a fee, which cannot possibly be productive when the person being charged doesn't have the money in the first place, and in particular, when the person doesn't even *WANT* to continue to hold on to any benefits that may have existed as a result of the contract.

If the company wants their equipment back they should be welcome to it, but once they have all their equipment back, exactly what _real_ costs are they out?