FCC To Hold Hearings On Early Termination Fees

Isaac-Lew sends word of an article in the Washington Post reporting that on June 12 the FCC will hold a hearing regarding cellphone early termination fees. The Commission may look at early termination fees for TV and Internet service as well. The wireless carriers are taking a Bre'r Rabbit approach toward possible FCC regulation of early termination fees — the FCC's intervention would pre-empt a number of class-action lawsuits going forward against Verizon, Sprint, and others. These suits, stemming from state regulations, could cost the carriers billions. "...the carriers have renewed a lobbying effort in recent weeks to persuade the FCC on a legal definition that would stave off the state lawsuits on cancellation fees. On May 6, 2008, Verizon Wireless chief executive Lowell McAdam and the company's chief lobbyist, Tom Tauke, met with [FCC Chairman] Martin, urging him to adopt a federal policy, according to FCC records."

Comments

read the effin contract

[gadabyte]

don't like termination fees? don't sign a contract agreeing to pay them if you leave. duh. it's not like you have some inalienable god-given right to a cell phone. hence the contract.

i don't think this should apply to dropping service if the cell carrier isn't holding up their end of the bargain (crappy coverage, non-functioning hardware, refusal to address issues, etc) - then, by all means, the customer should have full right to leave without ANY penalty. but if the customer is leaving because they want the sweet phone on the other network, or just because they feel like it...maybe they should have thought of that before signing.

Re:read the effin contract

[JohnWhitney]

Well hell, why don't we apply this to ALL areas of life, instead of just cell phones?

Gas station chains that only sell gas to if we agree to enter into a contract to only buy gasoline from their stations, and you agree to buy a minimum of 50 gallons a month! Don't like termination fees? Don't sign a contract agreeing to pay them if you leave. It's not like you have some inalienable god-given right to drive a car. Hence the contract.

I have my own cell phone. I currently use a pay-as-you go system, precisely because I don't want to be force into multi-year contracts, and I typically only have my cell phone for emergency purposes. But let me tell you, I pay significantly more per-minute than those with a contract (about $0.25 a minute, plus fees).

In an ideal world, a competitor would come along to service my needs. In the real world, there are very few companies with the money to buy the spectrum necessary for cell phone use, and those that have have all gotten together and decided that all of them will use this lock-in method. That leaves me with no choice but to pay exorbitant rates for their service without a contract.
And as I said in a post above, I've had providers attempt to lock me into a one-year contract for the mere privilege of changing my phone number after I moved, so don't give me garbage about this contract being used to subsidize the price of phones.

Re:Market Forces At Work

[Tony Hoyle]

You could then buy it in a bubble package at Walmart.
Motorola, Samsung, LG, Nokia would have sales reps calling on Walmart, Target and other retailers selling them phones in huge volume to sell us without any bundling, and there would then be significant competition.

What, you can't do that in the US? In Europe we can walk into any supermarket and walk out with a contract free phone 5 minutes later. They're not free but they're fairly cheap - competition keeps the prices down.

One GOOD thing that has happened in the last year, the IPHONE came out.

Previously, you signed up for a longish contract and you got the phone free.

With the iphone, sign up for a longish contract and you pay full price for the phone.

I fail to see why this is a good thing.