Slashdot Mirror


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."

16 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Market Forces At Work by milsoRgen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Early termination fee's are ridiculous, I can understand an earlier time when the costs of building the cellular network were to be thought of. Now it would seem they like their little cash cow, must help them subsidize the latest shitty phone. It's a shame it's taken this many years for it to finally get some government attention.

    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    1. Re:Market Forces At Work by Robert1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure what you're getting at. In Europe when you want a new phone you have to shell out several hundred dollars, there are no free phones or discounts. The phone companies here give them away for free*.

      *Of course the price of the phone is rolled up into the price of the service you get - that's why new phones need a 2 year service plan because after 2 years you will have paid off the cost of phone. It is also why when you renew your contract you get a new phone, since you have paid off the old one and are making payments on the new one.

      If there were no cancelation fees then the company would have no way to make up its initial gift of a several hundred dollar phone to you if you decided to stop paying the monthly fee for it.

      If the FCC strikes down cancelation fees then the price of phones will suddenly increase several hundred bucks. This isn't necessarily a good thing for the market since almost everyone I know tends to go for the free phone or the 50 dollar phone when getting a new plan - no one is willing to spend several hundred dollars. At least, not in a lump sum up front.

    2. Re:Market Forces At Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the FCC strikes down cancellation fees then the price of phones will suddenly increase several hundred bucks. This isn't necessarily a good thing for the market since almost everyone I know tends to go for the free phone or the 50 dollar phone when getting a new plan - no one is willing to spend several hundred dollars. At least, not in a lump sum up front. What I would like to see is:

      A) The "free" phone would be require the contract and have it clearly stated (not buried in the contract) that this will include both an increased monthly cost and a early termination fee. The termination fee should be the amount you haven't paid off yet. Ie, keep it for year and a half and cancel, you only have to pay the remaining balance.

      B) The option to buy a phone upfront in full, and have a monthly discount (compared to the "free" phone cost). As it is with most companies you can't do this. Even if you spend hundreds on a phone, you have to fight with them to get service without a multi year contract if you're able to get service at all. Even then you pay the same monthly cost as the person with the "free" phone.

      I'd like to have the choice. Personally, I'd take B. What I have now is a "free" phone, but I read through the contract you have the choice to not renew it after the 2 year term. I took that option, though it took a lot of arguing with them over it. I still pay the same amount even though it's a three year old phone, but at least I can cancel it whenever I want.
    3. Re:Market Forces At Work by JohnWhitney · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I was using Sprint as my carrier, and asked them to change my phone number be local to the new location that I had moved to, they told me they wouldn't do it without signing me up to another year-long contract.

      This is not subsidizing the price of anything. It is only used to lock me into their service and line their pockets. Since I was done with the contract I had with them, I decided I'd rather switch to a new carrier than be treated like that. They got MUCH more willing to work with me when I told them I was cancelling... to late for them, though.

    4. Re:Market Forces At Work by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      no one is willing to spend several hundred dollars. At least, not in a lump sum up front. Most of the people i know here in canada fit what you describe there.....until they end up in a situation where the phone fails or is lost or stolen. Cellphone theft is the biggest cash cow in terms of the devices market for the providers.

      They'll change their minds if they end up paying for a few months worth of contracted service that they cant use. If they never run into that, well its a moot point and they'll probably continue happily with the contracts. If you know you're going to use the service for the length of the LTC and that you can deal with replacing the phone in the event of the unforseen, AND read your damned contract then there really is no problem with this. The problem there is no one is willing to wade through pages of fine print to check every possible caveat situation (which isn't exactly a fault but neither is it transparent and honest).

      Another thing is that there are a lot of contracts with clauses that i'm fairly sure are illegal (in canada at least, i'm not sure how things would work in the US there) such as disclaiming liability for the actions of their customer service representatives in its entirety (at least it was in certain companies contracts when i was doing cell phone customer service back in 2004-2006). I honestly wonder how many of these "contractual obligations" would actually hold up in court given a good attourney with the balls to bring it to the big boys.

      And to the complaint people have that such actions would increase the price of cellphones. YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING THAT PRICE FOR THE CELLPHONE. It's simply rolled into the costing of the service, and MUCH harder to check the true cost effectiveness of the two (device and service). If providers had to advertise contractless prices primarily and list contractual bonuses seperately, it would make things much more transparent. There is no reason they cannot keep the ETF's out of the contract if they do not provide the device, and if its quite clear in the contractual bonuses that there is a penalty fee if one DOES subsidise a device.

      Also remember that if you activate your own phone on a contracted plan, the ETF is still the same regardless of whether they provided you with a phone or not (ie if you take a contracted 'special offer' and upgrade your plan with the phone you already have). Granted people can just get a new one with the new contract to not have the liability for no reason, but that seems rather wasteful if the previous device does everything the client wants already.

      People always say that you should read your contracts, but to be quite honest the majority of contractual ETF cases i ran into were situations where the customer did not even know they had a contract. If they accept a plan over the phone, are told it comes with a contract, and the notes on the account state that the user was advised of the fee (whether they were or not) good luck trying to prove it. And good luck trying to subpoena the call recording without a harsh capital investment in either time or money.
      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    5. Re:Market Forces At Work by ciscoguy01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure what you're getting at. In Europe when you want a new phone you have to shell out several hundred dollars, there are no free phones or discounts. The phone companies here give them away for free*.
      But how does the cost of the service compare between europe and the US?
      I bet it's lots less in europe than it has been here. Or until just recently.

      Here in the US they are essentially charging us monthly for the *free* phone, since no phone is really free.
      The free phones are just a mechanism to keep you signed up for long contracts. The carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment to keep you having to either pay an outlandish price for a phone with no contract or to sign up for a new contract to get it free or at a pretty small discount.

      I would guess the free phones and other sales expenses, kickbacks, etc. are costing us at least 20% of our monthly bill, and after two years if you didn't get another free phone, they don't lower your bill. They keep the extra money.

      If there were no cancelation fees then the company would have no way to make up its initial gift of a several hundred dollar phone to you if you decided to stop paying the monthly fee for it.

      If the FCC strikes down cancelation fees then the price of phones will suddenly increase several hundred bucks. This isn't necessarily a good thing for the market since almost everyone I know tends to go for the free phone or the 50 dollar phone when getting a new plan - no one is willing to spend several hundred dollars. At least, not in a lump sum up front.
      The best thing to happen is to have the cellular carriers not sell you or give you your phone at all!
      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.

      As it is now the cellphone manufacturers have only a few customers, the carriers.

      How much do you really think it costs Motorola to make a free phone at a plant in Mexico? $4-$6 for the really cheap ones that are given out free. Maybe $25 for the really fancy ones.
      As usual the problem can be solved by letting market forces work, getting cellphone manufacturers duking it out to sell you your phone through regular retailers, and having cellphone carriers duking it out to sell you your service. And you can then use whatever phone you want.

      One GOOD thing that has happened in the last year, the IPHONE came out.
      Until then cellphone manufacturers were making phones the *carriers* wanted.
      Now, we are finally getting phones that *we* want.
      But ATT was dragged kicking and screaming to the IPHONE.
      Verizon wouldn't make the deal and give up the control. They lose!
      --
      .
    6. Re:Market Forces At Work by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree the terms of the contracts might suck, but the market aparently is willing the to accept them in exchange for the service. A cell phone is not a requirement for basic health/surviaval and I don't think can justifiably be regulated the way watter and power often are.

      No one cellular carrier has a monopoly either I one though they could make more money by offering contract terms the demand side of the market would view more favorable they would leverage the advantage and do it. They don't so the people with the most information at the carriers in market terms don't feel it would be an advantage. In my personal experience I have never felt a cellular carrier tried in any way to mislead me or missrepresent the agreement I was makeing with them. I hear allot of bitching about celluar contract but I hardly ever hear people telling me they were hornswaggled. I don't the government particlarly the FCC(which is supposed to be regulating use of the air waves and this seems to be a matter of contract disputes) has any business here.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Market Forces At Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These are not market forces at work. These are the evil carriers at work.

      I paid $550 (including shipping, handling, and taxes) for an unlocked smart phone, for which the local carrier charges $700+taxes without a contract. $499+taxes with a 3-yr contract. I know for a fact that the cost to the manufacturer is around $200.

      It has built-in GPS receiver but can't save map data on the flash card and display the location on that map. Why? because the carrier my case wants to upload maps from their server and charge for data. A screen full of map on the handheld is around 100kB. Every time I move, it downloads a new map. Given the $/MB carriers charge, you do the math.

      Carriers don't allow the phone manufacturers to provide any software that will takes dollar$ away from the carrier. For ex. even if you have WiFi built-in, you may not get VoIP/WiFi software.

      Like many other have mentioned here on slashdot, carriers should be regulated to provide a connection for voice and data at a fixed monthly rate. IMHO they should be banned altogether from selling handhelds.

      Imagine if your cable/satellite provider was selling you "locked" TV receiver.

  2. So the price of phones will just increase, nice. by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always buy my phones third party, generally out of the country. Even with a weak dollar, I prefer to buy my phones in Dubai or Asia - they're usually available in the States in a few months, but I like my cell phone toy. My iMate Ultimate has been awesome and hasn't crashed once, unlike almost every telcom-provided PDA phone.

    Nonetheless, the subsidized cheap/free phones people want make sense. It's like a simple credit extension by the provider: people get free phones every few years, and the provider gets their money back and then some over the life of the contract.

    The FCC has no right to butt into this portion of the market. I'd love to see a "Non-subsidized" contract price, but my company handles all my employees' cell phone accounts, so we already get a nice reduction in our monthly price because we never take their free/cheap cell phone deals. So that option IS there, you just have to negotiate with the right department and not a retail store.

  3. Re:So the price of phones will just increase, nice by mordenkhai · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My only real issue with Cancellation fees are when you AREN'T getting a subsidized phone. I had my Treo for 2.5 years, I changed jobs and suddenly I needed significantly more minutes. I called them up, they had no problems getting me set up with a new more expensive plan, all was well. After 4 months of incorrect billing I called them and they found there was an error in the way my new plan was set up, it was fixed, all was well. Except when they made that change, they restarted my 2 year contract without telling me. So when my 2 years was up and I was moving, I wanted to combine my Cell/TV/ISP/Home phone to get a deal with another company. My current Wireless Provider wanted to charge me $200 per line, as my wife and I each have a cell on this account, to cancel. It should have been over for 2 months, but now they wanted to go by the new date and ruin my plans of consolidation which would have saved me over $100 monthly. Luckily for me I found out on the internet that the company had changed a charge on their bill and this meant they altered the plans and I was allowed to cite this change and cancel the contract w/o paying. I wont ever go back to that carrier. I don't have a major issue with the subsidized phones and the eventual charge if you bail out before your contract has paid up on the phone really, however after that I really cant see any reason other than a cash grab.

  4. Re:So the price of phones will just increase, nice by Lunatrik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I use sprint, and I brought my own phone - with no contract. Just took alot of chatting with the representatives (and a lot of call backs to get a good rep).

    In fact, I now regularly get offers to reduce my bill 5-10% if I will lock in to a 1/2 year contract. Perfectly reasonable offer, IMHO, but the fact I had to jump through so many hoops to be in such a situation is egregious.

  5. Covers The Cost Of The Equipment Discount by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The argument is:

    Phones are expensive. We give you what works out to be a $250 discount to help you cover that cost. We recoup it at $10/month during your two year contract. So, if you cancel early, we have to recoup what was essentially a loan. My question has always been:

    So, when people don't ask for that discount, when they bring their own phone or when they're happy using the phone you've already collected the cost back on...

    Where do you list your $10/month cheaper plan that doesn't have this tied in? Quoting from the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park: 250,000 tons of toxic material have been dumped in to landfills by 700 million "retired" cell phones in the U.S. alone. In addition, mining the coltan used to coat components in then, has devastated lowland gorilla and African elephant populations.

    My phone's about to come out of its two year contract. It's still perfectly functional and will likely see me through several more years just fine. I'm guessing a lot of others are in the same boat. As it stands, with no discount for already having a phone making a lie of the cost reclamation argument, most people are likely to get a new one that they consider "free," tossing their old one. Were they able to save that $10/month, how many more would be tempted to save money and, even unintentionally, end up saving a lot of damage to the environment?
  6. Re:read the effin contract by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hear you about the carrier not keeping up their end of the bargain. I canceled T-Mobile because their coverage went in the toilet and got stuck with cancelation fees even though my reason for canceling was that my T-Mobile phone had become about as useful as a brick.

    Last year I moved from southern California to the SF area to take a new job. I'd been a T-Mobile customer for four years at that point. Their coverage in SoCal was top-notch and I'd never experienced a drop call in four years. Their customer service early on was really lousy, but that had improved a lot and become very good by 2007.

    When I moved to the bay area, however, I found their coverage was absolutely crap. At work, not being able to make or receive a call, or getting a dropped connection, was commonplace. The strongest the signal ever got was two bars. Often it was less. My office is within sight of San Francisco Airport, so it's not like I'm out in BFE or something. At my house, it's even worse. Most of the time, I couldn't make or receive calls. There's only one room in the house where the phone would work most of the time, and even then, I usually had to stand in exactly the right place, facing just the right direction. If I tried moving around, I'd get a dropped call.

    T-Mobile was unable or unwilling to help at all. The only response I could get from customer service was "Our coverage map shows we have good coverage at both your home and work locations." I've got news for you, T-Mobile: your coverage map is full of crap. When your map says coverage is great and your customer who actually lives and works in that area says it stinks, you'd better believe your customer.

    I asked around at work, and everyone said T-Mobile coverage around the bay area was worthless. Everywhere, I found people who'd moved to the area and dropped T-Mobile for some other carrier. I complained to T-Mobile again and said I wanted to be released from the contract (I was about a year into a renewal) because they just had no usable coverage in my area. They refused, but I needed cell coverage so I went ahead and canceled a three-line family plan anyway. I escalated to manager level but they were steadfast in refusing to just let me walk. I considered suing them for non-performance in small claims court, but with two young kids and a new job, was just too busy.

    After looking at all available carriers, I settled in Sprint and found their coverage to be very good a both work and home, and their customer service in the store was awesome. The guy even told me some good places to fish around here, and some to not waste my time on. As for the phone customer service, I've been a Sprint customer for about 15 months now and I've never had to call them. Three months ago I had a battery go bad on one of our phones. I went to the Sprint store where I bought the phone, they checked it out, and just gave me another battery. No charge. I was out in less than five minutes.

    If anyone who works for Sprint is reading this, you rock. I've recommended you to several people as a result of my experienes.

    If anyone from T-Mobile is reading this, well, it goes the other way. A *lot* of people have heard about what a bad experience I had with you. I will never do business with T-Mobile again. You had every chance to make it right and you just blew it. I tell this story to anyone who's interested. And now it's on Slashdot. Congratulations, T-Mobile.

  7. Re:Insurance? by Adambomb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As far as i remember, two of the major carriers (Bell and Rogers) had trialed lost cellphone insurance and had the services disappear. I am unaware of any third party cell phone insurances in canada, and a quick google search left me needing to do a longer one which i can't do at work.

    The fact that such services were discontinued speaks volumes, whether they were too incompetant to properly price the insurance based on the risk probabilities or whether it was intentional to cash in on the ETFs or subscription fees being paid without possible use.

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  8. Except that's not really the way it happens by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    *Of course the price of the phone is rolled up into the price of the service you get - that's why new phones need a 2 year service plan because after 2 years you will have paid off the cost of phone. It is also why when you renew your contract you get a new phone, since you have paid off the old one and are making payments on the new one.

    That's all well and good in theory, but that isn't even remotely how things happen in practice. Cell phone companies actually use these plans to protect themselves from free market competitive forces and to secretly overcharge people for services and products they've already paid for. I can (and will) back that assertion up with examples in the next few paragraphs, but let me say first I hope those lawsuits suck tens of billions of dollars out of these cell phone companies, because they've easilly gotten billions in ill-gotten gain. On to the examples:

    When my wife and I got married December 2006, I was three months away from a new phone and and ending a two year contract. We went to Verizon and asked to consolidate our two phones into one family plan. They did this, but then without telling us extended our contract by a full year. All we wanted was consolidated billing: we kept our same phones, our same numbers, etc. Nothing changed. But they extended our contract by a year, and suddenly I'm continuing to pay off my already paid off phone, I didn't get a new one, I'm told leaving will cost me a 200 dollar termination fee (for what, I might ask, since my phone is paid off), and getting a new phone will cause them to extend my contract by two years.

    But it gets better than that. My wife and I found we weren't using all that many cell phone minutes, so we went back a few months later to lower the minutes on our plan. They secretly extended our contract again without telling us. Meaning once again I'm paying for a paid off old crappy phone, I still didn't have a new one, and I was going to get charged an early termination fee (for no justifiable reason) if I quit.

    So that's how these things really work in practice. They do nothing but screw over the consumer in what really is an entirely illegal way. Obviously, if I had known in either case my contract was going to be extended, I would have said no way (I didn't find out about those secret extensions until months after the second incident). What it comes down to is this: I was unknowingly placed by Verizon into a contract I never agreed to, and then was charged an early termination fee quitting it! That is the definition of unethical, I'm not the only one they did this to, and the judge can't take away enough billions from them to satisfy us (or make up for what all these cell phone companies have done to American consumers).

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
  9. Re:So the price of phones will just increase, nice by maggard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every major US carrier has a monthly plan. They're generally not well-advertised, and are primarily intended for those with poor credit, but they're available.

    The problem is the sheeple who honestly think that a mid-market cellphone costs US$50. They're the ones who buy that US$250 phone for US$50 (along with a 2-year contract!), the next day drop it in water / drive a truck over it / simply lose it, and then get infuriated when their carrier declines to sell them another US$250 phone for $50 (and doesn't offer a 4-year contract!).

    So the industry is stuck with a customer-base who only hate one thing more then 2-year contracts, and that is paying full price for phones!

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.