Slashdot Mirror
FCC Probes Google and T-Mobile For Double-Whammy Fees
Julie188 writes "On Monday, the FCC asked Google, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon to explain how they tell their customers about early wireless contract termination fees. Notice that Google is the only handset retailer in the bunch. That's because if someone buys a Nexus One phone from Google with a two-year T-Mobile contract, and the user wants out of that contract, the user is expected to pay two early termination fees. One fee would be charged by Google and a second charged by T-Mobile."
If they really want to know how these conditions are presented, it's better that they send in a few investigators undercover and get it all on tape. That way they can cost the jobs of a few lowest-rung minimum wage idiots who are working their ass off for a couple percent commission.
At least they will catch someone. Maybe the FCC isn't familiar with the "exculpatory no". They will become very familiar with it asking the policy makers at these companies, though. So that's nice.
Actually, I think the law requires that the carriers include these early termination fees in print no larger than 3 scan lines to remain on screen for no more than 3 frames during any commercial to be aired between the hours of 3:27a-3:28a... As an alternative, it may be included in the microprint of the signature line of any contract signed by the customer.
For communications companies, they are awfully good at not telling you anything they don't want you to pay attention to.
When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.
Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.
In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers, but the device manufacturers themselves.
So really, what is the problem here? You buy it, you do want you want with it. You lease it, you do want they want with it. Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I'm sick of it being painted as some knight in shining armour company that shits butterflies and rescues kittens in it's spare time.
To be fair, if you compare all of the services it provides for seemingly gratis, it's understandable why people have such a love for Google. I think the love for Google runs deeper than other oft-followed companies.
This whole issue strikes at the core of a bigger problem: the generally fucked state of cellphones in the USA. I expect stupid termination fees, simply because we do the entire cell phone business ass-backwards compared to the rest of the world.
So, as much as I love Google, if it has to eat it in the courts a little bit to start fixing our fucking cell phone industry, then so be it. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy the hell out of my free Gmail, Google Voice, etc...
What do you mean, they have like a sign that says they 'do less evil' or something such... a sign I tell you!
I'm sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and don't read the conditions.
The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it, not after you decide you want to back out of it.
Holy fucking fuck, why are people so fucking stupid? You're not paying Google an early termination fee, you're paying for the rest of your phone. T-Mobile is charging a termination fee, because you signed a two year contract, and you're backing out of that contract, and they want to recoup the expenses lost on your fickle ass. Yes, they're probably making money on it either way, that's kind of the whole point! When has a cell phone carrier ever not dinged you for reneging on their contracts?
You wanted an unlocked phone but you still wanted the discount for selling your soul for two years. You made yourself their bitch, so take it like a bitch.
Ask yourself who gains by spreading all this inaccurate bullshit about two termination fees? Google is selling directly to the customers, cutting carriers out of the loop. The only one optionally in the loop is T-Mobile, which is the carrier most friendly to unlocked and uncrippled phones. If this keeps up, pretty soon people might start thinking that a cell phone is simply a computer. Who buys a computer that only works with one company's internet? That's crazy. It's like a car that only works with one company's gas.
Mod parent up, Google is not charging an early termination fee, it is the unsubsidized remaining cost of the phone.
The terms of sale for a subsidized Nexus One are pretty clearly spelled out.
Note that Google recovers $350 + $179 from T-Mo, which is identical to the retail cost of an unlocked phone, or $529.
T-Mobile recovers the $179 paid by the customer up front, plus $21 = $200, . Probably T-Mobile gives the $179 back to Google, and keeps $21 for itself as its little punitive termination fee.
Probably, Google/T-Mo came up with this policy to discourage people from buying the subsidized phone, then walking away from the contract in order to export or otherwise re-sell the phone for a profit. Frankly I don't see what all the hullabaloo is here. You either pay $529 up front, or you pay more than $529 on a subsidized plan, but a sale is still a sale.
The fact is, "free" phones end up costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars over time, even cheap little Nokia or Samsung basic handsets that cost $25 or $50 to actually build. It's the way U.S. carriers make their money back on the tower infrastructure. People don't realize that they are being taken for a ride and so when Google is more up front about its pricing structure, people squawk loudly.
[from the link referenced above:] You agree to pay Google an equipment subsidy recovery fee (the "Equipment Recovery Fee") equal to the difference between the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device if you cancel your wireless plan prior to 120 days of continuous wireless service. For example, if the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan was $529 USD and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device was $179 USD with a service plan, the Equipment Recovery Fee you pay will be $350 USD in the event you cancel within the first 120 days of carrier service. The Equipment Recovery Fee is equal to the line item in your confirmation email setting forth the discount on the full priced Nexus handheld device related to your carrier service plan activiation. You authorize Google to charge the Equipment Recovery Fee directly to your credit card, or other payment method used to purchase the Nexus handheld device, upon cancellation of your wireless plan. You will not be charged the Equipment Recovery Fee if you return your Nexus handheld device to Google within the 14 day Return Policy period as set forth below. You agree that the Equipment Recovery Fee is not a penalty but is for liquidated damages Google will incur as a result of such cancellation. These damages may include, but are not limited to, loss of compensation and administrative costs associated with such cancellation or changing of wireless service provider(s), market changes, and changes in ownership. Please note that the Equipment Recovery Fee is imposed by Google and not your chosen carrier and is in addition to any early termination fees that may be charged by your chosen carrier in connection with termination of your wireless plan prior to fulfillment of your chosen carrier’s service agreement term.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Especially when the reason for the termination fee involves subsidizing that shiny new phone they couldn't have otherwise afforded.
If we eliminate early termination fees, a lot of people are just going to have to do without the latest gadgets. That might be an improvement.
I dunno - it isn't typical practice for consumers to get charged TWO sets of termination fees - so unless they're both relatively small and add up to a typical fee this could easily be seen as misleading if it wasn't CLEARLY stated.
Also - it is almost impossible to get an unsubsidized service in the US - at best you can pay the subsidized rates and just not get the subsidy. This is showing the slightest signs of changing, but we're a long way from where we need to be.
Honestly, carriers should be banned from combining phone subsidies with plan rates. They should just have two contracts - one for the service, and another for the phone. The two should be unbundled and people should be able to pick either one or terminate either one in isolation - without triggering any penalty clauses in the other.
Carriers could still charge termination fees, and subsidize phones, but if you bring your own phone you could avoid the big ones. Since the two deals couldn't be linked it would prevent games like manipulating prices on one and making it up on the other - if they charge deflated prices for the phone and inflated plans then people can just buy the phone without a plan and use it with a different carrier. If both prices reflect real costs then this won't be worth anybody's while. The purpose of subsidies should be to assist people with getting a plan who might not otherwise fork out the up-front cash - not to trap people with stuff they don't want. If they don't like the service they can take their AT&T phone and use it with T-mobile as long as they keep paying AT&T for the cost of the phone itself sans plan.
T-Mobile offers unsubsidized service for $20/mo less than subsidized.
Seriously, buying Google's phone with the subsidy is strictly for suckers.
Is that available on all plans? Ie, for any subsidized plan, is there an unsubsidized equivalent for $20 less? Does the math work out OK for family plans?
From what I've seen most of the unsubsidized plans are a lot more limited - maybe fine for somebody 22 years old and single, but often not a right fit for a lot of people.
-Google and T-Mobile now have to sell an expensive, otherwise new, phone as a refurbished phone.
-T-Mobile can't justify shafting its employee's commission because you broke the contract.
-Call it a $200 fee for the phone or a $200 fee for breaking the contract, it's still $200 for walking away one way or another.
-You signed the damn thing without finding what remedies the other parties had against you? Oh wait, this is how we got into the whole mortgage fiasco!
Except carriers have used "paying off your subsidy" as the reason for the very very high early termination fees. If, when you cancel your Nexus One contract, you need to pay Google for the rest of the phone, what are you paying for at T-Mobile?
The time to complain about a contract is BEFORE you sign it, not after you decide you want to back out of it.
Yeah, thats great and all, but I had a contract with Powertel and it got bought by T-mobile. I met the obligations of my contract and T-mobile still hit me with a $400 disconnect fee. I never paid it, they sold it to a collections agency and I explained what happened. Every so often it gets bought by a new collection agency and I send them a letter explaining that that debt is not valid and will never be paid.
What really sucks is that they have "automatic rollover" in most contracts. So that once you've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you're obligated for another 2 years. Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract. It is stupid.
Right on!
You are paying T-Mobile for the loss of money from the contract .... and possibly a subsidy on the handset?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Well, yeah, because we all know that all of the people canceling their contracts early are people who are simply doing it to do it. You know, there's no such thing as suddenly losing your job and having to cut costs or anything.
Adhesive contracts are pretty slimy. That's something I'd vigorously challenge - including going to small claims court...
You do realise that you only have to pay google the 350 IF you don't return the phone.
350+200 = 550 which is about the original price of the phone.
so
350 = current value of phone
200 = value of lost from contract (having to sell the phone at refurbished price and other things)
How is it any different from increasing the termination fee? If anything, this is better since it's specific to the expensive device and they skip out on the middle man.
I tested this out just now, the problem was it is presented far into the deal, IE they convince me I want it with the highlights and the advantages, I feel like we have a verbal contract minus some legal crap. So I decide yes, sounds good I go through 3 more pages and then fill in all my personal information, then I am finally presented with a little tag "agree to tmobile contract", read the contract... oh $200 early termination that's reasonable check and move on. Credit card details, choose your plan... now 30 minutes of time vested into the thing, oh wait google wants another $180 wtf? I thought we had a agreement? This is better than over the phone, where Qwest made me a good deal on internet $35 a month...became $45 after 30 minutes of giving lots of details on the phone, oh yeah taxes fees (asked that at the beginning was assured $35) but oh well time already invested, a OK deal I was less excited... I give notice to current provider, send back my other box, then get the hardware with another contract, and more crap like this. Well now I have sunk alott of time and effort and my other options are more costly than before we had a agreement, than when I got the final contract.
This is bait and switch IMHO, that is what google is doing IMHO, that is what these contracts seam designed to do. This is a justified investigation, spread the word and get google to post the final cost more prominently (which they are starting to do, just now.)
where did you find the link to that? I went to http://google.com/phone, no link their. I selected the tMobile plan, get a new page, still not linked that I could find. Select to purchase, couple more pages enter name, credit check... agree to tmobile contract ($200 early termination clearly spelled out.) STILL NO MENTION. What once I have transferred my number would the tell me?
Not that this would help you - unless the court gets the credit agencies to expunge your record.
Credit reporting laws are WAY too lax. If somebody merely claims you owe them money it makes you a credit risk, regardless of the merits of the situation. When a bank has thousands of people asking to borrow money, why would they even bother to investigate whether you're really a risk when they can just charge you a higher rate?
That collection is going to cost him money every time he borrows money for any purpose. His innocence is of little concern to a lender - why would they lend money to somebody who would challenge them if they reneg on their contract when they could lend money to somebody who will just roll over and pay up?
Yup - if I had my way I'd have a law passed: In addition to unbunding phone subsidies and plan costs, I'd also rule that customers cannot be charged more in a month than the lowest price quoted in an ad for the service they have. If you need to charge 37 different "recovery fees" that is fine - just include them in the advertised price.
I'd also let the customer name his maximum bill at the time the contract is signed, and the telco cannot ever exceed it (without agreement in advance in writing - naming a new explicit limit). The customer would HAVE to have the option of making that price the number on the ad. Want to offer add-ons, no problem, the customer is free to allow them or not. However, the responsibility would be on the provider to block unordered services, not on the customer to avoid hitting the web button on their phone or whatever. Likewise for roaming - you name your maximum bill, and if the carrier completes a call that exceeds this then it is free.
If you buy a subsidized phone from a 3rd party retailer ( not the carrier ) they only get their money if you stick around for a while on your contract.
Amazon has a similar policy, dinging you $250 on a Blackberry from AT&T:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=cell_dp_activationLink?ie=UTF8&docId=508597
What's interesting, is Amazon's policy doesn't say anything about dodging the fee if you return the phone.
However, you didn't get the phone for free - you paid $180 for it.
So, if you cancel your plan after three months and keep the phone your cost for the phone is 350+200+180, and in addition to this you paid extra for a few months towards the hardware (since the plan includes a recovery cost).
I'm sure that T-mobile also charges some kind of activation fee, so it isn't like they have all kinds of administrative costs to deal with (assigning a new number, etc), and even if they were it wouldn't be hundreds of dollars a line. Google Voice probably incurs all the same costs and their service is free but for the ads.
Subsidies are a lie. Your bill does not magically go down after owning a phone for two years (since part of your bill is going towards the phone you purchased). When companies start giving lower prices for fully paid for phones (or Bring Your Own), then they have a leg to stand on by calling is subsidizing phones. As it is, either your monthly bill is not subsidizing your "free" phone, or you are overpaying extra profit every month beyond when the subsidy is paid up.
No wonder these providers try and get you do sign up for your "new every two", it keeps the gravy train coming legitimately, and locks you into an extended contract again.
What really sucks is that they have "automatic rollover" in most contracts. So that once you've met your two-year obligation you have about 30 days to disconnect service or else your contract rolls over and you're obligated for another 2 years. Just by paying the 25th months bill you agree to the contract. It is stupid.
Ummm, no. T-moblie does not do this. I've been with them since they were Voicestream. Every one-year and two-year contract I every had with them that expired when straight to a month-to-month plan.
Is having to pay for the phone being called a termination fee here?? Because thats not fair to google,there not in the business of handing out free cell phones.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I've had solid luck with getting items removed. When I filed in small claims court over such a thing in the past, I asked, as part of the judgment, that the court issue an order against reporting the debt AND an order removing the items. Both were granted.
It's the "terms of sale" link at the bottom of the page you linked to.
Just another reminder that corporations exist to screw you out of as much money as they can.
The more I see of this, the more I think we need some sort of "bill of rights" for cell phone customers. I'm not against people choosing to take the subsidy, assuming they know what they're doing when they sign the contract. What I don't like is being FORCED in to a subsidy arrangement. When I signed up for T-Mobile about 5 years ago, I had a perfectly good Sony Ericsson phone, yet TMO would not just sell me a SIM card and bill me month to month. Instead, I had to take their free phone (which I shoved in a drawer) and sign a 1 year contract. Cell phone carriers need to acknowledge that this subsidy agreement is really a CREDIT agreement and handle it in the same manner as any other installment payment plan. We should see the subsidy balance and the subsidy payment amount on our statements. When our subsidy is paid off, we should get a discount on our bill equal to the subsidy payment. If we cancel our subscription, we should only pay the unpaid subsidy balance. Most importantly, we should have the option to buy or bring our "naked" phones and subscribe to a plan without the hidden subsidy surcharge. We should also have the option to unlock any phone once the subsidy is fully paid off. Example: if the subsidy is $240 over 2 years, I should see a separate $10 line item on my phone bill. If I choose to bring an unlocked phone, or if I choose to pay full retail price, my bill should be $10 less than the guy who lets the carrier give him a "free" phone. I think T-Mobile seems to be moving this way. How about the rest of you guys, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint? (Not to mention the other regional carriers.)
People don't want to buy a cell phone. They don't want to buy a service. They want both.
If they wanted to buy a phone, they would buy the phone, then look for service provider. The problem here in the US is that you can buy a phone that your preferred provider cannot support (CDMA vs GSM).
In other countries, you buy your phone, buy your SIM card and pay for your service as part of that contract, because they all run on the same basic system.
And while you may think we're backwards, it doesn't matter what you think. Reality is we're where we are, and there is not much we can do short of Government Mandates.
Personally, I have no problem with early termination fees, because they are generally stated in the contract. Don't like those terms, then don't sign the contract, and get a cheap pay as you go phone. Or pay a minor fortune for a "world phone" where you're not tied to anything what so ever.
Of course, you want it for nothing down, so you'll go with the two year contract with the early termini nation fees. And bitch and complain when your blackberry sucks compared to the new Droid, and you still have 10 months on your contract. Damn this 8330 with its crippled GPS which I'll never use.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I recently went to cancel DirecTV service - which I've had for more than a decade, only to find out they tacked on a $400 early termination fee. This had nothing to do with an agreement that I signed or ever verbally agreed to. It's just a tactic that they used to try to prevent me from leaving. The problem is that they can add on these fees and demand payment and in absence of payment, they'll affect your credit. My only solution is to go to small claims, which will cost me $75 + time and energy. Most people wouldn't go through all that and either stay or pay the fee and forget about it.
Yes, and I am sure you read every word of every EULA for every piece of software that you install as well.
Here's their plans page. Some plans it's a $10 difference. The plans with a subsidy don't mention options for adding unlimited text and web like the non-subsidy plans do.
I've been checking out T-Mobile's plans lately (I'm working on convincing myself that's it okay to spend the $550 on an N900), and as far as I can tell, it's only $10 less, but it is on every plan, both individual and family.
I've always had 6+ months lag between my contract expiring and signing a new one, and I'm on my third contract with T-Mobile. I even switched to prepaid for a couple months between the 1st and 2nd contracts with no issue. I take that back, there was an issue with the amount of my phone subsidy after going from pre-paid back to contract post-paid. But never any problems with the contract terms.
This was back in 2000-2001. I've been with Verizon ever since. T-Mobile lost a lawsuit over the issue and I think changed policy since then.
I suspect most people would love to buy a phone, then pick a service. It's just not feasible in the U.S., however, because:
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
seems pretty simple to me.. make a phone that can use both 3g frequencies and supports both GSM and CDMA.
They call these "World Phones" because they operate on quad band GSM.
CDMA is going the way of the dodo (hopefully). I like my Verizon phone, because I don't have problems with 3G coverage where I am. GSM pretty much sucks around these parts.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"Terms of Sale" link on the bottom of the first page you linked to.
The problem is, as I said, the chipsets don't exist. There's quad band GSM, but for 3G on both networks in the U.S., you would need a six-band chipset and appropriate antenna hardware. Also, any design you build that covers so many frequencies would likely result in compromising signal strength.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I'm sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people who sign up for a subsidized service and don't read the conditions.
Yes, because I'm sure you've read and fully understood all the fine print on every contract you've signed. What a fucking moronic thing to say. Tell me, if one of your contracts insisted that your family was to be sold into slavery, would you have no sympathy for yourself? People like you enable companies to screw people.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
t-mobile let me off the contract for no charge because they had few towers in my area... and they didn't even ask for any sort of annoying proof that i was in the area i said i was.
i had to retreat to at&t, but i took my nexus one with me. from the phone conversations i had with t-mobile, and the excellent customer care i received then, i'm pretty sure that if i move to an area with t-mobile in good supply, or if they expand in my neighborhood, i'll go back
still haven't gotten a bill from google yet, but i'm sure that's coming
I've been in Asia most of the last ten years and coming back to the US last summer was shocking. Your mobile service sucks, totally sucks. Your support, your choices, your prices, your implementation, pretty much every aspect of mobile telephones is lacking. On top of that, you pay and pay and pay and pay, most people don't know how to use their phones and they still pay for garbage they don't know how to use. Oh, Sure, the land of the free and all that, I'm in China right now and there is nowhere within a 1000 km of me where I can't get excellent service, no dropped calls, 3g coverage etc. I can walk or ride my bike a short distance almost anywhere and buy a new SIM card (and therefore a new number) for $5.00 US as well as pay $3.00 US for my monthly coverage bill (not including call charges which are pennies a minute). The new card can be dropped whenever I choose or continued and used whenever I choose. Oh yeah, there are freedom problems in China, don't get me wrong I am not claiming that this is the best place in the world, but compare the phone service to the US and i plan on throwing the damn thing away if i go back to the US because what you have there is just plain stupid and demeaning.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
These days I know what the licenses are without needing to read them. GPL, BSD, Apache.
Yes, because I'm sure you've read and fully understood all the fine print on every contract you've signed.
Yes I do. Reading and understanding the document is a prerequisite of signing it. Can't be much plainer then that.
Tell me, if one of your contracts insisted that your family was to be sold into slavery, would you have no sympathy for yourself?
Now THAT is a moronic thing to say. Firstly - If I had read the contract I would not have signed it. Secondly such a contract would be illegal even if I WAS dumb enough to sign it.
People like you enable companies to screw people.
No, people who don't read contracts allow companies to screw them. Common sense says a corporation is not giving away expensive gadgets because they want to be your friend. Before you even look at the contract you should know that something akin to an early termination fee will be in there. Don't be a sucker.
Yes I do. Reading and understanding the document is a prerequisite of signing it. Can't be much plainer then that.
You are quite simply and plainly a liar. There are not enough hours in the day to read every contract you have to. Important contracts, sure. But every EULA for every piece of software? Gimme a break.
Now THAT is a moronic thing to say. Firstly - If I had read the contract I would not have signed it. Secondly such a contract would be illegal even if I WAS dumb enough to sign it.
Not moronic at all. Both your points are true, but a logical extension of your argument is that such protections should not exist, because everyone should read every contract in full before signing. Are you conveniently forgetting that being double charged for breaking the contract is coming under investigation by the very kinds of authorities that offer the protection you're waving in my face. If you have no issue with being protected like this, you should not have "no sympathy" for those who are similarly protected against exploitative break of contract clauses in their mobile phone contract. Your argument is not logically consistent.
No, people who don't read contracts allow companies to screw them. Common sense says a corporation is not giving away expensive gadgets because they want to be your friend. Before you even look at the contract you should know that something akin to an early termination fee will be in there. Don't be a sucker.
Make up your mind. Should there be protection against exploitative fine print in a contract or should there not? You seem to be in favour of protection for the extreme circumstances like selling your family into slavery, but fine with it for excessive contract termination fees. Make some sense would you!?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You are quite simply and plainly a liar.
You have quite plainly demonstrated that you are a douche, but not why I must be a liar. I can't think of any software I use that came with an EULA, although I usually read the license it comes with if it is new to me. For example, the GPL took me 3/4 of an hour to read 8 years ago. I don't have to re-read it every time I install a new package.
But the rest of your rant makes no sense. Where did you get the idea I was for abolishing the protections that exist? How does suggesting that people be responsible for what they sign mean that I believe companies are free to write whatever conditions they like? What kind of logic are you using?
Whatever was going through your mind, the fact is that in THIS case we are talking about a straight up contract - there was no adhesion or exploitation.
Meh.Phone companies have always done their best to squeeze every drop of blood from the turnips that are their customers. Plans and bundles and contracts, all smoke and mirrors designed to disguise the fact that they simply want to charge you for breathing but cannot, hence the paperwork. The thing that I would like to see eliminated is this inane "minutes" limit. We are SO past that with today's technology, yet they keep on sticking it to us and we sheep keep on getting sheared.
You have quite plainly demonstrated that you are a douche, but not why I must be a liar.
Here's the thing, I'm not getting personal when I call you a liar. I simply do not believe that you could possibly have read every document. You're just name calling when you call me a douche. I don't suppose you'll see the difference but that's your problem.
I can't think of any software I use that came with an EULA, although I usually read the license it comes with if it is new to me. For example, the GPL took me 3/4 of an hour to read 8 years ago.
Ah I see. So have you ever used anything that's licensed as GPL 3? What about a BSD license? Has any software you've used varied from the GPL? Are you fucking seriously telling me you read and digested the entire GPL in 3/4 of an hour, with all it's implications, when there are grey areas around it? (Why do you think GPL 3 was created?)
But the rest of your rant makes no sense.
Perhaps if you refuse to try to understand it.
Where did you get the idea I was for abolishing the protections that exist? How does suggesting that people be responsible for what they sign mean that I believe companies are free to write whatever conditions they like? What kind of logic are you using?
The same logic that hauls Google and T-Mobile up to answer for their inclusion of terms in the contract that are not reasonable and allow them to double dip and overcharge for breaking a contract. Those same protections that make it illegal and unenforceable to enslave your family in the fine print of a contract are the ones that come into play for this story. I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand.
Whatever was going through your mind, the fact is that in THIS case we are talking about a straight up contract - there was no adhesion or exploitation.
You don't think that charging more for a device under a break of contract than for a brand new device up front is exploitative? And you call me a douche? Get a grip!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I'm not getting personal when I call you a liar. I simply do not believe that you could possibly have read every document. You're just name calling when you call me a douche.
I'm here to tell you that when you call someone a liar it is deeply offensive. You are claiming (without any well founded reason for doing so) that I am dishonest, directly impinging my character. This is such a dangerous thing to do that people often end up in court for it.
On the other hand, by calling you a douche I was invoking a common term for somebody behaving in unpleasant and abrasive fashion, and since that is what you were doing by calling me a liar in a public forum, was entirely warranted.
The oddest thing about this whole exchange is that I have never said or believed any of the things you seem to be attacking me for. These ideas sprung forth fully formed from your own brain. Further discussion seems futile at this point. Have a nice day, Sir!
As a previous sales rep for an authorized reseller for a big cell company (in the US and not for T-Mobile), I have to tell everyone that whenever an authorized reseller sells a phone to a customer, that customer has 2 contracts. One with the cell company and another with the company selling the phone. The cell company's contract is like usual, with the deal about their etf (early termination fee) and the company that sold you the phone has a contract usually stating something along the lines of: if you cancel the service and do not return the phone back within x days, they will charge you for the full (unsubsidized) cost of the phone.
This is normal.. The cell phone company gives the company selling the phone (and contract) money for the contract, meaning if the contract is canceled before x days (I think its usually 90) the cell company doesn't get paid for the phone and loses money. It does suck though because currently, the only company to offer comparable contract-less plans (and therefore no etf) is T-Mobile, but for that to work people need to realize the actual cost of the phones and not be shocked by a $300-$600 phone prices.
Anyways, I'm happy with my contract-less plan with T-Mobile and the amount paid for my Nexus One.