Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 69
  1. #31
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone

    In article <K***[email protected]>,
    "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > >
    > > Nothing false about getting out of a "contract" if you have no coverage,
    > > regardless of excuse the Carrier might make.

    >
    > Like I said, glad you finally agree with me. If the problem is the carrier's
    > fault and permanent, he will be let of contract.


    Yes, but most often the carrier will deny fault.



    See More: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone




  2. #32
    Jason Cothran
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <K***[email protected]>,
    > "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Nothing false about getting out of a "contract" if you have no
    >> > coverage,
    >> > regardless of excuse the Carrier might make.

    >>
    >> Like I said, glad you finally agree with me. If the problem is the
    >> carrier's
    >> fault and permanent, he will be let of contract.

    >
    > Yes, but most often the carrier will deny fault.


    As will the consumer most often. Unfortunately, due to the legalities
    involved, it is the consumer which must prove otherwise. If not, the
    contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    subsidized.





  3. #33
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > If not, the
    > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    > subsidized.


    Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    made to be legally binding.

    If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
    contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.



  4. #34
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > If not, the
    > > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    > > subsidized.

    >
    > Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    > is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    > made to be legally binding.


    The only fiction is your statement above. It does have basis in contract
    law, and you need to back up your baseless opinion with fact for once.

    >
    > If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
    > contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


    Again, not true. If there was no coverage in an area when you signed up for
    service, and you did not discover it during the 14 day trial period, legally
    you are obligated to the terms of the agreement. However, if the condition
    of service deteriorates during the term of the agreement, you may have an
    out, but only after informing the carrier of the problem and giving them
    time to correct the situation.






  5. #35
    Jason Cothran
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | In article <[email protected]>,
    | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | > If not, the
    | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    | > subsidized.
    |
    | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    | made to be legally binding.


    100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free or
    at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
    could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
    drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
    better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.

    The contract signed when purchasing a subsidized phone is and always has
    been a legally binding contract. As long as the Carrier holds up their end
    of the contract, the end user is lawfully required to do the same.

    |
    | If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
    | contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    As usual coming from you, 100% false. That is what the trial period is for.
    The ONLY way the contract is no longer legally binding is if the carrier has
    done something to change the service in the area. Examples: reduced the
    power, completely taken a tower offline for some reason, switched
    technologies which resulted in a significant difference in range. Without
    the ability for the end user to prove any of the following, the case likely
    will not ever even be heard by even the smallest of courts.






  6. #36
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > | In article <[email protected]>,
    > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > |
    > | > If not, the
    > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    > | > subsidized.
    > |
    > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    > | made to be legally binding.
    >
    >
    > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free

    or
    > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
    > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
    > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
    > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
    >
    > The contract signed when purchasing a subsidized phone is and always has
    > been a legally binding contract. As long as the Carrier holds up their end
    > of the contract, the end user is lawfully required to do the same.
    >
    > |
    > | If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
    > | contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
    >
    > As usual coming from you, 100% false. That is what the trial period is

    for.
    > The ONLY way the contract is no longer legally binding is if the carrier

    has
    > done something to change the service in the area. Examples: reduced the
    > power, completely taken a tower offline for some reason, switched
    > technologies which resulted in a significant difference in range. Without
    > the ability for the end user to prove any of the following, the case

    likely
    > will not ever even be heard by even the smallest of courts.
    >
    >


    Good post. One more thing- a decline in coverage may not indicate a problem
    with the carrier. Where coverage was once good at the very fringe of a
    site's area, what happens when a six story hotel goes up between you and the
    tower? And how would that be the carrier's fault or liability?





  7. #37
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > | In article <[email protected]>,
    > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > |
    > | > If not, the
    > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    > | > subsidized.
    > |
    > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    > | made to be legally binding.
    >
    >
    > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free or
    > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
    > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
    > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
    > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.


    A phone is not a car. And if your car all the sudden flat didnt work,
    you'd have the same recourse. You never heard of Lemon laws?



  8. #38
    Jason Cothran
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    |
    | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | news:[email protected]...
    | >
    | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | > news:[email protected]...
    | > | In article <[email protected]>,
    | > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    | > |
    | > | > If not, the
    | > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    | > | > subsidized.
    | > |
    | > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    | > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    | > | made to be legally binding.
    | >
    | >
    | > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free
    | or
    | > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
    | > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
    | > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
    | > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
    | >
    | > The contract signed when purchasing a subsidized phone is and always has
    | > been a legally binding contract. As long as the Carrier holds up their
    end
    | > of the contract, the end user is lawfully required to do the same.
    | >
    | > |
    | > | If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
    | > | contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
    | >
    | > As usual coming from you, 100% false. That is what the trial period is
    | for.
    | > The ONLY way the contract is no longer legally binding is if the carrier
    | has
    | > done something to change the service in the area. Examples: reduced the
    | > power, completely taken a tower offline for some reason, switched
    | > technologies which resulted in a significant difference in range.
    Without
    | > the ability for the end user to prove any of the following, the case
    | likely
    | > will not ever even be heard by even the smallest of courts.
    | >
    | >
    |
    | Good post. One more thing- a decline in coverage may not indicate a
    problem
    | with the carrier. Where coverage was once good at the very fringe of a
    | site's area, what happens when a six story hotel goes up between you and
    the
    | tower? And how would that be the carrier's fault or liability?
    |

    I wouldn't think that the carrier would be liable in that situation. It all
    goes back to the "trial period". It is obvious if you are on the edge of
    service. If so, it would be a good idea to go with another provider. I am
    not sure abou thte legalities behind getting out of contract for that, but I
    personally would hold a carrier responsible if I was the one that accepted
    the bad coverage to begin with.





  9. #39
    Jason Cothran
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | In article <[email protected]>,
    | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | > news:[email protected]...
    | > | In article <[email protected]>,
    | > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    | > |
    | > | > If not, the
    | > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    | > | > subsidized.
    | > |
    | > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    | > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    | > | made to be legally binding.
    | >
    | >
    | > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free
    or
    | > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
    | > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
    | > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
    | > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
    |
    | A phone is not a car. And if your car all the sudden flat didnt work,
    | you'd have the same recourse. You never heard of Lemon laws?

    Of course, but this isn't a situation where the phone flat doesn't work. It
    is a situation where OP said his phone used to sometimes work in the parking
    lot, and now it doesn't. He has admitted it never worked inside his
    apartment. Also, if you know anything about lemon laws, you also know that
    the dealer is afforded the opportunity to repair the problem three times.
    upon repair, if the same EXACT problem occurs three times, then the dealer
    must take another course of action. If OP was on the fringe of service to
    begin with, which he admittedly was, this is a legal no brainer. Eat the
    ETF, or keep the phone and use it inside the service area he was happy
    enough with when e signed the legally binding document.





  10. #40
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >


    > |
    >
    > I wouldn't think that the carrier would be liable in that situation. It

    all
    > goes back to the "trial period". It is obvious if you are on the edge of
    > service. If so, it would be a good idea to go with another provider. I am
    > not sure abou thte legalities behind getting out of contract for that, but

    I
    > personally would hold a carrier responsible if I was the one that accepted
    > the bad coverage to begin with.
    >
    >


    Personally 'would' or 'wouldn't' hold a carrier responsible if you were the
    one that accepted
    the bad coverage to begin with?

    In my case, I certainly live on the very edge of coverage (certain areas of
    the house are dead) and have everything going against me- I'm at least a
    mile and a half away from the nearest tower, which I'm sure is there to
    service the major military installations on the other side of the tower.
    The terrain between here and the tower is very hilly with established, TALL
    vegetation. Bottom line- signal at my house is not guaranteed. Is it the
    carrier's fault? Absolutely not- I've learned to live with it. And if a
    building goes up between here and the tower that blocks what signal I get,
    it won't be the carrier's fault, either.

    Anybody that expects coverage to improve at the very edge of already
    provided coverage won't always get their wish. In my case, I'm sure that we
    are very far down the list for new towers in my area, and I can see the
    business logic of that- there are more populous areas that trump my own
    needs. There is no guarantee that coverage is going to get better.





  11. #41
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > | In article <[email protected]>,
    > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > |
    > | >
    > | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > | > news:[email protected]...
    > | > | In article <[email protected]>,
    > | > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > | > |
    > | > | > If not, the
    > | > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
    > | > | > subsidized.
    > | > |
    > | > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
    > | > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
    > | > | made to be legally binding.
    > | >
    > | >
    > | > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free
    > or
    > | > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
    > | > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
    > | > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
    > | > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
    > |
    > | A phone is not a car. And if your car all the sudden flat didnt work,
    > | you'd have the same recourse. You never heard of Lemon laws?
    >
    > Of course, but this isn't a situation where the phone flat doesn't work. It
    > is a situation where OP said his phone used to sometimes work in the parking
    > lot, and now it doesn't.


    "Now it doesn't" Then he should be let out of contract. Open and shut
    case.



  12. #42
    Jason Cothran
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | In article <[email protected]>,
    | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | > news:[email protected]...
    | > | In article <[email protected]>,
    | > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    | > |
    | > | >
    | > | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | > | > news:[email protected]...
    | > | > | In article <[email protected]>,
    | > | > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    | > | > |
    | > | > | > If not, the
    | > | > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone
    was
    | > | > | > subsidized.
    | > | > |
    | > | > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to
    believe. It
    | > | > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not
    be
    | > | > | made to be legally binding.
    | > | >
    | > | >
    | > | > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone
    free
    | > or
    | > | > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
    | > | > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance
    company,
    | > | > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found
    something
    | > | > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
    | > |
    | > | A phone is not a car. And if your car all the sudden flat didnt work,
    | > | you'd have the same recourse. You never heard of Lemon laws?
    | >
    | > Of course, but this isn't a situation where the phone flat doesn't work.
    It
    | > is a situation where OP said his phone used to sometimes work in the
    parking
    | > lot, and now it doesn't.
    |
    | "Now it doesn't" Then he should be let out of contract. Open and shut
    | case.

    Wrong. If the carrier changed something that has caused him to not have a
    signal in his parking lot, then he should be let out of contract, open and
    shut. If not, he must prove in a court if law, that the carrier changed
    something to degrade his signal. That will be very very difficult if not
    impossible for him to do. He must also prove that he did once have a signal
    there.





  13. #43
    Jason Cothran
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    |
    | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | news:[email protected]...
    | >
    |
    | > |
    | >
    | > I wouldn't think that the carrier would be liable in that situation. It
    | all
    | > goes back to the "trial period". It is obvious if you are on the edge of
    | > service. If so, it would be a good idea to go with another provider. I
    am
    | > not sure abou thte legalities behind getting out of contract for that,
    but
    | I
    | > personally would hold a carrier responsible if I was the one that
    accepted
    | > the bad coverage to begin with.
    | >
    | >
    |
    | Personally 'would' or 'wouldn't' hold a carrier responsible if you were
    the
    | one that accepted
    | the bad coverage to begin with?
    |
    | In my case, I certainly live on the very edge of coverage (certain areas
    of
    | the house are dead) and have everything going against me- I'm at least a
    | mile and a half away from the nearest tower, which I'm sure is there to
    | service the major military installations on the other side of the tower.
    | The terrain between here and the tower is very hilly with established,
    TALL
    | vegetation. Bottom line- signal at my house is not guaranteed. Is it the
    | carrier's fault? Absolutely not- I've learned to live with it. And if a
    | building goes up between here and the tower that blocks what signal I get,
    | it won't be the carrier's fault, either.
    |
    | Anybody that expects coverage to improve at the very edge of already
    | provided coverage won't always get their wish. In my case, I'm sure that
    we
    | are very far down the list for new towers in my area, and I can see the
    | business logic of that- there are more populous areas that trump my own
    | needs. There is no guarantee that coverage is going to get better.
    |

    My apologies, that was supposed to read "wouldn't".

    I am not on the very edge of a service area at my home, but I am a decent
    distance from the closest tower. I do have a signal, but usually only one or
    two bars (T616, so 1 or two bars is not that bad <wink>. Equates to about
    3/4 signal on most phones even though my reception is better than most). It
    is more than enough to make crystal clear calls and I have never dropped one
    from my home. The main reason I chose Cingular over Verizon (Verizon has a
    tower very very close to my home) was for coverage in areas other than my
    house. Verizon will not work in certain areas inside my work, and will not
    work at all at my lake house. The other local carriers (Sprint, Suncom,
    Nextel, Alltel) where not even considered. Their regional coverage here is
    HORRIBLE.





  14. #44
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Wrong. If the carrier changed something that has caused him to not have a
    > signal in his parking lot, then he should be let out of contract, open and
    > shut.



    He should, but most often a carrier will refuse. That is where a letter
    to the State's Attorney general works wonders. No need to go to court.



    > If not, he must prove in a court if law, that the carrier changed
    > something to degrade his signal. That will be very very difficult if not
    > impossible for him to do. He must also prove that he did once have a signal
    > there.




  15. #45
    Jason Cothran
    Guest

    Re: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | In article <[email protected]>,
    | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | > Wrong. If the carrier changed something that has caused him to not have
    a
    | > signal in his parking lot, then he should be let out of contract, open
    and
    | > shut.
    |
    |
    | He should, but most often a carrier will refuse. That is where a letter
    | to the State's Attorney general works wonders. No need to go to court.
    |

    I agree, if something on the carrier's end has changed. Of course as we all
    know and I am the only one dumb enough to try to convince you of, a letter
    to the state's attorney general will be laughed at and thrown away.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast