Cingular-- Breach of Contract

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:25:35
-0400, Customer Service <[email protected]> wrote:

>Right you are, Frankwild. This is exactly why I created a web site for
>people who are perturbed by Cingular Wireless -- the most unethical
>corporation in existence today.

Nonsense.

>Did you know that Cingular gives each job applicant a psychological
>profile "quiz" to determine whether they have morals? Those "burdened"
>with ethics, religion, philosophy -- are not hired. Those with
>"flexible" morality -- are brought on board.

Baloney.

Get a life.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Cingular-- Breach of Contract

> > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "[ a m z ]" wrote:
>
> All you need to do is point out a single ruling that led to the complete
> rewrite of blanket service agreements. If you can't do that, please don't
> bother to respond- nothing you could say would carry the same weight.

Oh, so it is an all-or-nothing proposition? My guess is that your only
exposure to the law has been fighting a parking ticket with a magistrate.
You don't need to do a complete rewrite in order to make a contract legal.
That is why... and you should pay close attention here... there is usually a
section called "severability" in good contracts. Why? Because sometimes
smart (plaintiffs') attorneys find holes in supposedly ironclad contracts.


> Name one other industry that has been exposed to the same
> scrutiny by consumer groups, media and kicking and screaming
> consumers over the last three years and has not been forced to
> change business practices.

What business practices has cellular changed??!! Despite all kinds of
kicking and screaming, there still is spotty coverage, the customer service
gets progressively worse and the monthly bills get more complex every year.
What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O
tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? The local
grocery store can't. Your dry cleaner can't. It is just another way to
advertise $29.95 per month and actually bill $40.


> > You say "there has been no finding by any court." Do you have cites to
> > cases where customers have sued?
>
> Um- that would be your job here, not mine. I do have detailed knowledge
> about the contents of service agreements over the last decade and know
that
> the same basic TOS have existed over that time.

Again, just because they have been around and/or unchallenged for years
doesn't mean they'd hold up in court.


> So it is your position that in today's litigious society, nobody has
> initiated legal action concerning the terms of a cellular contract? Hell-
> there are probably at least a dozen reading this thread. And some of them
> would rather have burned for eternity than accept a partial settlement
from
> the carrier.

Nobody said "partial settlement." If they got a full settlement of their
grievances / damages (not including the inflated punitives requested), they
likely settled -- and undoubtedly had to shut up about it. It is one heck
of a battle to go up against a huge corporation and you don't always win.
Anyone with the money to pay for it out-of-pocket doesn't care about $29.95
vs. $39.95 per month. And an attorney taking something on contingency will
settle if the money is enough and there is no court time. You're not going
to find an attorney taking on the big, evil cell carriers for no money.

> > And legislators... well, let's just
> > say they aren't all top-drawer lawyers.
>
> And your point is what? That cellular providers enjoy some
> kind of unique advantage because of this?

No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle
complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation.

> Fact- no person, group or entity has been able to convince a court that
> cellular service agreements are written in language that violates any
> portion of contract law.

If there have been no court cases, then no court has reviewed the matter.
If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give me
one cite.

It sounds fair to me.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:06:40 -0700, "[
a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Name one other industry that has been exposed to the same
>> scrutiny by consumer groups, media and kicking and screaming
>> consumers over the last three years and has not been forced to
>> change business practices.
>
>What business practices has cellular changed??!!

Disclosure.
Coverage maps.
Grace period.
Billing.

>Despite all kinds of
>kicking and screaming, there still is spotty coverage, the customer service
>gets progressively worse and the monthly bills get more complex every year.

Given that this is a radio service, coverage is actually quite good in most
areas. Customer Service (as measured by a variety of metrics) is no worse.
Monthly bills are mostly complex because of disclosure and attractive
promotions.

>What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O
>tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? The local
>grocery store can't. Your dry cleaner can't. It is just another way to
>advertise $29.95 per month and actually bill $40.

That's grossly exaggerated and misleading. On my last bill, total charges
were just $3.43. There were also taxes of $1.10, but then my grocery and dry
cleaner add on taxes too. The total of $4.53 as a percentage add-on is
actually *lower* than the sales tax added on to most prices in this state.

>Nobody said "partial settlement." If they got a full settlement of their
>grievances / damages (not including the inflated punitives requested), they
>likely settled -- and undoubtedly had to shut up about it. It is one heck
>of a battle to go up against a huge corporation and you don't always win.
>Anyone with the money to pay for it out-of-pocket doesn't care about $29.95
>vs. $39.95 per month. And an attorney taking something on contingency will
>settle if the money is enough and there is no court time. You're not going
>to find an attorney taking on the big, evil cell carriers for no money.

It's actually cheap and easy; e.g., BBB, state Attorney General, and/or Small
Claims. With reasonable claims, I've always gotten complete satisfaction.

>No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle
>complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation.

Surely you jest. Carriers have both excellent legal resources and excellent
political connections.

>If there have been no court cases, then no court has reviewed the matter.
>If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give me
>one cite.

The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any
specific language that's even arguably unenforceable.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:>
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> >> > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >What business practices has cellular changed??!!
>
> Disclosure.

Of what? Nothing new in the last 5 years...

> Coverage maps.

Which are iffy at best. Not only that, but the resolution of any
publicly-available maps is sufficiently bad as to skip over gaps.

> Grace period.

Will give you that one.

> Billing.

How? My old Vector One bills from 20 years ago were much simpler.

> Given that this is a radio service, coverage is actually quite good in
most
> areas.

Urban or rural? Even SEMI-rural areas like the Olympic Peninsula and other
areas just off the I-5 corridor are spotty at best.

> Customer Service (as measured by a variety of metrics) is no worse.

Do you have links to outside audited data?

> Monthly bills are mostly complex because of disclosure and attractive
> promotions.

Disclosure? Line-iteming fees is a way to make things MORE complex. If
bread was advertised at 10 cents a loaf, but they added a "bagging fee,"
"mandatory health code maintenance fee" and a "gross receipts tax" that made
it 50 cents, that practice would get shut down quickly.

> >What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O
> >tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? The local
> >grocery store can't. Your dry cleaner can't. It is just another way to
> >advertise $29.95 per month and actually bill $40.
>
> That's grossly exaggerated and misleading. On my last bill, total charges
> were just $3.43. There were also taxes of $1.10, but then my grocery and
dry
> cleaner add on taxes too. The total of $4.53 as a percentage add-on is
> actually *lower* than the sales tax added on to most prices in this state.

My basic service is $50 ($39.95 plan + $10 data). In addition to that, I
paid $14.76 in various surcharges and taxes (federal, state, county and
local). Of that, only $6.39 was sales tax. What is interesting, though, is
that sales tax in this area is only 8.6%. Where did the other 3+% come
from? Tax on the excise taxes and surcharges??!!


> It's actually cheap and easy; e.g., BBB, state Attorney General, and/or
Small
> Claims. With reasonable claims, I've always gotten complete satisfaction.

You're making my point for me. I said that the contracts have gone
unchallenged because they'll settle instead of putting up a test case.


> >No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle
> >complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation.
>
> Surely you jest. Carriers have both excellent legal resources and
excellent
> political connections.

I'm saying that LEGISLATORS lack the legal training to properly know what is
going on. And yes, the telecom industry has well-paid lobbyists, too.


> >If there have been no court cases, then no court has reviewed the matter.
> >If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give
me
> >one cite.
>
> The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any
> specific language that's even arguably unenforceable.

The fact that the customer cannot simply "walk away" from the terms of the
contract, but the carrier can (or can alter terms at will) makes the
contract unfair on its face.

As for cites, how can I prove a negative? Scott said (or at least implied)
that courts have upheld the contracts. I'm saying that I'd bet there are NO
test cases. It is up to Scott or you or anyone else to show a test case
where the contract was challenged and upheld. Otherwise it would be like me
saying, "courts have upheld the fact that Cingular broadcasts mind-control
tones over your cell phone" and then insisting that you prove that they
haven't.

"[ a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> >
> > All you need to do is point out a single ruling that led to the complete
> > rewrite of blanket service agreements. If you can't do that, please
don't
> > bother to respond- nothing you could say would carry the same weight.
>
> Oh, so it is an all-or-nothing proposition? My guess is that your only
> exposure to the law has been fighting a parking ticket with a magistrate.

That would be more than mildly inaccurate. However, I'm getting the opinion
that it might be more becoming of your experience.


> You don't need to do a complete rewrite in order to make a contract legal.
> That is why... and you should pay close attention here... there is usually
a
> section called "severability" in good contracts. Why? Because sometimes
> smart (plaintiffs') attorneys find holes in supposedly ironclad contracts.

I am not the one needing to pay close attention- your contention is that the
contract is extremely unfair to the consumer. Such a contract would come
under extreme scrutiny and the GREAT MAJORITY of the subscriber agreement
would have to be rewritten to bring equity to the contract.


>
>
> > Name one other industry that has been exposed to the same
> > scrutiny by consumer groups, media and kicking and screaming
> > consumers over the last three years and has not been forced to
> > change business practices.
>
> What business practices has cellular changed??!!

That wasn't the question- reread and try again.

> Despite all kinds of
> kicking and screaming, there still is spotty coverage,

It is radio service- the expectation of blanket coverage is highly
unrealistic.

> the customer service
> gets progressively worse

Not according to every indipendent survey done over the last 18 months.

> and the monthly bills get more complex every year.

Thanks to government regulations and legal decisions that have forced it.
How much money would the carriers save if they could eliminate all of that
'confusion' from the bill. Multiply the cost of printing a couple of pages
of the bill by millions of subscibers.


> What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O
> tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge?

Electric
Sewer and Water
Grocery
Retail
Transportation


> The local
> grocery store can't.

It can't? The sales tax is based on receipts and it is itemized.

> Your dry cleaner can't. It is just another way to
> advertise $29.95 per month and actually bill $40.

Be careful what you ask for- maybe the cellcos should start charging
everyone an extra $20 a month to cover the taxes in NYC, which are
ridiculous. Not a great deal if you live in an area that taxes at a tenth
of what NYC does. But this is exactly what you wanting- taxes rolled into
the price of the plan.
>
>
> > > You say "there has been no finding by any court." Do you have cites
to
> > > cases where customers have sued?
> >
> > Um- that would be your job here, not mine. I do have detailed knowledge
> > about the contents of service agreements over the last decade and know
> that
> > the same basic TOS have existed over that time.
>
> Again, just because they have been around and/or unchallenged for years
> doesn't mean they'd hold up in court.

Time for you to read real slow- the list of consumer groups, politicians and
media organizations alone that would love nothing more than to prove
something like this would fill the rest of this post. At least two of the
networks have run negative features on the industry in the last year. State
AG's have gone on record about cellular practices. People have written to
the FCC and their government representatives to complain about the perceived
injustice. The BBB, FCC, Consumers Union and countless other organizations
handle thousands of complaints a year. With the exception of the FCC, every
other person or organization I have just mentioned would love nothing more
than to bring the evil cellcos to their knees. And yet, the practice is
allowed to continue. Why? Could it be because all of the above recognize
that the contract is fair and valid and wqould stand up to a legal
challenge?

>
>
> > So it is your position that in today's litigious society, nobody has
> > initiated legal action concerning the terms of a cellular contract?
Hell-
> > there are probably at least a dozen reading this thread. And some of
them
> > would rather have burned for eternity than accept a partial settlement
> from
> > the carrier.
>
> Nobody said "partial settlement." If they got a full settlement of their
> grievances / damages (not including the inflated punitives requested),
they
> likely settled -- and undoubtedly had to shut up about it.

And yet the Service Agreement remains unchanged.

> It is one heck
> of a battle to go up against a huge corporation and you don't always win.
> Anyone with the money to pay for it out-of-pocket doesn't care about
$29.95
> vs. $39.95 per month. And an attorney taking something on contingency
will
> settle if the money is enough and there is no court time. You're not
going
> to find an attorney taking on the big, evil cell carriers for no money.

See the list of people and organizations I mentioned above. Most- if not
all- have the deep pockets to finance such a battle.

>
> > > And legislators... well, let's just
> > > say they aren't all top-drawer lawyers.
> >
> > And your point is what? That cellular providers enjoy some
> > kind of unique advantage because of this?
>
> No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle
> complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation.

And this represents an exclusive benefit to cellular just how?

>
> > Fact- no person, group or entity has been able to convince a court that
> > cellular service agreements are written in language that violates any
> > portion of contract law.
>
> If there have been no court cases, then no court has reviewed the matter.
> If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give me
> one cite.

Google it- there are hundreds.

>
>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ALqOe.10191$p%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>

>
> The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any
> specific language that's even arguably unenforceable.
>
> --

Actually John, this is a great point. I'm betting that the bad terms are
more in the line of dislikes and are totally enforceable.

"Scott" wrote:
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
>
>
> your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the consumer.

So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but
consumer can't" is a FAIR contract? I'm guessing you work for one of the
wireless companies??

> > What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing
B&O
> > tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge?
>
> Electric, Sewer and Water, Grocery, Retail Transportation
>
> > The local grocery store can't.
>
> It can't? The sales tax is based on receipts and it is itemized.

Sales tax is different than a B&O tax.

> Time for you to read real slow

You know, I can actually read far faster than you can think and type, so I'm
doin' OK.

> ... And yet, the practice is allowed to continue. Why? Could it be
because
> all of the above recognize that the contract is fair and valid and wqould
stand
> up to a legal challenge?

Or maybe because nobody has ever brought a case (or at least without
settling and sealing).

I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. In court, the burden
would be upon Cingular to show legal precedent for upholding the contract.
If there are as many cases as you say, you should have no problem citing
just ONE that says that the provider can cancel at will without
compensation.

"[ a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Scott" wrote:
> > "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> >
> >
> > your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the
consumer.
>
> So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but
> consumer can't" is a FAIR contract?

Where did I say that? There are terms specified in the contract that allow
both the company and customer to void the contract under certain conditions,
so your contention that the consumer can't is patently false.

> I'm guessing you work for one of the
> wireless companies??

Keep guessing.

>
> > > What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing
> B&O
> > > tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge?
> >
> > Electric, Sewer and Water, Grocery, Retail Transportation
> >
> > > The local grocery store can't.
> >
> > It can't? The sales tax is based on receipts and it is itemized.
>
> Sales tax is different than a B&O tax.

A tax on receipts is a tax on receipts......period.

>
> > Time for you to read real slow
>
> You know, I can actually read far faster than you can think and type, so
I'm
> doin' OK.

When do you plan on showing it.

>
> > ... And yet, the practice is allowed to continue. Why? Could it be
> because
> > all of the above recognize that the contract is fair and valid and
wqould
> stand
> > up to a legal challenge?
>
> Or maybe because nobody has ever brought a case (or at least without
> settling and sealing).

Actually, the hundreds I mentioned before were brought before a judge and
not sealed.

>
> I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. In court, the burden
> would be upon Cingular to show legal precedent for upholding the contract.

Which they have obviously done. You claim to be such a smart guy- the truth
is not that hard to find.

> If there are as many cases as you say, you should have no problem citing
> just ONE that says that the provider can cancel at will without
> compensation.

But that is not what is being argued here. For the fifth time, I agree with
the OP that he has a case in this instance for the change in contract terms.
What part of that last statement is hanging you up?

>
>

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> > >
> > > your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the
> consumer.
> >
> > So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but
> > consumer can't" is a FAIR contract?
>
> Where did I say that? There are terms specified in the contract that
allow
> both the company and customer to void the contract under certain
conditions,
> so your contention that the consumer can't is patently false.

I said AT WILL -- which is essentially what they're doing to the OP. Name
one circumstance that is entirely under the customer's control (and not a
reaction to something the provider did or changed) that allows the customer
to just walk away with no penalty.


> > Sales tax is different than a B&O tax.
>
> A tax on receipts is a tax on receipts......period.

OK. So you either have never run a business or you're not in a state that
charges B&O tax. Do you think corporations should be able to
line-item-add-on their potential income taxes? A B&O tax is a business
income tax on gross receipts and is not collected separately by grocery
stores or anyone else (besides cable and telcos).

> Actually, the hundreds I mentioned before were brought before a judge and
> not sealed... the truth is not that hard to find.

Good. So cite me one.


> > If there are as many cases as you say, you should have no problem
> > citing just ONE that says that the provider can cancel at will without
> > compensation.
>
> But that is not what is being argued here. For the fifth time, I agree
with
> the OP that he has a case in this instance for the change in contract
terms.
> What part of that last statement is hanging you up?

You're arguing against yourself, then. Read the rest of the thread -- not
just your posts or mine. On 8/21 @ 4:57, "Jerome" appeared to defend
Cingular in the OP's case by saying that the contract was binding. I
replied by saying that unfair contracts -- as would relate to the OP's
circumstance -- are unenforceable. YOU then launched into this whole "the
contracts must be fair because they're still around" theory.

"[ a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:G%[email protected]...
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the
> > consumer.
> > >
> > > So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but
> > > consumer can't" is a FAIR contract?
> >
> > Where did I say that? There are terms specified in the contract that
> allow
> > both the company and customer to void the contract under certain
> conditions,
> > so your contention that the consumer can't is patently false.
>
> I said AT WILL -- which is essentially what they're doing to the OP. Name
> one circumstance that is entirely under the customer's control (and not a
> reaction to something the provider did or changed) that allows the
customer
> to just walk away with no penalty.

For the last time (read carefully)- I agree with the OP.

>
>
> > > Sales tax is different than a B&O tax.
> >
> > A tax on receipts is a tax on receipts......period.
>
> OK. So you either have never run a business or you're not in a state that
> charges B&O tax. Do you think corporations should be able to
> line-item-add-on their potential income taxes? A B&O tax is a business
> income tax on gross receipts and is not collected separately by grocery
> stores or anyone else (besides cable and telcos).

The taxes itemized on a cellular bill are either sales tax or a tax
exclusive to the sale of cellular service. None of your other examples
enjoy that kind of taxation.

>
> > Actually, the hundreds I mentioned before were brought before a judge
and
> > not sealed... the truth is not that hard to find.
>
> Good. So cite me one.
>
>
> > > If there are as many cases as you say, you should have no problem
> > > citing just ONE that says that the provider can cancel at will without
> > > compensation.
> >
> > But that is not what is being argued here. For the fifth time, I agree
> with
> > the OP that he has a case in this instance for the change in contract
> terms.
> > What part of that last statement is hanging you up?
>
> You're arguing against yourself, then. Read the rest of the thread -- not
> just your posts or mine. On 8/21 @ 4:57, "Jerome" appeared to defend
> Cingular in the OP's case by saying that the contract was binding. I
> replied by saying that unfair contracts -- as would relate to the OP's
> circumstance -- are unenforceable. YOU then launched into this whole "the
> contracts must be fair because they're still around" theory.

And I stand by my statement- the actions of Cingular in this case are not
covered in the original sales agreement and therefore not covered by any of
the terms of the contract. It is not the contract at fault here, it is the
actions of the company. To say that the contract is one-sided because of
this situation is not an accurate statement. That is what I am responding
to.


>
>

When I or someone else replies to your post, we are replying to you, to
what you said, not to what someone else posted. If we want to reply to
what someone else said, we will reply to that post, not yours. What is
happening to the original poster with cingular is similar to what
happened to me with Sprint PCS. Sprint PCS upgraded from wireless web
to Vision. Some wireless web features stopped working on my phone. I
had a choice. Either stick with my old phone and WW, or buy a new phone
and pay $5 per month more for Vision. Or since I was out of contract
already, switch (downgrade) to a different carrier.
cingular is doing the same kind of thing that insurance companies do.
An insurance company can take an entire class of plans and raise the
rates or drop coverage. cingular is dropping tdma. In many areas they
do not have analog, and are not willing to pay analog roaming. They
therefore are dropping entire classes of plans, gait plans and tdma
plans. cingular very plainly states that at present they are a gsm
service provider period. Except for their areas where they did have
analog, they are required for about two more years to keep it running.
I would not be surprised if analog only customers are not getting a
similar letter.

You are correct. The action of the company, getting out to the tdma
business and getting out of the roaming on analog business, is voiding
the contract. They are not holding the original poster to making any
more monthly payments, and they are not holding him to an early
termination fee. They are offering him, presumably without credit
check, the ability to enter into a contract for services they do still
offer.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are correct. The action of the company, getting out to the tdma
> business and getting out of the roaming on analog business, is voiding
> the contract. They are not holding the original poster to making any
> more monthly payments, and they are not holding him to an early
> termination fee. They are offering him, presumably without credit
> check, the ability to enter into a contract for services they do still
> offer.

But while I agree with your view of the situation, we may part ways after
that. I think that the company is just as responsible for upholding the
terms of the original agreement, not just ending service and allowing the
customer to walk. In this case, I believe their solution was a totally
different plan in term of minutes and price. Why should they be allowed to
offer only a solution that costs the customer more money, when they expect
the consumer to pay the amount originally agreed to by both parties. Hell,
what is to prevent them from only offering a $100+ unlimited plan as the
'solution'? Where do you think you would get if you bought a new phone with
less features on eBay and inform the company that due to the limited
functionality of your new phone, you are dropping to the bottom-end plan for
the rest of your contract and if the carrier doesn't like it, they can
terminate the contract without penalty within 30 days?

Originally Posted by Scott

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are correct. The action of the company, getting out to the tdma
> business and getting out of the roaming on analog business, is voiding
> the contract. They are not holding the original poster to making any
> more monthly payments, and they are not holding him to an early
> termination fee. They are offering him, presumably without credit
> check, the ability to enter into a contract for services they do still
> offer.

But while I agree with your view of the situation, we may part ways after
that. I think that the company is just as responsible for upholding the
terms of the original agreement, not just ending service and allowing the
customer to walk. In this case, I believe their solution was a totally
different plan in term of minutes and price. Why should they be allowed to
offer only a solution that costs the customer more money, when they expect
the consumer to pay the amount originally agreed to by both parties. Hell,
what is to prevent them from only offering a $100+ unlimited plan as the
'solution'? Where do you think you would get if you bought a new phone with
less features on eBay and inform the company that due to the limited
functionality of your new phone, you are dropping to the bottom-end plan for
the rest of your contract and if the carrier doesn't like it, they can
terminate the contract without penalty within 30 days?

you might want to read the little 'opt out' clause in your contract! lol