DirecTv is next ?

Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees

---

› See More: DirecTv is next ?

In article <[email protected]>,
Ron <[email protected]> wrote:

> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees

Maybe, and only in California, if it's seen as a precedent. And
certainly not until it's been appealed. I expect Sprint will move to
appeals in California, and probably also file with the Feds claiming
that the FCC has superior authority and the States can't meddle. In any
event, however it shakes out, don't expect anything to change much soon.

Best, R.E.F.

--
Never attribute to malice what can
satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.

In message <[email protected]> Raymond
Feist <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>
>Maybe, and only in California, if it's seen as a precedent. And
>certainly not until it's been appealed. I expect Sprint will move to
>appeals in California, and probably also file with the Feds claiming
>that the FCC has superior authority and the States can't meddle. In any
>event, however it shakes out, don't expect anything to change much soon.

I'm not so sure -- If the mobile providers even suspect that this might
stick, they'll probably cut back on the discounts given out to new
customers sooner rather then later, knowing that the contracts might not
stick.

At 29 Jul 2008 15:17:07 -0500 Ron wrote:
>
> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees



Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
$200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they
did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!

Ron <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>

Thanks for the pointer.

The sooner this UTILIITY is named a UTILITY, the better for all consumers
who will have much better control over the UTILITY at the local level.

They can't bribe them all....(c;

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 29 Jul 2008 15:17:07 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>
>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>
>
>
> Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
> $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they
> did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!
>
>

What they could do is have you pay full price, then after your two years is
up give you the sub'd price back as a gift.

Then we all wake up. : )

On 2008-07-29, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 29 Jul 2008 15:17:07 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>
>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>
> Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
> $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they
> did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!

When I was with Sprint I had my contract extended far more often
than I bought phones. Change plan minutes, add to the contract
length. Cancel a line (the "primary" as it happened) on a family
plan, end up with the remaining two lines back on contract. Swap
the phones you already own between lines, extend the contract.
Sometimes I had no idea why my contract had been extended.

I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones
if the rest of that would have been made to go away.

Dennis Ferguson

At 29 Jul 2008 18:08:38 -0700 Kevin Weaver wrote:

> >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
> >>
> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
> > $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like
> > they did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!
>
>
> What they could do is have you pay full price, then after your two years
> is up give you the sub'd price back as a gift.
>
> Then we all wake up. : )

LOL!

Seriously though, I suspect if EFTs somehow get banned in Cali, carriers
will probably move to a semi-subsidized model like prepaid- so we'd see $50
or $100 entry-level handsets with carriers just assuming the risk. The
subsidy model has proven over time that cheap/free handsets increase sales.

Another option might be high initial priced handsets, with "free" months of
service at intervals- i.e. a $199 handset, with your 6th, 12th, 18th, and
24th months "free."

At 30 Jul 2008 01:56:54 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
> >>
> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
> >
> > Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
> > $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like
they
> > did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!
>
> When I was with Sprint I had my contract extended far more often
> than I bought phones. Change plan minutes, add to the contract
> length. Cancel a line (the "primary" as it happened) on a family
> plan, end up with the remaining two lines back on contract. Swap
> the phones you already own between lines, extend the contract.
> Sometimes I had no idea why my contract had been extended.
>
> I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones
> if the rest of that would have been made to go away.

Yeah - it's probably not a coincidence that Sprint is the target here-
they've got a history of "questionable" reasons for contract extentions.

Personally, I have no problem with the historical quid pro quo reason for
EFTs- a contract in return for handset subsidies. But carriers are getting
greedier- extending conacts on all lines if you add one more line to an out-
odf-contract family plan, extending contracts for switching rate plans, etc.

In article <[email protected]>,
DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <[email protected]> Raymond
> Feist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
> >>
> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
> >
> >Maybe, and only in California, if it's seen as a precedent. And
> >certainly not until it's been appealed. I expect Sprint will move to
> >appeals in California, and probably also file with the Feds claiming
> >that the FCC has superior authority and the States can't meddle. In any
> >event, however it shakes out, don't expect anything to change much soon.
>
> I'm not so sure -- If the mobile providers even suspect that this might
> stick, they'll probably cut back on the discounts given out to new
> customers sooner rather then later, knowing that the contracts might not
> stick.

It might go that way after a meeting between the bean counters and
lawyers. If the cost-to-benefit is seen favorable in a protracted court
struggle, they'll go that way. If it's seen more favorable to fold
their hand and move to a new business plan, they'll go that way.

Best, R.E.F.

--
Never attribute to malice what can
satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.

Raymond Feist <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
following in news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]>
>> Raymond Feist <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>> >>
>> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>> >
>> >Maybe, and only in California, if it's seen as a precedent. And
>> >certainly not until it's been appealed. I expect Sprint will move
>> >to appeals in California, and probably also file with the Feds
>> >claiming that the FCC has superior authority and the States can't
>> >meddle. In any event, however it shakes out, don't expect anything
>> >to change much soon.
>>
>> I'm not so sure -- If the mobile providers even suspect that this
>> might stick, they'll probably cut back on the discounts given out to
>> new customers sooner rather then later, knowing that the contracts
>> might not stick.
>
> It might go that way after a meeting between the bean counters and
> lawyers. If the cost-to-benefit is seen favorable in a protracted
> court struggle, they'll go that way. If it's seen more favorable to
> fold their hand and move to a new business plan, they'll go that way.
>
> Best, R.E.F.
>

Two things to consider here:

1. The ruling is not final and Sprint has been given a week to respond to
today's news.

2. This could have just as easily been Verizon, who has recently settled a
number of these lawsuits.

I would not bank on anything changing in California for quite some time to
come.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:56:54 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2008-07-29, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 29 Jul 2008 15:17:07 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>>
>>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>>
>> Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
>> $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they
>> did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!
>
>When I was with Sprint I had my contract extended far more often
>than I bought phones. Change plan minutes, add to the contract
>length. Cancel a line (the "primary" as it happened) on a family
>plan, end up with the remaining two lines back on contract. Swap
>the phones you already own between lines, extend the contract.
>Sometimes I had no idea why my contract had been extended.

It was extended because CSRs had a quota of contracts to extend.

Attorney's Genral are suing Sprint over this; and its just a matter of
time before DirecTv gets simmilarly hammered.


http://www.wirelessforums.org/alt-ce...ons-29588.html


>
>I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones
>if the rest of that would have been made to go away.
>
>Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2008-07-29, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 29 Jul 2008 15:17:07 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>> Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
>> $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they
>> did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!
>
> When I was with Sprint I had my contract extended far more often
> than I bought phones. Change plan minutes, add to the contract
> length. Cancel a line (the "primary" as it happened) on a family
> plan, end up with the remaining two lines back on contract. Swap
> the phones you already own between lines, extend the contract.
> Sometimes I had no idea why my contract had been extended.
>
> I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones
> if the rest of that would have been made to go away.
>
> Dennis Ferguson

This is what happened to me with Verizon about 2 years ago. I changed
rate plans, and they stuck me with a contract extension WITHOUT TELLING
ME, then hit me with a $175 early termination fee when I dropped them
NINE DAYS before the end of the extension. Can you say ripoff?

--Steve

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:36:22 -0700, Oliver Costich
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:56:54 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-07-29, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> At 29 Jul 2008 15:17:07 -0500 Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Court rules against Early Termination Fees by Sprint.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...ell_phone_fees
>>>
>>> Yeah, good news for California consumers, who can look forward to paying
>>> $200 for phones the rest of the country gets for free again just like they
>>> did in the early 90's when California didn't allow EFTs!
>>
>>When I was with Sprint I had my contract extended far more often
>>than I bought phones. Change plan minutes, add to the contract
>>length. Cancel a line (the "primary" as it happened) on a family
>>plan, end up with the remaining two lines back on contract. Swap
>>the phones you already own between lines, extend the contract.
>>Sometimes I had no idea why my contract had been extended.
>>
>>I would have jumped at the chance to pay full price for the phones
>>if the rest of that would have been made to go away.
>>
>>Dennis Ferguson
>
>
>We recently moved to California from Florida where I was 8 months into
>a 2 year contract. Verizon swithched the account to a better plan for
>the same price and did NOT extend the contract.

DO you ascribe that to their softening their policies from fear of
Federal Intervention, or just because you're now in California?

Would they not extend your contract had you switched to a lower priced
plan?