i need some legal advice...

[hushmartin]

I'm not for committing fraud, however I don't believe that a cell phone company should hold you to your contract when you have truly next to non-existent coverage. If that's the case and you never, EVER want to have service with ATT ever again, (I mean NEVER) then there is one thing you could do that is probably fail-proof. At least, it was at T-mo when I worked there. You could tell them you died. Seriously. At t-mobile, if you told them the customer died they would immediately cancel your service, no ETF, apologize for your loss, and blacklist your SSN. You wouldn't ever be able to get service with them again, but it certainly solves the ETF issue.

But, I am betting that all the OP really wants is to obtain iPhones for use on T-mobile for cheap all the time; this would kinda put the brakes on that.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Nope, what LeeTom said wasn't who to kill or what person to tie up... but How to kill and how to tie people up. Information like how to kill someone or how to tie someone up is pretty much widely available but it doesn't make the person who feeds that information guilty of any crime committed if people CHOOSE to act upon such information.

Not strictly true. Look up the term 'Accessory'. If I tell someone how to commit murder, knowing that they may take that information and act upon it, then I can be arrested as an Accessory to that murder.

 

[LeeTom]

Not strictly true. Look up the term 'Accessory'. If I tell someone how to commit murder, knowing that they may take that information and act upon it, then I can be arrested as an Accessory to that murder.

I did look it up, and your definition is wrong. Accessory means to assist in the commission of a crime. Telling someone how to commit murder is not grounds for an accessory charge. It's why TV shows and songs ultimately do not share the blame on people's actions.

The freedom that a large chunk of you people are willing to give up is astounding.

 

[milani]

^ Your lack of ethics is astounding.

 

[MTI]

I did look it up, and your definition is wrong. Accessory means to assist in the commission of a crime. Telling someone how to commit murder is not grounds for an accessory charge. It's why TV shows and songs ultimately do not share the blame on people's actions.

The freedom that a large chunk of you people are willing to give up is astounding.

Look up "aiding and abetting."

Most criminal statutes require "knowledge" or "intent" to constitute a crime; however specific intent isn't required in all statutes. If a person is aware that the other is going to commit or seeks to commit a crime and gives some support or advances the scheme, a charge of aiding and abetting could be brought.

Such a charge would only be possible if there is criminal fraud or other statutory illegality in the OP seeking to break the contract by the means suggested. That's where the biggest flaw exists; since it may be a breach of contract, but it's questionable if it's a criminal act.

 

[jav6454]

look on Verizon or T-Mobile's coverage map and and find a place that they have coverage that AT&T doesn't. then, figure out what county that is in and use that county's records (usually the assessor's office) website to find an address in that area. then draw up a rental agreement at that address, using the owner's name as the landlord and yours as the tenant.

take this to AT&T, say you're moving to an area outside their coverage area and want to end your contract without early termination fees. don't be dumb and pull out the "rental agreement" unless they ask for proof.

i am not a lawyer either, and for all i know this is illegal, but you asked...

footnote: from a purely legal standpoint, you should have listened to your teacher. you signed the contract, and you are liable for the $175. you have an iPhone, which cost more than the price that you paid, and they want the money they fronted so you could have a $400 device for $199.

So basically you are asking someone to break the law and incur in felony charges just to avoid an ETF? You know a federal prosecution (as the crime crosses state lines) case will cost you more than an ETF right?

Just saying....

 

[firewood]

So I am on a bank heist.

That will get you in trouble.

I am telling the burglars how to do their job, what person to tie up what person to kill, what money to take, etc. However, by your line of reasoning, I am not guilty because all I did was tell them what to do.

There are books on Amazon (and probably in your local library) that will tell you how to do bank heists, and which kinds are unsolved. Examples of how to murder your acquaintances are also a popular subject in best selling mystery novels and on top rated TV shows. Protected by the First Amendment in the U.S., AFAIK. But IANAL.

 

[firewood]

Apple's very first product!

Ironic. If you are a true Apple fan-boy, you will remember that Woz and Job's very first product (before the Apple I) was an electronic device that somebody could potentially use to cheat the phone company on long distance charges. Of course, you could also and completely legally use the box to generate funny tones to amuse your cat.

 

[Applejuiced]

Here's some legal advice. Pay the ETF and next time be
more carefull when entering into a contract.

 

[occamsrazor]

If you are passed 30 days then you are somewhat st****d unless you can prove that they have broken the contract.

This is your only legal way out. You say they suck - how exactly? If you genuinely believe they have not fulfilled their side of the contract - e.g. by providing a working cellphone service, then you are perfectly within your rights not to pay them. It wouldn't be a question of ETF, if they haven't fulfilled their part of the contract then they have broken the contract, so you have no further need to pay them a monthly fee. It wouldn't be you terminating the contract, they would have already broken it by not providing you with the service agreed upon in the contract.

The all-important question then becomes... what precise service did they agree to provide you? And this will be a question of the small print. IANAL.

The bottom line is all these problems, including others such as sim-locking, jail-breaking, the fact that you can't use VOIP over 3G etc, and the like.... all stem from the incredibly dumb model of handset-subsidisation (which is a misnomer really - you still pay for the handset, just you pay more spread over time rather than less up-front) that exists in the US, and indeed elsewhere.
Ban carrier-locking of handsets and most of these issues will go away. That Apple continue to propagate this model which inevitably screws consumers, rewards poor service, and stifles competition, is a shame on the company. Just my two cents

 

[TurboSC]

Here's some legal advice. Pay the ETF and next time be
more carefull when entering into a contract.

this man speaks the truth. lesson learned, move on with life.

 

[Interstella5555]

Here's some advice...You won't get legal advice on an internet forum, especially when asking about assistance with committing fraud. You'll just ge a lot of people giving you their opinion. What would be better would be to call a person who had gone to school for several years and has a "degree" in "law." Actually good luck finding someone like that, I'm pretty sure none exist in this country.

 

[yg17]

I'm not for committing fraud, however I don't believe that a cell phone company should hold you to your contract when you have truly next to non-existent coverage. If that's the case and you never, EVER want to have service with ATT ever again, (I mean NEVER) then there is one thing you could do that is probably fail-proof. At least, it was at T-mo when I worked there. You could tell them you died. Seriously. At t-mobile, if you told them the customer died they would immediately cancel your service, no ETF, apologize for your loss, and blacklist your SSN. You wouldn't ever be able to get service with them again, but it certainly solves the ETF issue.

But, I am betting that all the OP really wants is to obtain iPhones for use on T-mobile for cheap all the time; this would kinda put the brakes on that.

You have 30 days to determine if you get coverage where you live. If that's not long enough for you, too bad.

 

[Mischka07]

Something tells me the OP is laughing his head off.

 

[The Californian]

If they change their terms you can get out of your contract legally without ETF. Check the interwebs, they change their terms often.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Here's some legal advice. Pay the ETF and next time be more carefull when entering into a contract.

You have 30 days to determine if you get coverage where you live. If that's not long enough for you, too bad.

Well said, and I agree completely.

 

[sealab2021]

When I moved overseas, I had to cancel my service with AT&T. For some reason, the representative whom I was speaking to on the phone, tried to conveniently neglect to not mention the clause about moving to an area that has not coverage as a way of not paying the ETF.

When I inquired to this clause, he quickly fessed up and told me what I needed to do. When I asked why he didn't tell me about the procedure, he said that he thought it would be too complicated. LOL

Essentially, AT&T will initially charge you the ETF fee, but you have 30 days to mail them a copy of a utility bill with you name on it and at the address you moved to. Then after they check it out, they will refund you the fee.

 

[goosnarrggh]

I doubt that others will follow towards an ETF increase but we'll have to wait and see how it plays.
I dont know about the "abusing the system" arguiment, even if you do cancell and pay the ETF, a months service and many other fee's the carriers still make up the subsidy. They dont pay anywhere near $350 towards you phone, as these advanced devices get more popular the cheaper they cost to produce.

The contract-free prices charged for some popular smartphones seems to dispute your reasoning.

Eg for one popular smartphone at the moment:
- iPhone 16GB 3GS on 24-month contract: $199
- iPhone 16GB 3GS contract-free: $599
- Difference: $400.

Some of that $400 difference surely can be accounted for as part of a retail mark-up charged by the store that sold you the phone. But the lion's share goes to the manufacturer, which means the carrier incurs an out-of-pocket expense of the better part of $400 when you take advantage of the subsidy on such a smartphone as part of signing a 2-year contract. The carrier banks on being able to offset that loss by virtue of the "guaranteed" money they'll be bringing in from you over the course of the 2-year service agreement. A $175 ETF by itself wouldn't come close to making up that loss on its own.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

I did look it up, and your definition is wrong. Accessory means to assist in the commission of a crime. Telling someone how to commit murder is not grounds for an accessory charge. It's why TV shows and songs ultimately do not share the blame on people's actions.

The freedom that a large chunk of you people are willing to give up is astounding.

I actually made this account just to say i agree with you. keep up the good work.

^ Your lack of ethics is astounding.

I'll take logic over "ethics" any day of the week.

 

[Applejuiced]

The contract-free prices charged for some popular smartphones seems to dispute your reasoning.

Eg for one popular smartphone at the moment:
- iPhone 16GB 3GS on 24-month contract: $199
- iPhone 16GB 3GS contract-free: $599
- Difference: $400.

Some of that $400 difference surely can be accounted for as part of a retail mark-up charged by the store that sold you the phone. But the lion's share goes to the manufacturer, which means the carrier incurs an out-of-pocket expense of the better part of $400 when you take advantage of the subsidy on such a smartphone as part of signing a 2-year contract. The carrier banks on being able to offset that loss by virtue of the "guaranteed" money they'll be bringing in from you over the course of the 2-year service agreement. A $175 ETF by itself wouldn't come close to making up that loss on its own.

I hear you.
But we'll never know the real price that AT&T and many other wireless providers that sell millions of phones for a manufacturer really pay. My guess would be on this particular case around $200-250.
Thats by judging that the 16GB Ipod Touch retails for $230 and thats with the retailers markup. How much extra could the same device cost including the phone compoments to it? Definetelly not $400 more.
Just my logic, dont know if it makes much sense but just a guess