Sprint Loses Early Termination Fee Case.

[Surely]

This might make things a little more interesting:

Sprint Loses Early Termination Fee Case, May Pay $73 Million

I wonder how similar AT&T's early termination rules are to Sprint's, and if they are the same, what will that mean for AT&T and the iPhone?

 

[Opie]

Good im glad they lost. I believe there is a bill that some senator from FL is trying to get passed that will get rid of all ETF.

 

[slick316]

If all carriers drop the ETF, expect to pay more for your phones, simple as that. I mean, what motive will the carrier have to sell you a subsidized phone when you can just cancel the service and not incur a penalty?

 

[Cynicalone]

I can't honestly remember the last time I wasn't in a contract with a cell phone company. Every time I get close to the end it's time for a new phone. Now with the iPhone I get a new phone every June/July, along with a long day at the Apple Store.

 

[Surely]

If all carriers drop the ETF, expect to pay more for your phones, simple as that. I mean, what motive will the carrier have to sell you a subsidized phone when you can just cancel the service and not incur a penalty?

Wouldn't be more, it just would be a larger upfront payment instead of spreading it over 2-3 years.

Maybe this will mean that, eventually, if this affects change in the industry, people will be able to buy the iPhone (like we were able to with the 1st gen) without having to be tied to a contract?

 

[ottergal]

If all carriers drop the ETF, expect to pay more for your phones, simple as that. I mean, what motive will the carrier have to sell you a subsidized phone when you can just cancel the service and not incur a penalty?

I also think you'll see more phones absolutely locked to carriers. I don't have a problem with an ETF, personally. If you sign a contract when why shouldn't you have a penalty if you breach it? I do like the move to a proration or a step down like AT&T and TMobile (now) have. That seems like a good compromise.

 

[dosequis]

If all carriers drop the ETF, expect to pay more for your phones, simple as that. I mean, what motive will the carrier have to sell you a subsidized phone when you can just cancel the service and not incur a penalty?

Hopefully, competition.

 

[jeremy.king]

Too bad they still won't cancel satisfied contracts immediately. I have to wait for the next billing date...SPRINT = FAIL

 

[ottergal]

Wouldn't be more, it just would be a larger upfront payment instead of spreading it over 2-3 years.

Maybe this will mean that, eventually, if this affects change in the industry, people will be able to buy the iPhone (like we were able to with the 1st gen) without having to be tied to a contract?

Sure it will be more. The cost of the service you buy isn't related to the handset that you get. For example, when I was last on TMobile I signed a 1 year contract to get a discount on a handset but I paid $100 more for that phone than someone who signs a 2 year. We might both have the same plan, but I paid more for my equipment.

 

[Ntombi]

I also think you'll see more phones absolutely locked to carriers. I don't have a problem with an ETF, personally. If you sign a contract when why shouldn't you have a penalty if you breach it? I do like the move to a proration or a step down like AT&T and TMobile (now) have. That seems like a good compromise.

+1

I knew full well that I was going to pay a penalty for leaving Verizon, and I felt like it was fair that I had to pay them $100 for leaving 9 months early, considering that they gave me over $200 off my Treo last year. Did I like it? Nope, but I decided to suck it up to get an iPhone.

I went into the contract with my eyes open.

 

[wreckshop]

If all carriers drop the ETF, expect to pay more for your phones, simple as that. I mean, what motive will the carrier have to sell you a subsidized phone when you can just cancel the service and not incur a penalty?

That's BS. Carriers won't sell you service without a contract even if you bought your handset somewhere else. You're forced to buy the handset w/ contract wether you want it or not. Sure you can opt for one of those pay as you go or contractless plans, but they're inferior to the ones where you sign a contract.

 

[DeejayPancake]

I do think that if carriers get rid of ETFs then the users will have to pay more.
This is what I think of ETFs: If a user has been with the carrier LESS than a year, then there shouldn't be any fee. However, if it's been more than a year then they shouldn't have to pay more than $100. Anything more than that is stupid.

 

[bradl]

I can't honestly remember the last time I wasn't in a contract with a cell phone company. Every time I get close to the end it's time for a new phone. Now with the iPhone I get a new phone every June/July, along with a long day at the Apple Store.

Heh..

Last time I was with a cell phone company without a contract was, ironically, Sprint, in 2000. Everyone else (Cingular, Pacific Bell, ATT, Verizon), were offering contracts. Sprint actually had cheap-priced phones, Nokias, and flat rate plans.

Too bad they screwed that up, among many other things...

BL.

 

[NotFound]

That's BS. Carriers won't sell you service without a contract even if you bought your handset somewhere else. You're forced to buy the handset w/ contract wether you want it or not. Sure you can opt for one of those pay as you go or contractless plans, but they're inferior to the ones where you sign a contract.

That's not entirely true. When I used AT&T I was allowed to bring my own unlocked phone into my agreement and was only required to sign a 1-year contract instead of a 2-year contract.

 

[Dimwhit]

+1

I knew full well that I was going to pay a penalty for leaving Verizon, and I felt like it was fair that I had to pay them $100 for leaving 9 months early, considering that they gave me over $200 off my Treo last year. Did I like it? Nope, but I decided to suck it up to get an iPhone.

I went into the contract with my eyes open.

Ayup. I don't have much pity for people wanting out of a contract without a penalty. If AT&T didn't have an ETF, I would have paid twice as much for my iPhone. How they're seen as unfair is beyond me. It's called a contract: read it!

 

[BlackMax]

If all carriers drop the ETF, expect to pay more for your phones, simple as that. I mean, what motive will the carrier have to sell you a subsidized phone when you can just cancel the service and not incur a penalty?

What if you can buy the phone from someone other than the carrier and only go to the carrier of your choice for service?

 

[bradl]

What if you can buy the phone from someone other than the carrier and only go to the carrier of your choice for service?

That's pretty much what is done in Europe and everywhere else outside N. America. buy your phone anywhere, get the service for the phone, and you're set. If you want to go to another carrier, you're free to take your phone to that carrier (at least this was how it was from post-2000).

The whole business with having to get the phone from the carrier is a US thing. If you wanted to take your phone to another carrier, you couldn't, and would have to buy that same working phone from them to work on their network.

That's why I was always told by my friends living overseas to get a GSM phone whenever you can, as you can swap out the SIM cards as you wish, and grab a new one for that GSM network. I have an old Nokia 7250 which I can do just that on.

BL.

 

[Surely]

Sure it will be more. The cost of the service you buy isn't related to the handset that you get. For example, when I was last on TMobile I signed a 1 year contract to get a discount on a handset but I paid $100 more for that phone than someone who signs a 2 year. We might both have the same plan, but I paid more for my equipment.

Ok..... then please explain the definition of the word "subsidized".

Um.... your experience contradicts the point that you are trying to make. You paid $100 more because your contract was 1 year instead of 2. So the $100 accounts for the missing subsidy you would have paid during the second year of the 2 year contract.

 

[hsleiman]

So if you just recently cancelled your sprint contract and payed the ETF as I did for the iPhone... what are the chances of getting that money back now that this ruling has been made?

 

[shamash]

My problem with you people: You would have paid $200 dollars more for your iPhone if you weren't at the end of your contract, and it still would have been extended. It costs you $175 to terminate early. That means you SAVE MONEY terminating early than you do buying the phone at full price. So these contracts are making it cheaper. Frealz.

 

[gcmexico]

I'm glad they lost

 

[7on]

For me it's not about the money, but the choice/freedom to do what you want. Subsidize the plan rates if you must (2 years and pay only 30 a month instead of 35 or something) but the phones aren't yours. When I get cable internet, does Time Warner assign me a PC to use on their network that's locked and I can't unplug the ethernet/wifi it ceases to function? No. I feel that if we continue allowing US carriers to lock handsets to plans then customer freedom is taken away. I'd rather have the Cell industry operate like the personal computer industry today. Otherwise, next time you sign your contract with Comcast they might very well hand you over a Dell.

To those who think that this won't happen, our international neighbors wonder how the hell it happened over here with the cell industry.

 

[ottergal]

Ok..... then please explain the definition of the word "subsidized".

Um.... your experience contradicts the point that you are trying to make. You paid $100 more because your contract was 1 year instead of 2. So the $100 accounts for the missing subsidy you would have paid during the second year of the 2 year contract.

I didn't say that companies don't subsidize phones. They do. Back when I knew the numbers, it used to take about 7 months for a company to make money off of you when they subsidize a phone. Carriers also make money off of overage, SMS and data plans. Once porting came into play, carriers moved to the 18 months/2 year plans to keep people since the "I don't want to lose my phone number" barrier was gone. Think back to before porting, people didn't leave as often as they do now.

You missed the point I was trying to make with my example. Yes, TMobile wasn't willing to pay a higher subsidy on my phone because they weren't locking me in as long as they might have. If I'd signed a 2 year contract, they would have had 1 more year to make profit on all those extras and they would have been willing to pay more towards that handset. Since they only had a year to recoup their cost and have me make them money, they cut their subsidy.

The point I was trying to make is that without a contract you pay more for your equipment. It's not spread over the life of your contract like you implied in your post. Subsidized phones use the same service plans, etc, as non subsidized plans. You have to separate the SERVICE from the HANDSET and realize that they are not related. CONTRACTS and HANDSETS are related when it comes to money.

Wow. That's way more than I meant to write!

 

[jeremy.king]

My problem with you people: You would have paid $200 dollars more for your iPhone if you weren't at the end of your contract, and it still would have been extended. It costs you $175 to terminate early. That means you SAVE MONEY terminating early than you do buying the phone at full price. So these contracts are making it cheaper. Frealz.

Prorate

Nobody is against ETF, they are against the same amount owed if you are one day into the contract or if you are one month from the end.

 

[rywat]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A347 Safari/525.20)

If all carriers drop the ETF, expect to pay more for your phones, simple as that. I mean, what motive will the carrier have to sell you a subsidized phone when you can just cancel the service and not incur a penalty?

that's fine. The phones won't be that much more than they are now, because right now the retail prices are articially inflated to make it seem like you're getting a great deal when you sign a contract.