Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Sprint Loses Early Termination Fee Case.

ottergal said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

I still don't agree with you. :)

Yes, subsidized phones use the same service plans, etc., as non-subsidized phones. But the subsidy is absolutely built into the monthly fees.

I think it's more likely that people on the non-subsidized plans are being overcharged for service to make it seem like there is no subsidy fee built into the contracted monthly fees. Even if it's a few dollar/month, a part of everyone's monthly fees go towards the cost of the handsets. Just because they don't list it as a "Subsidy Fee" on the bill doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It makes it appear that all is even.

Unfortunately, when it comes to telecom companies, I think you have to have a 'glass half empty' approach when looking at it from the consumer's point of view.

On a side note, I just experienced my first Californian earthquake. That was..... interesting.
 
ottergal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Back in the late 80s, early 90s when people still used pagers, they were carrier specific. If you wanted to move to a new carrier, they usually just took the old pager and gave you a new one of theirs and there was never a contract.

This Sprint ruling is going to change allot coming up soon. I think not only the price of phones will go back up but the rate plans. My first cell phone in 1993 was with Qwest. I believe I had 700 minutes or so and it cost about $200 a month. We've had things good the last several years because of two year contracts.
 
Surely said:
I still don't agree with you. :)

Yes, subsidized phones use the same service plans, etc., as non-subsidized phones. But the subsidy is absolutely built into the monthly fees.

I think it's more likely that people on the non-subsidized plans are being overcharged for service to make it seem like there is no subsidy fee built into the contracted monthly fees. Even if it's a few dollar/month, a part of everyone's monthly fees go towards the cost of the handsets. Just because they don't list it as a "Subsidy Fee" on the bill doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It makes it appear that all is even.

Unfortunately, when it comes to telecom companies, I think you have to have a 'glass half empty' approach when looking at it from the consumer's point of view.

On a side note, I just experienced my first Californian earthquake. That was..... interesting.
Click to expand...


We can agree to see it from different perspectives. :)

I've worked in cellular for 14 years - which doesn't make me an advocate just gives me a little more insight into the "behind the curtain" workings. I don't think that cellular companies are wonderful nor to I think they are the worst.

Personally, I think that handsets should be a set price for all retail locations (agents and company stores) and that if you sign a contract you get a better service plan price. But I think it's too late for something like that to happen.
 
Seems like quite a colossal waste of time and money to fight the ETF. Except for the lawyers that is, who will make plenty.

It all boils down to semantics. No ETF allowed? Fine, then they will just charge you the full price (prorated perhaps) for the phone if you cancel. One thing is certain: the phone companies are not just going to give up on collecting the subsidy from their customers. The only thing really up for debate is what you call it.
 
hsleiman said:
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?
Click to expand...

The lawyers will get about 50% of the award. The 5-10 "main plaintiffs" will get about 20% of the award. The rest of the award will be split up to the remaining consumers.

Basically what you will end up is a "coupon" that gets you 20% off your next Sprint bill. Of course, that discount counts as the payment you get.

That's how these big awards are really of no consequence to the "little guys" like u. However, the lawyers will spin their fees as "the damage awards are big to deter this from happening again"
 
I wonder what portion of the $73,000,000.00 US former Sprint Losers (I meant USERS) will get, probably $.50 or less. Whatever it is I'm heading to the nearest NDN Casino... LOL I'm gonna' quadruple it, then buy a love shack in Hawaii...:D
 
andrewxps said:
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.
Click to expand...

ATT did you a "favor" by letting you bring your own handset? More like you got cheated out of a subsidized phone you were entitled to. Think about it, you still had to sign a contract, and if you broke that contract you had to pay ETF, both of which are supposedly to make sure the carrier doesnt eat the full price of the subsidized phone, which you didn't get.

1 year contracts aren't anything special. I was able to get a moto razr free with a one year contract from an ATT reseller, this was like 4 months after the razr just came out and hadn't been played out yet.
 
Personally, I don't care about subsidizing or rationalizing Sprint losing or any of the rest of that mumbo-jumbo. I'm glad they lost because I can't stand Sprint. If I'm really lucky, they'll go Chapter 11 in the fall. :)
 
Hope?: Early Termination Fee Illegal Article

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655

Check this article i saw on the Yahoo! frontpage today. Its about a californian judge believing that ETF may be illegal for carriers to do. iPhone 3G and AT&T are noted briefly in this too! What do you think? Hope for others switching over?
 
NiroshanMan said:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655

Check this article i say on Yahoo! today. Its about a californian judge believing that ETF may be illegal for carriers to do. iPhone 3G and AT&T are noted briefly in this too! What do you think? Hope for others switching over?
Click to expand...

If the judgement holds, the end of subsidized phones will be just around the corner: No carrier is going to subsidize the cost of a phone if they can't guarantee getting it back over the term of the contract or through ETF. So you might not have to pay $175 ETF, but you'll have to pay $200+ more for the phone...

Incidentally, in the UK there is no concept of ETF - if you sign a 2 year contract you'll be held to it (which is how it should be IMO: contracts are legally binding documents and should be honored)
 
if there arent early termination fees, then that just means it will be the end of subsidized phones. no more free phones, no more 199 or 299 iphones and back to 399 and 499 iphones.


so when you guys start crying because phones suddenly got expensive, just remember you dug your own grave. :)
 
NiroshanMan said:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655

Check this article i say on Yahoo! today. Its about a californian judge believing that ETF may be illegal for carriers to do. iPhone 3G and AT&T are noted briefly in this too! What do you think? Hope for others switching over?
Click to expand...

Oh come on. As much as I hate ETFs, why shouldn't there be a penalty for canceling a contract that YOU AGREED TO? And if ETFs are abolished, you can say goodbye to $200 iPhones.

edit: beaten ^^^
 
They can do it this way ... pay retail for cell phones up front and then staggered rebates at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The rebates too could be used as a credit towards a new phone at the end of 24 months. I could live with that.

They should also allow up to 60 day trials with the ability to get a full refund. If you don't know by day 61 that you can't stand the service/coverage where you live, then grin and bear it.

.
 
wako said:
if there arent early termination fees, then that just means it will be the end of subsidized phones. no more free phones, no more 199 or 299 iphones and back to 399 and 499 iphones.


so when you guys start crying because phones suddenly got expensive, just remember you dug your own grave. :)
Click to expand...

Yes but the contracts would be cheaper because you would no longer be repaying the subsidy through the contract. Unbundling phones and contracts should lead to a more competitive marketplace and a lower overall TCO.
 
Sprint sucks... I hate them. They involuntarily extended our contract when my wife upgraded her phone. Her contract I could see, but they did it to mine as well and refused to reverse the charges. they offered to sell me another phone and extend my contract another two years. That was the last time I was a sprint customer. No wonder why they are rated horribly and are loosing customers left and right.
 
When do you think this will go into effect? I live in California and I want to get out of my Sprint contract.
 
I believe the government's biggest objection to current ETF's is that they don't bear any relationship to the subsidy.

In other words, ETF's should be different, depending on the phone price vs whatever you pay for it.

Verizon and ATT hoped to avoid federal regulation of ETFs by voluntarily making them prorated by months of service. Doesn't look like that'll work in the end.

Personally I think that if you bring your own phone, there should be no ETFs.
 
Great news. Again, how quick would companies like Apple deal with hardware issues etc, when providers get on their asses cause customers arefed up and threatening to leave, since the phone they thought they were getting are huge disappointments. My provider has asked me to try 1 more iPhone before deciding anything, cause I threatened to leave. I'm over my 30 min/30 days policy for returning phones. I said if I cannot use the phone FOR WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED, why the hell are you forcing me to keep it?
 
SPeditor said:
When do you think this will go into effect? I live in California and I want to get out of my Sprint contract.
Click to expand...

i was wondering the same thing. my girlfriend has verizon and she wants out. i wonder if we can just call up right now and try to cancel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back