|
sowhat
|
At least this article is fairly clear that it is not the government protecting the consumer, but the usual scenario of preemption on the regulated entity's terms.
|
|
Thomas
|
Its about time government cracked down on these rediculous termination fees.
When the carrier can't provide you with reliable service, they are in breach of the contract. Instead, they charge you $200+ to switch carriers. PRICELESS>
|
|
DON
|
The article states: "Lawyers representing customers who are suing over the fees are strongly opposed.
"It's Christmas in May for the companies," said Pamela Gilbert, an attorney with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, a Washington D.C.-based law firm working on one of the class action lawsuits against the industry."
This lawyer is upset only because her Christmas is ending. The more we can take lawyers out of our daily lives, the better off we would be.
Take lawyers out of healthcare and watch the cost of healthcare go down. Set damages based upon the patient's loss due to malpractice and the patient's income or potential income. Then the award is determined. The patient gets 100% of the award as no aattorney is needed.
Remember, there is no difference between a prostitute and an attoreny. They both charge by the hour and screw their clinets.
|
|
DON
|
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO CORRECT MY TYPOS. I can spell but can not type!
This lawyer is upset only because her Christmas is ending. The more we can take lawyers out of our daily lives, the better off we would be.
Take lawyers out of healthcare and watch the cost of healthcare go down. Set damages based upon the patient's loss due to malpractice and the patient's income or potential income. Then the award is determined. The patient gets 100% of the award as no attorney is needed.
Remember, there is no difference between a prostitute and an attorney. They both charge by the hour and screw their clients.
|
|
jfx
|
Simple solution - forbid mobile phone companies from selling mobile phones, or at least prevent them from selling phones in combination with long term service contracts.
If there is free competition by phone makers who can sell phones directly, then the wireless companies can't complain about needing multi-year contracts to make money from their supposedly subsidized phone sales. If phone sales really are money losers for them, then how can they complain?
|
|
Tom
|
The government would not have to step in to regulate, if there were more than three companies running the industry. We need to go over the anti-trust laws and update them.
|
|
Ditto Head
|
If customers sign these contracts, then they should have to pay termination fees. The wireless companies need to make a profit and consumers should pay these fees if they terminate the contract. What is the problem?
|
|
Rich
|
Cell phone contract are a legalize rackets for the companies. It allows them to provide real bad service, broken phones and deny to the consumer that they have a problem. Verizon is really bad it this. It takes many hours of phone time to multiple Verizon employees to get any resolution. Yes, I ended up cancelling abougt 3 months before the 24 month contract was up and paid $175. for issues that Verizon could have taken care of or resolve. Cell phone contract offer NO protection to the consumers.
|
|
|
|
Clue
|
If you want to get out of the contract simple stop paying the bill and the carrier will drop you off (cancel your service), however you are still responsible for any unpaid bill that you have to pay before if goes onto your credit. The grace period after the cancelation is 30 days. I did this twice alrady with us cellular and att no term. fees.
|
|
J News
|
The problem is when a contract of adhesion is attached to a service by the party with the superior bargaining position imposing terms which are unconscionable and unavoidable by using another competitor,
The imposition of said terms becomes borne not through economic necessity but as a consequence of the inability of one party to negotiate.("I do it because I can. What are you gonna do about it? Take it or leave it.")
"Unconscionable terms" are those parts of a contract that would not exist in a truly free marketplace, and do not serve the equitable exchange of goods and services, but merely act as a conduit for a superior party to exploit the weaker party. Such contracts are still out of favor in public policy (although this is changing rapidly).
To open the possibility that contracts of adhesion might not be 100% enforceable on their face brings doubt upon the un-American practice of mandatory binding arbitration, which strips consumers of all rights and privileges under the law and forces them to submit to Corporate Justice, bought and paid for by that person in the superior bargaining position who seeks to substitute their will for justice.
That is why cell phone carriers will fight to the death any implication that any part of a contract of adhesion might be unconscionable.
|
|
Alan
|
Boy would that be great! I have service with an inept company called Qwest. I live in Salt Lake City at the mouth of Parley's Canyon (Interstate 80)and I keep dropping calls. When I go on the road the service becomes better. I called Qwest to inquire about my service problems and was told "Our service in your area is iffy at best" Iffy?! Qwest certainly didn't want me to know about "Iffy" when I purchased their service! Not only that they want $200.00 to cancel! Come on December 13th and good-by Qwest forever!
|
|
Julie
|
Ditto Head wrote: If customers sign these contracts, then they should have to pay termination fees. The wireless companies need to make a profit and consumers should pay these fees if they terminate the contract. What is the problem? The problem is if they stop using a cell tower or merge, the covergae you had when you signed up can change, to the point that you effectively have no coverage, but you can't cancel either. So you essentially pay for a useless phone. I had ATT. My son used the phone to call from school a lot. All was finem then one day I got a bill for $100 in roaming charges. I asked what this was about. They said, he was probably ditching school and not telling me, but the bills clearly showed a call that was roaming from a tower 30 minutes away and two minutes later a non-roaming call. I told them this was impossible, they changed their coverage area. They finally checked the area, after about an hour of arguing with them, and it turned out his school was IN the coverage area, but if he crossed the street he was roaming. There was a gas station across the street where they went to get snacks. So if he got a snack and talked, boom. Well they changed who they "partnered" with to cover areas where they weren't covered and this "partner" apparently ended their coverage, there. I won that battle. They revered the charges and I cancelled the now useless phone. Same thing with T-Mobile but worse - just no coverage at all. It got so bad with them, they wanted my son to drive around while they tweaked their towers! I said, no- he doesn't woerk for you, he is not the "can-you-hear-me-now " guy. I threatened them with breach of contract, they agreed to provide a phone service and, in effect reneged on that deal, thereby nullifying the contract. I cancelled, I won. But it is very frustrating and time consuming. I have stuck with Nextel, it was better before Sprint but it isn't bad as they go.
|
|
Why Cry Now
AOL
|
We Got Nothing ?
|
|
Mike
|
You should be allowed to cancel with no extra cost. It cost the telephone company a few cents to disconnect you. Why should you have to pay a fee, exspecially when you are canceling for bad service. Which is main reason for canceling.
|
|
Pete
|
Ditto Head wrote: If customers sign these contracts, then they should have to pay termination fees. The wireless companies need to make a profit and consumers should pay these fees if they terminate the contract. What is the problem? The problem is that phone companies don't feel the need to live up to their end of the contract. They view them as weapons against the consumer, not a two-way agreement.
|
|
its about time
|
i've been with at&t when it was cingular (and MUCH better/cheaper) for 5+ years. they WILL NOT let me out of their contract without paying the SAME fee everyone else pays. some ridiculous amount almost $200. I hope this passes because I CANNOT WAIT to get rid of their horrible service!
amen
|
|
its about time
|
Ditto Head wrote: If customers sign these contracts, then they should have to pay termination fees. The wireless companies need to make a profit and consumers should pay these fees if they terminate the contract. What is the problem? stfu!
|
|
cub fan
|
The best service is in Europe all the cell phone are unlocked so that way all you have to do is change your Sim card from one company to another with out contract or any thing else
|
|
timmyD
|
They really should regulate the fees banks impose on ATM withdrawals. Seems like the mayor said once that no bank would do business in Chicago if they charged ATM fees.... To bad he continue his passion.
|
|
Louise
|
It's about time.
Now try to get a grip on all the excess taxes we pay.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
