tHANK GOD YOU PUT THE WORD BIKES IN THERE!
Joe Borfo07.31.08 - 3:17 pm
reply
why is it illegal? There are penalties on any contract. That's the whole point of a contract. If you don't live up to the terms you have to pay. Leases for apts and houses have penalties, gym memberships, etc...
brassknuckle07.31.08 - 3:25 pm
reply
I would say that the Draconian measures used to entice people into extending their contracts are nerve-racking.
All these new phones that are offered usually means having to extend your contract outward for another, 2 years.
But the exception is if you buy the phone for the full-price.
bentstrider07.31.08 - 3:34 pm
reply
...carriers lose the power that's enabled them to lock customers into contracts for multiple years at a time. And while those contracts can be heinously long, they also let the carriers offer cell phone hardware at reduced (subsidized) prices.
I'm usually completely against the government interfering with the economy, in any way. But in this case I really feel like the cellular companies have monopolistically pushed consumers too far.
There seems to be an unspoken agreement between the big 3 that they should all remain lightly competative, for the sake of appearing competative, but under no circumstances should any big carrier rock the boat too violently. It behooves them, as a group, to avoid any violent economic agitation, so that they can keep on milking consumers before too many people recognize this monopoly.
In stark contrast we have South Korea; mecca of mobile everything. Watch TV, internet, voice all at a competatively low rate. No monthly dues, just pay for what you use. And if you find out that another carrier is seeking your business by offering some better rates, then you can jump ship at any time and go try out this new carrier. Talk about competative! And guess who wins, the consumer!
The article draws a poor conclusion when it suggests that without the juicy fat from contract lock-ins and termination fees, carriers would have to stop subsidizing phones for us. Bullshit! If people don't have phones then they're not gonna use the service; it's in every carrier's best interest to make sure we can afford to purchase whatever phone will keep us using the service. And if we stray from their service, well I think they might just offer me a phone. ; D
Eric Hair07.31.08 - 3:44 pm
reply
why is it illegal? There are penalties on any contract. That's the whole point of a contract. If you don't live up to the terms you have to pay. Leases for apts and houses have penalties, gym memberships, etc...
cell phones are public utilities which means we have granted a very limited number of companies the right to stick towers everywhere and irradiate us as well as interfacing with the phone network, in exchange for them being willing to follow shitloads of special regulations.
also, contracts can have penalties but the penalties must not be unreasonable, this is a whole are of common law known as "pound of flesh" provisions. in general, the penalty isn't supposed to be more than the economic loss suffered by the breaking of the contract, and possibly less.
stevestevesteve07.31.08 - 3:55 pm
reply
The shorter version.
I agree with Brass Knuckles. You make your bed, now lie in it.
Unless there's a monopoly that leaves you with only one way to make a bed. (this would be the exception to agreeing with BK)
Monopolies are illegal (unless I'm the TopHat or Shoe)
Eric Hair07.31.08 - 3:59 pm
reply
basically, as it stands if you've been under contract for, say 19 months, on a 24 month (2 year) contract and decide to cancel... you'd be paying the same early termination feea that someone who just recently purchased the phone and also decided to terminate early would pay. now doesn't that suck?
it's about time the courts did something... we've all been saying those charges are astronomical and illegal to begin with.
Jazzy Phat Nastee07.31.08 - 4:28 pm
reply
yeah you guys aren't getting it... the early termination charges were always illegal, ie would not hold up in a court of law.
just now someone has finally taken them to court
stevestevesteve07.31.08 - 6:37 pm
reply
stevestevesteve, I do get what you're saying, but since I'm not familiar with your 'pound of flesh' collection, I would rather rest my cry of illegality on something I know better; the monopoly.
can't we just agree that they're breaking the law in both ways?(flesh collection and monopoly)
cheers
Eric Hair07.31.08 - 6:50 pm
reply
Actually it's more of a cartel than a monopoly, in this case. Rather like OPEC. They get ya over a barrel and then blammo.
ephemerae07.31.08 - 7:21 pm
reply
Ah, this is the same argument I've seen in other forums on this topic. There's the crowd who says "Well you should sign the contract and and live up to the terms."
But someone already nailed it: you can't make contracts with ridiculous punishments and expect them to stick. That's not how the law works. If you sign a contract that says you'll pay $.50 for a gumball, but include a clause that says if you don't pay then there's a $50,000 penalty, a judge will throw it out. The remedies have to be based on real damages, not on some number that's pulled out of someone's ass. Sprint was pulling a number out of their ass.
mullingitover07.31.08 - 7:33 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
