What is Digg?168 Comments
- gkovar, on 08/01/2008, -4/+219Breaking?
"In a preliminary ruling Monday..."
I don't know what day it is in CA but in these parts it is Friday...hard to call this a breaking story. - darkane, on 08/01/2008, -8/+116BREAKING: Submitting a story over 37 hours -after- the original article was published automatically implies that the story is -not- breaking news anymore. Aside from that fact, adding BREAKING before a title or ellipses afterward adds absolutely nothing to the submission.
- SHUUTOBI, on 08/01/2008, -12/+97Now phones and/or their plans will cost more to offset their losses. gj. :|
- Song0330, on 08/01/2008, -5/+61Buried for inaccurate headline of "breaking"
- jarofclay, on 08/01/2008, -5/+52I'm not a fan of early termination fees either, but this is crazy. This reminds me of the government bailing out all those homeowners who bought a home, couldn't afford it, and then let the government save them.
If I sign up for a contract that says 2 years and there is a fee if I terminate that contract then that is the way it is. This ruling has far reaching implications for contract breaking worldwide, I don't see this making it through the appeal process. - AboveandBeyond, on 08/01/2008, -1/+40BREAKING: I just posted this comment...More soon.
- larryjr88, on 07/31/2008, -8/+42Finally
- LiveWire530, on 08/01/2008, -0/+34I cancelled Sprint almost a year and a half ago, they still send me a bill every month for $0.00
Idiots - 3fingersalute, on 08/01/2008, -5/+38Breaking news? I read this days ago......
- Gonthim, on 08/01/2008, -1/+25I like how the jury said the fee's were acceptable, but the judge basically said they were too stupid to understand it correctly and overruled them. Never knew a judge could do that.
- darkane, on 08/01/2008, -0/+17My job is done. Now we sit back and wait for people to get smarter.
- qaelith2112, on 08/01/2008, -0/+17To clarify, there will still be a fee, and no one is being let out of a contract completely. The implication is that the fee cannot be the same with 2 months to go in the contract as it was with 24 months to go. A fee pro-ration is prescribed. This makes sense. The extent of the carrier's injury lessens as the contract progresses, so there really isn't much justification for seeking a level recovery at all stages. Either the fee is about fair compensation for injury, or it is about taking punitive measures. The former only justifies a pro-rata fee, the latter justifies more. But is punishment itself a justifiable objective?
- jbenson2, on 08/01/2008, -1/+17Don't be so happy.
The cost of buying a new phone or replacing an out of warranty phone is going to skyrocket. - prleet, on 08/01/2008, -5/+20Sprint blows *****...
- ibeetle, on 08/01/2008, -1/+15What do they mean "... the decision could be appealed..."? Could be? That should read will be.
Sorry, Sprint customers, there is no way that a multibillion dollar international company with $1,000 an hour lawyers are just going to pony up nearly 20 million dollars and start letting people out of there contract early, costing them millions more in revenues. - captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+14They may be bringing in "plenty of revenue" but he still makes a valid point.
Whether the companies are lying about the purpose/necessity of the termination fees, it doesn't change the fact that when you take away those fees, the company will be bringing in less money than before. They may still be making ridiculous profits, but the whole point is to make MORE profits than before, not suddenly less.
They'll definitely be finding new, more obnoxious ways to restore that influx of money. - staeiou, on 08/01/2008, -1/+13Some AP writer completely blew this out of proportion. The fees weren't declared illegal - civil judges can't even do that. The judge tentatively ruled that Sprint's lawyers did not do enough "damage control" in the courtroom showing how these fees were part of their revenue stream and how much money they would lose and how bad their service would be without these fees. This line of argumentation is required because of FCC guidelines that strictly determine what providers can and cannot charge. But this isn't even permanent: the article even said that "Sabraw's ruling was tentative and that she has given Sprint Nextel's attorneys the opportunity to file a rebuttal before she considers making it permanent."
- rrife, on 08/01/2008, -0/+12They won $18.2M from Sprint, so after the lawyers are paid, the people who paid the $200 ETF will get a $10 check.
- cosinezero, on 08/01/2008, -6/+16Seriously. This is not a win.
- minorthreat, on 08/01/2008, -6/+16you guys are suckers... they just tell you that etf's are used to cover the cheap phones.. With plans costing $100, they are bringing in plenty of revenue.
- Kison, on 08/01/2008, -6/+16Buried for BREAKING header.
- hhmmmm, on 08/01/2008, -1/+11buried for broken promises
- inactive, on 08/01/2008, -1/+11dugg for "more soon"
- rrife, on 08/01/2008, -3/+12So does this mean they're going to start selling unsubsidized phones for $500+?
- rrife, on 08/01/2008, -3/+12I just don't get it, when you signed up for service you're clearly told that if you quit the service before the contract is over you'll have to pay $$$. If you don't like those terms then don't sign up. And to top it off they give you money off on the price of the phone for agreeing to the terms.....it's not like they're lying to you to get you to sign up.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 08/01/2008, -1/+920 million in California. Wait until every other state piles on.
- captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+8Out of all the comments on this article, yours is my favorite.
- removesstains, on 08/01/2008, -0/+8Thats awesome.
- kenedamick, on 08/01/2008, -3/+10Stop saying ***** "BREAKING"
- shauncorleone, on 08/01/2008, -1/+8I believe the ruling is stating that putting that in the contract is what is illegal, not that it's illegal to charge them ETFs without telling them.
Nonetheless, I wonder if this is going to lead to major carriers turning focus to developing their own handsets, basically crippling innovation from third parties. I doubt it, but what long-term responses will telcos have?
Don't want to get roped into a 2-year contract? Pay full price, up front for what is typically an expensive piece of electronic equipment. This is what I did mid-contract. This sense of entitlement has been growing for years now, and it's staggering how much people think they deserve for nothing. And the way the courts system is being misused to find ways out of legal agreements is equally disturbing. - opethlike, on 08/01/2008, -2/+9Somebody needs to "BREAK" your fingers.
- Lounger540, on 08/01/2008, -1/+8The ability for people to transfer to another carrier without worrying about an EFT will force more competition though. So maybe they'll use those profits for better service in an industry notorious for only being concerned with ripping off it's customers.
- inactive, on 08/01/2008, -4/+11A more inappropriate use of "BREAKING," I'd be hard to find. Buried with pride (perhaps the tough love will convince people to stop labeling every damn news story with "BREAKING"?).
- TheMajikMan, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6I agree with you whole heartedly. All of those Apple fanboys who break contracts after 3 months because they hear they can get an iPhone elsewhere should have to pay those charges, but if I need to switch for work or to get on the same plan as my wife then I don't want to pay $200 in month 20 of 24. Contract breaking fees should be pro-rated. That just makes sense.
- captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6Thanks for your last-paragraph. If that is, in fact, why the case was brought, I can get behind that.
I'm all for protecting consumers and whatnot, but I had to agree with jarofclay: buying a cell phone isn't a 1 second task. You have to fill out a lot of paperwork, read a lot of crap, listen to the salesperson tell you a lot of crap. It says "You will have this for this long and pay us for this long. If you don't want to, you will pay this fee as a consequence." Alternately you could just not buy that service. There are pay-as-you-go options for cell phones which don't have lock-in contracts. So I have trouble feeling sympathy for anyone who's like "wah wah, I broke my contract and they dared to penalize me for it, my life is pain."
But not pro-rating, then yeah, the company is being a dick and the consumers are right to be fighting it. Makes the article make more sense (I know they'd mentioned pro-rating briefly in there, but it didn't really explain that it was the basis of the problem). - inactive, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6The law should give telcos a choice:
YES early termination fee, NO locked phone
NO early termination fee, phone locked until contract is up, then it MUST be unlocked
With CDMA carriers Verizon and Sprint, the phone-locking doesn't apply. But the law should be enacted to put an end to this ***** from here on out. - TheHayze, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5I look forward to the FCC forcing the issue even further, and imposing any (if any) early term fees for the telecos. We gave the telecoms their chance to play fair, and nice, and they blew it. Time for our great government regulate the fees for us!
/sarcasm - mhuggins, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5Patience! It's not a broken promise. If 4 days is considered "breaking", then "soon" could be 2 years from now.
- captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5All I think it would force is more carrier-exclusives.
There won't be cheaper phones or plans, really, but "Get exclusive access to this content" or "You can only buy this phone model from us".
They won't make the things we already have cheaper, but they'll give us new things to buy that we'll "OMG WANT" that competitors don't have. And then someone will try to patent text messaging or something equally stupid and everything will go to hell. - jayhawk, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5this likely won't even affect the state of California, let alone the rest of the nation. like staeiou noted, it's blown way out of proportion (no thanx to digg).
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 08/01/2008, -1/+6Nah, its just easier to sell the same crappy phones that die before the contract's up.
- captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5But if the government doesn't regulate it for us, we'll have to rely on personal responsibility and common sense!
And THEN how will I get my brand new, top-of-the-line, $500 dollar phone/instant messenger/e-mail/MP3 player/camera/address book/video game/mirror/satellite radio/personal massager/telescope/alarm clock/calendar/GPS/portable internet/instant gratification device (now with EXTRA POPULARITY!!) only 6 months after buying the first one??
Pay full price? Unfair! I *NEED* this thing to survive and it's not right the companies aren't just handing them out like candy at Halloween. - captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -1/+6I've read your comment four times and still cannot understand your point, besides being a jerk.
Do you agree or disagree with Shuutobi? How would company honesty/dishonesty about the termination fees matter? It won't change the fact that all they want is money, so taking money away from one area means they have to add it to another. Or is that what you were trying to say?
Unless I'm entirely misinterpreting Shuutobi's comment. I thought he meant "Oh, you're taking away their money from these fees, and they don't want to lose money (whether still profiting or not, more money is better than less money), so they're going to take our money via phones and plans because they're greedy".
Did you interpret it as "oh, without the fees they can't afford to sell us cheap phones/plans, because they're just trying to make enough to get by and continue providing these services."? - shadowman99, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4Or the rates will nosedive now that the telcos no longer have a trapped audience. If you piss off your customers, you can't say "tough *****" to them for two years. They will walk.
A win for the little guy is actually sometimes a win for the little guy. - max1018, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5Buried for bloody BREAKING: in title.
- inactive, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4California mobile-phone consumers $18.2 million = Most of it will go to attorneys.
Consumers will get $1.27 check in the mail !!
Plus now more expensive phones with the same high cost service.
Seriously, I think that attorneys should have a much higher qualification for creating all these CLASS ACTION lawsuits! - gtrunner, on 08/01/2008, -3/+7This makes sense. Even though the person signed a contract doesn't make the contract itself legal, much less legally binding.
Sprint, and other carriers, are through a contract charging punitive damages against the party who breaks the contract. And in most legal decisions, the level of punitive damages that would be awarded do not rise to the level that a wireless carrier charges.
Point in case.
You have a 2 year contract on a subsidized phone. You cancel your contract after 23 months. You have, in fact, paid 23/24ths of the $200 early termination fee (ETF). But the carrier retroactively charges you for all 24 months of the subsidy.
Most any judge in the country would not award the plaintiff that level of judgment after the person already clearly paid 23/24ths of the contract penalty. Sprint could make a case that you caused them loss revenue of 1/24th of the ETF, but clearly not all 24ths of the ETF.
Remember, you can't contract/sell yourself into slavery. Even if you sign a contract with whomever buys you as a slave, the contract itself is unlawful. Just like in the case of Sprint. - spaceshipsix, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4All telecommunications companies do.
Text messaging still costs money on many plans. Text messaging should have naturally become free on all networks if the system was a perfect competitive market. A text message takes up essentially no bandwidth compared to a phone call. - CielChocobo, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5I didn't know California was a country
- bdsams, on 08/01/2008, -3/+7their customer service should shot.....never have I had so much frustration over paying a single bill
-
Show 51 - 100 of 169 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is