Judge ruling on Sprint fees is blow to industry

It is about time. They tried to charge my family $200 for an early termination fee when my mother passed away. They had to have a certified copy of her death certificate before they would waive the fee. It is time that this practice was stopped either provide good service and keep your customers happy or have them run away to a company that will.

Telephone service - landline or cell - is a necessary utility. I should be able to cancel my service at any time with no fee.

The phone companies are demanding all the cash while doing little to nothing to improve the quality or coverage areas of their services.

I'm fine with early termination fees -WHEN then decrease as the contract life runs. A $200+ Termination fee at 20 months into a 24 month contract is nothing short of extortion and SPRINT is the worst. I have been lied to by them, mislead, and deceived by their phone reps and even a couple of their store reps who simply didn't know how to tell the same story twice. As far as state jurisdiction - fine but in reality this is another case of a federal bureaucracy that can't or won't do it's job and consumers are paying the price.
What would really be the best solution would be for ALL cell phones to work on ALL networks, then the consumer interest would be best served. As it is your current phone is essentially worthless when you change service providers. In these age of demands for use to adopt "Green" lifestyles, cell phones are one of the worst violaters of this concept.

In fairness to the phone companies, you agreed to that contract's terms when you got your phone. You also, in theory, got a discount on your phone in exchange for agreeing to be a customer for two years at a specific price. That Early Termination Fee (ETF) is supposed to recoup the price of the phone. Whether that's true or reasonable is something you should have considered before you cheerfully signed away your soul to your cell phone provider.

The only fee I believe should apply is the remaining proration of the equipment you bought at signup

All carriers should have 2 options:
1. Subsidized handset with 1-2 yr contract and prorated cancellation fees
2. Non-subsidized handset without contract (activation fee would apply).

Everyone is happy, right?

Cell phones are so deeply discounted when signing a new contract that I feel the phone companies should be allowed to charge an early termination fee. I agree that the fee should be prorated based on how much of your contract you are terminating.

Regardless, states should not be imposing their own individual rules. This should be decided at the federal level.

Once again the whiners who do not know how to read a contract cry when they break the contract. It is a contract! These are the same people who didn't know a variable rate mortgage from a fixed rate mortgage and now the government is bailing them out. Unfortunately, this is the way business has to be run today. You have to cater to those who can read or write or understand what they are signing.

I agree those that sign contracts should abide by them. My problem is that the *only* entity in control are the providers. The providers will do whatever they want and "extort" the fees from their customers or their customers credit is at risk. I had a Sprint phone, honored my contract, kept it for almost four years. When I switched I was charged a fee ($175). Somehow without my signature or authorization I was in another contract (no I had not changed my terms.) Despite their inability to provide proof of a contract they still demanded the fee. Short of hiring an attorney and spending way more than the fee itself to defend myself my only other option was to be delinquent and risk harming my credit. The providers hold their customers hostage for more than just money.

Mobile telephones (unless they are the very high end items) are a virtual dime a dozen. If you don't believe it, just walk into a dollar store and look around. Phone companies jack up the prices on most phones to make it look like you are getting a deal.

They all vie for your money, and try to pin you to a contract to keep you from "shopping around".
Where they make their real money is in monthly fees and services.

They should not penalize you for taking your business else where. Besides, even if you do break and pay for a contract exit. They will be beating your door down to get you to sign another.

Having "early termination fees" just gives the provider an excuse to provide crappy service. Removing these and enabling customers to leave without penalty if they are unhappy with the service might just prompt these bloodsuckers to PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE TO BEGIN WITH!!! Good Service = Happy Customer and they won't want to leave anyway

Finally. I was a Sprint customer for 10 years and when I left because they had no coverage when I traveled abroad that my job required, I was hit with $400 in fees for the two phones we had. Irate doesn't even describe my mood. There is zero chance of Sprint ever getting any of my telecom business in the future.

Early termination fees are nothing more than pure profit. The price charged for phones to begin with covers their costs. Do not let the robbers tell you they need the termination fees to offset the costs of phones. That is pure bull. Have they ever said as a percentage of cost how much they lose from phone sales? No. They just claim that they do. If the companies would provide decent honorable reasonably priced and reliable service they would not need to worry about their customers abandoning them for competitors. You don't see termination fees for cable, local phone service or internet service. I for one thank the courts in throwing the fees out.

that's why i'll never have a cell phone.
whatever happened to capitalism. you give poor service or product you're out of business, cause i go elsewhere.

There does need to be more consumer accountability. The problem isn't whether or not ETFs are fair or ethical. The issue arises with contract extensions. Each carrier is increasingly more concerned about customer retention rather than new customer accrual. This is leading to questionable business practices of renewing customers contracts for numerous reasons. A majority of these renewals are done either over the phone or without the customer even being aware. Most consumers wouldn't be able to name the year (much less date) their current contract actually expires.

The argument of recouping handset subsidies is valid. However, most contracts have been renewed multiple times since the original handset based discount.

If a cell phone company is using the excuse that they are subsidizing the cost of a phone as the reason for the early termination fee then they need to take some steps.

#1 Disclose the price of the phone and make the early termination fee the difference between the actual cost and the subsidized amount.

#2 Have different early termination fees depending on phone model.

#3 Give customers the option to pay full price for the phone.

#4 Continue to prorate the early termination fee, for those who select the discounted phone price.

Having worked for a cell phone company in the past I know that the retail cost of phones is high, however I know for a fact that the cell phone companies negotiate the actual cost of the phones and purchase in bulk. I think a more realistic view would show that the early termination fees are used to pay for the expensive advertising that it takes to generate new business and have absolutely nothing to do with the cost of the phones. I'm sure that if we were all privy to the real cost of the handsets we'd find that they make a profit on the units and still charge the early termination fee.

There does need to be more consumer accountability. The problem isn't whether or not ETFs are fair or ethical. The issue arises with contract extensions. Each carrier is increasingly more concerned about customer retention rather than new customer accrual. This is leading to questionable business practices of renewing customers contracts for numerous reasons. A majority of these renewals are done either over the phone or without the customer even being aware. Most consumers wouldn't be able to name the year (much less date) their current contract actually expires.

The argument of recouping handset subsidies is valid. However, most contracts have been renewed multiple times since the original handset based discount.

The technology of cell phones equals that of the modern day toaster. One should be able to get one for $20 or $25 dolars, with all the bells and whistles, not $200+. If the cell company doesn't live up to it's "we have best service out of all the cell companies" pitch, why shouldn't i get my money back? How many times have you signed on the dotted line, only to have the service degrade over time, and the company tell you that "it's your phone...you need a new phone"? Total horsecrap, if you ask me. That's why I ditched my carrier and went prepaid.

Let the consumer decide ala: John- 398192 above.

1. Get your phone for nothing/almost nothing and do a contract for a reasonable period of time like One year.

2. Pay for your phone, or "bring one with you" from your last carrier. Change the chip to work with the new carrier, and pay your per-month fees for usage. In this method, you really know what your phone costs, instead of it being "buried" in contract fees.

3. B.T.W. there was an article that happened to be on CNN or MSNBC today regarding ~"What fool still uses land-line phones?". Today in the earthquake in L.A. area cell phones stopped working immediately (probably due to massive overloading). All landline calls got through (probably even the telemarketing calls :( )

hey cancel direct tv early or replace defective equipment, they extend your contract 2 years. cancel early they wanted $20 bucks a month from me!

Too many people buy phones on a whim. Let everyone pay the high price of the phones up front and then pay smaller monthly payments and no ETF's.

Having to pay up front will weed out certain people who shouldn't have phones anyway.

I hope people are ready to pay anywhere from $200 to $500 the next time they go to get a new phone or when they first sign up for service an get their initial phone. The carriers underwrite the cost of the phone and make it back over the course of the two year contract. I agree that the termination fee should be prorated, but it is a fair thing to have an early termination fee on a contract. After all, you pay a fee if you break your lease!

I also would not count on the carriers lowering their monthly fees to reflect the end to the phone subsidy recovery. In the long run I think that this ruling is going to cost most people money.

I think that this is a common truth about corporate america. these mobile phone companies nickel and dime the customer. what about unlimited long distance like landlines?

why should i use a cell phone? if I don't want to be contacted, I wouldn't use one.

hey cancel direct tv early or replace defective equipment, they extended my contract two additional years, and if I cancel early they want $20.00 per month. Seems alot like the cell phone deal!!!!!!!!!!! too me.

I hope people are ready to pay anywhere from $200 to $500 the next time they go to get a new phone or when they first sign up for service an get their initial phone. The carriers underwrite the cost of the phone and make it back over the course of the two year contract. I agree that the termination fee should be prorated, but it is a fair thing to have an early termination fee on a contract. After all, you pay a fee if you break your lease! I do think the fee needs to be based on the cost of the phone and the number of months remaining on the contract.

I also would not count on the carriers lowering their monthly fees to reflect the end to the phone subsidy recovery. In the long run I think that this ruling is going to cost most people money.