Not AV PerSe, but GREAT FOR US!!

[Groundbeef]

California Judge rules Cell Phone early termination fees illegal!


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

[mbbuchanan]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Good, Sprint sucks I'm changing tomorrow!!!!!!!!

[kexodusc]

Not sure how I feel about this - as a consumer I hate barriers, but as a capitalist, I have no sympathy for people who sign a contract with ridiculously lobsided terms they didn't bother to read, then cry about it later when a company enforces them.
But since most carriers are using implicit collusion to keep the fine print penalties and aren't really competing per se, I guess a ruling like this just sorta evens the playing field.

Hmmm, protecting a free, open, competitive market should be the job of a government, if it gets to a court someone hasn't done their job well enough.

Up here in Canada there's some talk that the oligopoly of cell phone providers are going to start charging customers who don't have text-messaging plans for receiving text messages, unsolicited or not. That's no different then being charged for a collect phone call before you've been offered a choice to reject the call. Great move for shareholders... Idea being it would force most consumers to upgrade service plans to a text-messaging inclusive plan. Thank fully the ruling conservative government is threatening regulation - with record profits from cell phones, I doubt those companies want any government snooping around their business practices.

[Groundbeef]

I have mixed feelings on this as well.

Here is how I see both sides.

1. Long term contracts are essential for companies to be able to afford subsidizing handsets for consumers. US consumers are used to getting hi-tech phones for very little money. By locking consumers into a 2 year agreement, phone companies are assured of recouping their loss/

2. Long term contracts are a DIS-incentive for phone companies to offer decent service. Because many consumers are locked into a multiple year deal, there is very LITTLE incentive for phone companies to offer even the minimum level of service. I am a Sprint consumer, and frankly haven't had a terrible time, but I am in the minority.

3. I think a REASONABLE solution would be for phone companies to offer a 2 tier program. A subsidized service with service agreements. And an Un-Subsidized service w/out long term agreements.

[GMichael]

I find it hard to sympathize with the cell phone service companies. They advertise $29.95/moth for a plan. By time you are done, you are paying over $50 a month for crappy service. Sure, I can understand that there's tax, but when I ask them to explain the misc charges I get no real answer. And why should I have to have a contract with them to begin with? They give me a service and I pay them for it. If I don't like my service I should be able to go somewhere else. But if I got a discount on my phone because I signed a contract, then I should forfeit that discount.

[kexodusc]

I have mixed feelings on this as well.

Here is how I see both sides.

1. Long term contracts are essential for companies to be able to afford subsidizing handsets for consumers. US consumers are used to getting hi-tech phones for very little money. By locking consumers into a 2 year agreement, phone companies are assured of recouping their loss/

2. Long term contracts are a DIS-incentive for phone companies to offer decent service. Because many consumers are locked into a multiple year deal, there is very LITTLE incentive for phone companies to offer even the minimum level of service. I am a Sprint consumer, and frankly haven't had a terrible time, but I am in the minority.

3. I think a REASONABLE solution would be for phone companies to offer a 2 tier program. A subsidized service with service agreements. And an Un-Subsidized service w/out long term agreements.

My provider does the 2 tier appraoch, and to be honest it's been a nightmare for them. They don't do it well and tend to try and push the higher-margin, guaranteed contract route more though. But if a competent, honest cell-provider was smart enough to try and do it right I'm sure it'd be popular.

I haven't had an issue with service in probably 4 years, but damn if the pricing and billing changes aren't a PITA sometimes.

I agree with you too GM...they all have the similar business models and there's not much choice/flexibility for us. I think most of us consumers all have bigger things to worry about and that's why they get away with it. Oh well.

[Woochifer]

I guess that's why between my wife and I, our only cell phone is on a pay-as-you-go plan! (The only catch is having to add $20 worth of airtime every few months, but everything rolls over so it's no big deal)

I always thought these free/subsidized phone offers were bogus if it meant having to get locked into a multiyear contract. No thanks.

Ideally, I'd prefer to have an a la carte choice of phone, carrier, and calling plan with the option to change any of them at any time, but alas these are phone companies we're dealing with. :shocked:

[GMichael]

I guess that's why between my wife and I, our only cell phone is on a pay-as-you-go plan! (The only catch is having to add $20 worth of airtime every few months, but everything rolls over so it's no big deal)

I always thought these free/subsidized phone offers were bogus if it meant having to get locked into a multiyear contract. No thanks.

Ideally, I'd prefer to have an a la carte choice of phone, carrier, and calling plan with the option to change any of them at any time, but alas these are phone companies we're dealing with. :shocked:

I have one of those pay-as-you-go plans too. Virgin has a plan that is only $15 a quarter if you sign up for the auto-credit card payment option. It works well. I don't have to worry about adding money buy a certain date or ever running out of time. It always takes care of it on the 90th day for me. Just be careful of when you get your notification of payment. It reads something along the lines of, "Your card has just been updated. Would you like to re-up your balance at this time?" If you click OK you will be charged a second $15.
Minutes do roll over and I never come close to using them all. Works great for $5 a month.

The wife on the other hand has to have the latest and greatest cell that takes pictures, emails, plays music like an MP3, takes out the garbage, does the cooking etc. We got the cheapo 29.95 plan. Only costs us $70 a month.

[L.J.]

I have one of those pay-as-you-go plans too. Virgin has a plan that is only $15 a quarter if you sign up for the auto-credit card payment option. It works well. I don't have to worry about adding money buy a certain date or ever running out of time. It always takes care of it on the 90th day for me. Just be careful of when you get your notification of payment. It reads something along the lines of, "Your card has just been updated. Would you like to re-up your balance at this time?" If you click OK you will be charged a second $15.
Minutes do roll over and I never come close to using them all. Works great for $5 a month.


Hmm...Sounds like you got the same deal as me. My phone was free & I have it set to top up automatically. $20 or something like that every 3 months, like you said. I searched around and that was the cheapest you go for that amount of time.

[bobsticks]

I guess that's why between my wife and I, our only cell phone is on a pay-as-you-go plan! (The only catch is having to add $20 worth of airtime every few months, but everything rolls over so it's no big deal)

I always thought these free/subsidized phone offers were bogus if it meant having to get locked into a multiyear contract. No thanks.

Ideally, I'd prefer to have an a la carte choice of phone, carrier, and calling plan with the option to change any of them at any time, but alas these are phone companies we're dealing with. :shocked:

I do the same thing too. Got the Pay-As-You-Go phone in the car for emergencies and that's it...drives my boss and every girlfriend I've had for the last five or six years crazy.

I do have a general dislike for the plan options but, frankly, I just hate cell phones. Seriously. I think they're bringing about this dumbed-down, myopic, extremely co-dependent gig on our society. I mean how really important are 90% of the cellphone calls that you've either received or overheard?

...I was typing out sample dialogues but they just got mean spirited, so y'know, suffice it to say that 90% of all cellphoone calls are an irrelevent waste of words and time.

[bobsticks]

Hey, if you really want to get mean spirited, check out this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fi-exxon1-2008aug01,0,5221267.story) article, in re: terms of oligopoly.

My favorite quotable quote is:
"We're investing in any project that we have ready for funding. We do that first. Then the money that's earned in our business is the shareholders' money, and we return it to the shareholders," Exxon Vice President Henry Hubble said in a conference call with reporters. "We'd like to do more" to increase energy supplies and would do more if the company had access to off-limits areas, he said.

What c@ck monger.

" We're investing in any project that we have ready for funding." What does that even mean? Just say, "Hi, I'm making me and sixteen Arab guys richer than any average South American country and all of Africa put together".

[kexodusc]

Hey, if you really want to get mean spirited, check out this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fi-exxon1-2008aug01,0,5221267.story) article, in re: terms of oligopoly.

My favorite quotable quote is:

What c@ck monger.

" We're investing in any project that we have ready for funding." What does that even mean? Just say, "Hi, I'm making me and sixteen Arab guys richer than any average South American country and all of Africa put together".
We have a lot of lazy, fat energy companies these days that are getting by on ridiculously high prices alone. Not unlike the Steel companies a few decades back.
I'd be happy waiting for their inevitable demise except the toll on society in the meantime is too high.
Bah...

[Groundbeef]

Back to cell phones....


1. Sticks and the rest of you. If you REALLY only use your phone for emergencies, (I mean thats it) let your contract lapse. By federal law/mandate ANY phone can access the 911 network anywhere/anytime. With or without contract. So your old phone, even if you let it lapse and have no minutes will access the 911 network. Why pay $20 when free can do it. Of course this assumes you dont use your phone for incidental talk.

On a side note, if you have any old phones DONATE them to a local womans shelter. They use them for this purpose, and you can deduct them from your taxes.

2. Prepay is nice, unless you are getting it for your daughter. I looked into the plans, and it didn't make financial sense. Just hooked her onto my contract, and let her have an old phone of mine. No activation fees, and because Sprint isn't subsidizing the handset, no contract. Not a bad deal for all.

[kexodusc]

I'm in the same boat as GM - my wife is on a pay-as-you-go plan and it saves us a $20-30 per month vs the other plans we've had the last 6 years or so...but for me, I'm out of town, in airports, all over the map and not having a plan isn't an option.
I'll be honest too - I use a lot of those little gadgets on my phone, the camera and mp3 player in particular, so I like the subsidized plans that allow me to get a half decent phone.

Most of you old timers have kids -which means someone close by can swap a SIM card and unlock a phone for you - if you really want a gadgety phone, just get one off ebay and have the wiz kids fix it up for your service provider. I've had good success with this approach, and it beats paying full pop for something that's almost obsolete in 12 months anyway.

[GMichael]

Back to cell phones....


1. Sticks and the rest of you. If you REALLY only use your phone for emergencies, (I mean thats it) let your contract lapse. By federal law/mandate ANY phone can access the 911 network anywhere/anytime. With or without contract. So your old phone, even if you let it lapse and have no minutes will access the 911 network. Why pay $20 when free can do it. Of course this assumes you dont use your phone for incidental talk.

.

Carefull with this. I tried it a few years ago. Seems that my monthly payments went up without a contract. Had to deactivate the phone to stop being charged.

[Groundbeef]

Carefull with this. I tried it a few years ago. Seems that my monthly payments went up without a contract. Had to deactivate the phone to stop being charged.

Yes, if you are on a "plan" you need to CANCEL the plan. But even if your phone doesn't have a phone #, or you don't buy any more time on your pre-pay, by law it WILL connect to the 911 network.

You don't need plan, a # or a contract. Thats why battered womens shelters love them. They can supply a free method for their clients in danger to contact police. And they don't have to pay a monthly charge.

So if you have an old phone that you don't use anymore, donate it to a shelter. And, it's deductable!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hey, if you really want to get mean spirited, check out this (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fi-exxon1-2008aug01,0,5221267.story) article, in re: terms of oligopoly.

My favorite quotable quote is:

What c@ck monger.

" We're investing in any project that we have ready for funding." What does that even mean? Just say, "Hi, I'm making me and sixteen Arab guys richer than any average South American country and all of Africa put together".

What they don't mention and what pisses me off is that the already have signed leases for coastal drilling off shore, and they won't use them. The want to go into protected areas because its easier to get the oil out of the ground. I say use the leases we have already given you first, then maybe we can talk about anwar. MAYBE. The bottom line is we are not going to be able to drill our way out of this baby version of a energy crisis, no matter what the GOP and the oil company's say. The non thinking sheeple that make up this country need to stop being so fearful of change, and embrace the idea that non petroleum based fuels are the ONLY way to energy independence. We do not have enough home based oil to give us oil independence, and that is a reality we must face. With China and India in the game, there will never again be $2-3 a gallon gas. I even have my doubts that it will even stay around $4 a gallon.

[Woochifer]

What they don't mention and what pisses me off is that the already have signed leases for coastal drilling off shore, and they won't use them. The want to go into protected areas because its easier to get the oil out of the ground. I say use the leases we have already given you first, then maybe we can talk about anwar. MAYBE. The bottom line is we are not going to be able to drill our way out of this baby version of a energy crisis, no matter what the GOP and the oil company's say. The non thinking sheeple that make up this country need to stop being so fearful of change, and embrace the idea that non petroleum based fuels are the ONLY way to energy independence. We do not have enough home based oil to give us oil independence, and that is a reality we must face. With China and India in the game, there will never again be $2-3 a gallon gas. I even have my doubts that it will even stay around $4 a gallon.

yup, this whole push on offshore drilling is nothing more than the petro lobby seeing an opportunity to make a landgrab that would have untenable under normal circumstances. The whole reason why the moratoria on offshore oil drilling got implemented in the first place is because of the damage caused by multiple oil spills. In California, the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill did tremendous damage to the coastline, and led to the formation of the California Coastal Commission, which controls the land uses for the entire coastline and pretty much stopped any new offshore oil drilling in California and development of new pipeline and refining facilities along the coast.

My whole beef with the coverage of this issue is that nobody asks the most logical question -- why would the oil companies push for something in which the end result is lower gas prices and lower profits?

The answer is that expansion of offshore drilling will do absolutely nothing by itself to lower prices. This is simply a con by which oil companies can expand their access to lower cost oil reserves. The oil that gets pumped out will go onto the international market and sell to the highest bidder, with no assurance whatsoever as to how much of it will be used for domestic demand. As mentioned, the oil companies already have rights to a lot of untapped reserves, and if their objective was to increase the supply in order to lower prices to consumers, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would explore the reserves that they already have?

I actually think that gas prices are headed back down to around $3/gallon. A big part of the current run-up is speculators getting into the act. Wholesale crude has already begun to go down simply because the speculators sense that prices have reached a point where it affects demand (i.e., consumers driving less, industry starting to look into alternative energy, demand increasing for more fuel efficient vehicles, etc.).

One analyst I read thinks that oil will settle in around $80-$90/barrel. While that's a significant reduction from where the prices are right now, it remains a near three-fold increase from where oil was just five years ago. And I think that's the most plausible scenario. Prices would still remain remain close to previous historic highs, but they're not so stratospherically high that it causes fundamental changes to the market demand. The speculators that are gaming the system are trying to find that price point where they can inflict as much pain on the consumer as possible before they fundamentally change their behavior. And this current run-up in gas prices has already reset the pain threshold for consumers. Two years ago, $3/gallon was considered grand theft. Now, it would be considered a return to normality.

All the talk right now about consumers going to smaller cars and looking for alternative energy is the same discussion we had back in the 70s and early-80s. Recall that at that time, people were talking about a permanent focus on fuel efficiency. Yet, all it took was a few years of stable gas prices, and the market was soon flooded with SUVs and high output V8s. Fuel efficiency for U.S. automobiles peaked back in 1986. For all the technology that has developed since that time, most of it went to increasing performance and increasing the weight of cars and trucks. We've got a long way to go before we even get back to where we were 20 years ago.