Home  ›  News  ›

Handset Lemon Law Passed in Illinois

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 23 replies

It's a good idea, if it's very specifically drawn out...

monkeyracer

Apr 29, 2007, 8:50 PM
OK, let's look at this logically;
This type of law has been around since the 70's when the Magnuson-Moss Act was passed.

It outlined that manufacturers have to clearly state what is considered covered under the warranty and for how long, and there is a section that states (paraphrased) If a device has had a reasonable number of repair attempts and is still defective, the consumer can elect for a refund or free replacement. (This act doesn't state that the consumer is eligible for upgrading to a better unit for the price difference.) It also states that intentional abuse and misuse is not covered.

This means that if I buy a DVD player, and in the warranty card it states the tray motor is covered under the warranty for 90 days for par...
(continues)
...
getnthe411

Apr 29, 2007, 10:04 PM
What legislators are overlooking is the fact that the wireless providers do not manufacture anything, yet we are to hold them accountable for equipment issues.
What they need to be saying is that they should be responsible for any "network" issues, and let Motorola, Nokia, LG, Samsung, and the rest (yeah...it would be a long list) deal with the phone issues.
For example: I am not going to take my new Sony LCD back to Best Buy for warranty issues. (Yes GEEK SQUAD dude, I know that there are protection plans out there.... let me make my point) I will deal with Sony. What will probably be the outcome of this is, phone manufacturers will shorten the warranty time on phones to no more than 90-days, forcing consumers to purchase an extended w...
(continues)
...
ralph_on_me

Apr 30, 2007, 9:34 AM
That's my feelings as well. Carriers provide service, not equipment. I don't know if this will shorten warranty periods, but I could see carriers pulling out of the warranty business all together and refering customers to the manufacturer. Carriers have been a middle man out of curtesy for decades, and now your average consumer doesn't take a second to think and see that these people providing service don't produce the phones as well.

This is the first step down a long path of people not getting subsidy discounts at all, not being required to sign a contract, and having to purchase all of their equipment at retail prices.
...
pennyless10

Apr 30, 2007, 4:06 PM
😢 so in other words the government is slowly forcing us to become like europe... 😢

👿 i dont want te be french! the girls dont shave their armpits 👿
...
ralph_on_me

May 1, 2007, 9:42 AM
I don't think the government is "planning" it though. I think they're just bowing down to ignorant vocal voters.
...
Versed

May 1, 2007, 11:44 AM
Well thats better then being a frustrated Cingular,BestBuy or Circuit City Mobile phone salesman, I guess that job makes you unignorant.
...
Versed

May 1, 2007, 4:16 PM
Raplh, I applogize for the previous post, I actually see two sides to this argument. I've been using mobile phones since 1991, and to be honest only problem I've had is an antenna replacement and batteries getting weak. The antenna was replaced instore when I was with VerizonWireless with no charge. In fact several times on the spot and within minutes, and no it wasn't an abuse issue.

I thin emotions are getting to hot on this subject, there are two valid points of view. One from the tech side from the carriers and from consumers who have been wroned.

Several years ago Costco was selling T-Mobile phones to people west of my area, T-Mobile refused to let them out, and they had no service or medicore service in their area. The sta...
(continues)
...
lancekalzas

May 1, 2007, 6:46 PM
I don't think the issue is the valid points of view. The consumers aren't really in this discussion in regards to how it's going to affect him. I think this law would be a good idea if it targets the manufacturers and not the carriers. I can understand why someone would say that this is a good law if you want the carriers to own up to their part of the bargain but the fact is they do. This law is going to put the focus on the ones that are not responsible for the defects. All I have said on my posts is that I think the makers of the handsets should be the focus of this law and not the carriers.
...
Kbaeb

May 3, 2007, 10:12 AM
I couldnt agree more. The carriers are not to blame for defective products.
...
katrina

May 6, 2007, 3:59 PM
pennyless10 said:
👿 i dont want te be french! the girls dont shave their armpits 👿


LOL I can assure you we do LOL
thats just old ladies that don't shave their armpits or legs.
...
amosjones

May 1, 2007, 12:44 PM
A couple of points I must be missing.

1.) Why should the Consumer be required to pay $4.99 a month or more for a manufacturer warranty?

2.) If you sell a product and Brand it with YOUR company name, how is the customer supposed to know who made it?

3.) If the Service company contracts with manufactures for product, exclusively sells these products, and rely on the product for business success. Why are they not responsible for the Quality of Product?

and just because I am asking
4.) If the manufacturer warranty last for 12 months why does the carrier only allow replacements every 24 months?
...
lancekalzas

May 1, 2007, 1:45 PM
1. He's not saying the customer should have to pay $4.99 per month for a warranty, it would be for an extended warranty. The initial 90 days would still be included plus he's stating that this is a possible outcome of this law, which he's correct. This could happen.

2. Every handset actually has two brand names on it: one identifies the manufacturer and the other identifies the carrier. If customers don't know which is which, they need to do some research on their own, such as reading the handset manual.

3. Most handsets are not exclusive to a carrier, that's the exception and not the rule. They shouldn't be responsible for the quality of the product because they didn't make the product, pure and simple. Cell carriers already ...
(continues)
...
dancedjeric

May 1, 2007, 4:16 PM
Well said lancekalzas
...
monkeyracer

May 1, 2007, 3:54 PM
amosjones said:
A couple of points I must be missing.

1.) Why should the Consumer be required to pay $4.99 a month or more for a manufacturer warranty?

2.) If you sell a product and Brand it with YOUR company name, how is the customer supposed to know who made it?

3.) If the Service company contracts with manufactures for product, exclusively sells these products, and rely on the product for business success. Why are they not responsible for the Quality of Product?

and just because I am asking
4.) If the manufacturer warranty last for 12 months why does the carrier only allow replacements every 24 months?


1.) Sprint has been doing this for a while. If you would like in store warranty work,...
(continues)
...
lancekalzas

May 1, 2007, 6:40 PM
Well said.
...
dancedjeric

May 1, 2007, 4:15 PM
amosjones said:
A couple of points I must be missing.


2.) If you sell a product and Brand it with YOUR company name, how is the customer supposed to know who made it?

3.) If the Service company contracts with manufactures for product, exclusively sells these products, and rely on the product for business success. Why are they not responsible for the Quality of Product?



Answer to #2: Even a 3rd grader will tell you the brand of phone he or she has. If you don't know the company who made your phone, you ARE truly ignorant.

Answer to #3: Umm, the manufacturers themselves sell the phones as well as do many, many small wireless phone stores, websites and such so it isn't the carrier that ...
(continues)
...
Versed

May 1, 2007, 4:23 PM
True and untrue, Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint sell phones with only their brand on them, sure you can find out by surfing the net who makes them. But most people don't care, they just want a working phone.

Examples are Cingy 8125, 8525 and Sync (htc and samsung) Sprints new music phone UpStage which is made by Samsung(the phone on the store has only Sprints logo on it, on their website is has both). And that goofy SideKick T-Mobile sells.
...
dancedjeric

May 1, 2007, 4:32 PM
Of course, you can see who makes them right on this website. Not only that, but if you look right in the manual who provides the warranty service, for example the 8525, it says specifically HTC.
...
lancekalzas

May 1, 2007, 6:42 PM
Plus, using the Sidekick as an example, if you look under the battery, it says Sony and Danger. Danger designed it, Sony mass produces it, and T-Mobile provides the service. Someone has yet to come up with a good reason why anyone other than the manufacturer should be responsible for the handsets in case this law passes. I don't think anyone on here is interested in screwing the consumer because that's what we all are.
...
amosjones

May 2, 2007, 7:57 AM
What I am saying is I think the Carriers need to be held accountable for the CRAP. I know not all phone are bad but some models are just not worth selling. Some are great.

an example of a bad on is the UTStarcom CDM-105. When I worked in the store I did not sell a single on of those that did not come back with a problem of some kind. According to sprint policy if the consumer did not purchase the TEP and the phone was more than 14 days old the user was either stuck paying for a new phone or an ETF. The problem with most was they would not hold a charge.

Who should really be the "accountable" party

The manufacture for making the phone?
The Cell phone service for carrying the phone?
The store for Stocking the phone?
The sal...
(continues)
...
lancekalzas

May 2, 2007, 12:54 PM
I really don't think anyone is wanting to put it on the consumer. The people against this law targeting the cell carriers are for making the manufacturer responsible. Everyone else wants the carriers to be responsible. If there is that big of an issue with a particular handset, notice that it's the manufacturer that may or may not do a recall, not the cell carrier.
...
Lawless

May 2, 2007, 1:27 PM
I thought phones were tested before they went on a specific carrier, meaning they made sure the phone got good recption, made sure the battery worked well and such things like that. So when a phone breaks and you dont thing the carrier should have some sort of responibility thats just not right IMO. They dont have as much repsonibility as the manufacturer, but it is there responsibility to cover the phone they decided to carry if something happens to it, not meaing they need to give away free phones or fix it for free.
And if there is a recall of phones isnt the carrier giving the manufacturer the info they are gettin from the consumers complaining about the phone?
...
cilvzwagent

May 3, 2007, 9:31 AM
You expect them to hold every phone ever made to test it?? NO! They get one good model put together and test it. Then they make any adjustments and test again. Finally they get down to the way it needs to be and go from there. SH** happens on the assembly lines ,that is out of our control! Consumers gripe enough right now that we take too long to release phones...I can only imagine how long it would turn to if everyone truely expected us to test and hold every make/model and ESN in our hands before using it. And besides.....most warranty issues are not out of box failures, most of the ones I see are within the first 90 days......after the 90 days, it's very random weird stuff that could probably mostly be cured by the customer knowing...
(continues)
...
Lawless

May 3, 2007, 9:46 AM
Yea i understand what your sayin, I too work for a cell phone company(name will stay out of this post) and i recommend phones to customers all the time that will work better than others, my post was more of a question than anything else, i just thought cell phone companies had more of a testin part of how phones work on there system and such, that how its works at the company i work for. So if we rely on the word of the manufacturer then yes this law shuld be more about them and not the cell phone carriers.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.