Unfair Fees
(continues)
Expect the same response over here as the one you got on Howard Forums. đ
The bottom line is you KNEW you were under contract for 11 more days. I assume that you did not ask USCC about what would happen on a port-out. And Cingular did not bother to tell you about the possibility of an ETF. Honestly, what it sounds like is that Cingular s...
(continues)
Oddly, the contracts do advise that if the customer wishes to cancel they must notify the carrier!!
Some of these provisions are void for public policy reasons. For example if the service is not available, how can the customer be obligated to pay for it - what is referred to as impossibility. Consumers are protected in these instances by their state's a...
(continues)
Did you pay for your service and usage through your final billing cycke with USCC?? (Remember, you pay for your billing cycle's service in advance on your statement from the previous month).
If so, it seems to me that the carrier is attempting to thwart the Federal wireless number porting order CC Docket No. 95-116 by claiming a proprietary interest in your number. The provision in your USCC contract alleging that porting, in and of itself, during the contract period constitutes breach, invoking early terminations fees, seems to violate the FCC order.
The carrier, however, may charge any cost it incurs in facilitating the porting.
What other logical reasons could the carrier possibly have provided you paid for your servic...
(continues)
Basically, the first step shouldn't be 'complain complain complain', but admit that he made a mistake and try to work it out. This doesn't quite look like a mischievous carrier trying to screw over an unwitting customer. The customer didn't follow the contract (didn't stay with the company the promised number of months) - it doesn't matter what he paid for ans...
(continues)
As industry contributors to this forum are likely aware, prior to 2003 wireless customers would have to acquire new telephone numbers if they wished to obtain a more beneficial plan with another carrier. Quite often, to avoid early termination fees with their existing carrier, they would minimize their plan with the existing carrier and have calls forwarded to the new number at the new carrier...
(continues)
The customer at this point would not be "entitled" to disconnect without an ETF. Unless he was on a pre-paid account, in which case he wouldn't be able to port-out anyhow.
If you really want to go to European/Asian style cellular, you better do some more research. Haven't you ever seen how the CANADIANS complain about their phone prices on these boards? Canadian, European...
(continues)
AM I RIGHT???
That's OK. I guess I cannot find fault in towing the company line.
Except when....consumers' rights are infringed upon.
But before you respond on behalf of your employer I know... how about calling USCC corporate legal in Chicago. Better yet inquire of the FCC.
Under contract law, for a provision to be binding it must first comply with applicable statute and common law.
E.G. A contract for an unlawful act is not binding.
Also certain contracts can be severable to strike the unlawful provisions and preserve the lawful ones. However, if the provisions are so interdependent, the entire contract may be unenforceable.
Finally contracts or their provisions that violate ...
(continues)
Personal Responsibility. FCC cannot legislate it, neither can Congress. A contract is a contract, if one enters in it, he should follow it. If he disagrees with it, he can avoid it and not enter it. This is a line that almost every business follows.
There's nothing illegal in mandating the term of the contract; if you don't like i...
(continues)
It acts on behalf of the people of the United States.
And its orders are law, which wireless service contracts are subject to.
Are you honestly contending that if the customer paid his contract in full, i.e. monthly plan and usage for the full term of the contract he should not be allowed to port his number?
If I sign a two year contract with a carrier at $50 / month plus taxes and fees, and I wrote USCC a check for $1200 plus the relevant taxes and fees in advance, under what precept of law or fairness can USCC forbid me from taking MY number to another ...
(continues)
I do not work for USCC. As I have said before, I work for an AT&T store...
(continues)
Finally, a CS rep supervisor in Iowa admitted the prior misinformation, gave the correct info albeit two months later. He was very professional.
Bottom line, if you want a flip camera phone with USCC, that is currently functions on NWeb and is compatible with a host of Easy Edge apps, I recommend the LG VX 6000, even though its about to be superseded by the VX6100.
My girlfriend has one.
Its camera phone is far better in low light and its functions and controls are more intuitive than that of the V810.
I just happen to support Moto because my business has had several Moto employees as clients and I think ...
(continues)
I'm sorry to tell you this but your not as smart as your trying to be, you're trying to hard.
THE ACCOUNT WAS CANCELLED BEFORE THE CONTRACT DATE, WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT?
USCC reps as well as any wireless carier reps are not psychic; when a customer calls in to ask what the contract date is we don't automaitcally know that they are planning to port out the number.
The Cingular rep should of told the customer that when the port is complete the uscc account would be cancelled.
Leave carrier before contract...
(continues)
If the customer ports and pays the last billing cycle's overage fees in full you think the FCC order allows the "ETF"?
If so please explain how you arrive at your conclusion.
When I was told that NWeb and other Easy Edge apps were available on my Moto v810 in November and it turns out NWeb won't be available until this summer, you tell me who should feel "screwed". How about when 5 USCC CS agents told me the phone did not have a speaker-phone.
(continues)
Motorola, however, didn't make material misrepresentations of fact which induced me to sign on with USCC, referring to the NWeb and Easy Edge Apps. When three USCC agents at the company store told me this phone had these apps, what additional "research" should I perform. Even several corporate CS agents didn't have a clue what was going on with the V810 apps.
I do not need to be lectured on research. I do research of a different type every day for my clients, and I am fully liable if it is wrong. What do I pay a wireless carrier for if they cannot accurately represent to me the features and limitations of a product they offer?
If you have...
(continues)
Please advise on your qualifications to interpret the FCC order.
I'm not insulting customers. I deal with them on a day-in and day-out basis. I know they're general levels of understanding on this and...
(continues)
Settlements and or verdicts in U.S. Courts on lawsuits based upon statute, FCC regulatory orders, or common law, brought by the government or consumer plaintiffs affect the policies and charges administered by the carriers.
A U.S. District court recently accepted a class action settlement whereby Verizon wireless revised its billing method for minutes and paid damages to affected cust...
(continues)
Really. They are not illegal. Why is it so hard to understand?
Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just needs duct tape!"
đĸ
In this situation I'm sure any carrier would be will to waive ETF if the customer paid for the full bill cycle as long as the last day of the bill cycle is past the contract end date.
IF the last day of the bill cycle is not past the contract end date
Ie: Contract ends on Feb 28th and last day of bill cycle is the 24th of Feb
Then the ETF would by applied and would be completly legit and legal.
athens said:
On a forum that is intended to to help wireless consumers I am simply amazed that you feel compelled to insult consumers, by insipidly stating that we do not understand the FCC WLNP Order.
The insulting goes both ways. The person simply made a mistake and/or was ignorant. Its fine if he doesn't care for USCC and its his choice to vent his frustration in a forum. Thing is, he only had 11 days left on his contract, so why mess with something he clearly did not fully understand? He could have ported without a hitch in short order.
And, if he truly had an issue with his service, he should have addressed this aspect. The wonder, then, is why he waited so long to address his signal issues.
The...
(continues)
But if he paid everything and decided to port early what is the purpose of implementing the ETF at that point.
The FCC Order even states that the a carrier that is owed money, cannot obstruct the request to port.
The reason I got onto this tangent is what I perceive as non-lawyers equating private company policy as being per se lawful.
Company policy is what it is - a company rule meant to serve the company's needs. It is only lawful when a court of appropriate jurisdiction says it is.
I initially observed that these forums can be fun when the info is exchanged in a construct...
(continues)
Here is the link:
http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5 ... »
If you recall, we had a discussion regarding reception problems on Jan. 6th on the v810 forum.
Here is that link
https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/p_forum.php?fm=m&f ... »
You responded:
"Obviously, if you can prove you did not get the service you expected, then you would have the right to cancel without penalty."
I read the Howard forum thread and it seems Kreetz ported due to relocating to an area with poor USCC reception.
Now I am going to give you a legal cite:
Chapter 810 Illinois Compiled Statutes Act 5/2-314 Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose
Again, no one has explained to me the financial damages to USCC if Kreetz had paid his entire contract monthly plan and usage for the final ...
(continues)
2. It is the obligation of the new carrier (Cingular) to inform the customer about porting. Did kreetz tell USCC in advance that he would be porting? Or, did kreetz simply ask for the contract end date? Despite what he writes, we don't know for sure. (See his first post).
3. When I ported from Verizon I knew the contract end date (it had expired months before) but I called to confirm before I ported. And when I signed up for USCC service, I was asked about my contract with Verizon. I had tons of questions and thought thinks through in o...
(continues)
"In the event USCC acts in a way to cause pecuniary damage to a customer, USCC agrees to indemnify and hold the customer harmless and pay the customer his damages and attorney's fees."
I submit that you speak to USCC attorneys who drafted the contract, who certainly speak in "LAWYER", about why that provision isn't anywhere in their contract.
The last I heard, "lawyer-speak" is the English language.
The wireless carriers and their attorneys know that most consumers don't carefully read, research or understand most documents they sign regarding far more significant obligations. That would include mortgage agreements, notes on mortgages, automobile ...
(continues)
Ignore them, do not even bother to respond.
Child-like contributions, however, are not a license to give errant legal opinion.
Honestly, I'd like to know what position the USCC reps would take if they had a new car for which they had a legitimate lemon-law/ UCC breach of warranty claim against the manufacturer that rendered the car undriveable, and they owed a bank $20,000 on a car loan.
When they go to a lawyer what kind of answer do they want to the question of whether they have to keep paying their car loan on a car that doesn't work, while a lawsuit is pending for three years?
To force a customer to sue USCC to obtain the relief they are entitled to works great f...
(continues)
(continues)
justpeachy said:
What you're writing about has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Cellular contracts are not $ amounts- they are time frames. This customer's contract stated that he had to keep continuous service for either 12 or 24 months. The contracts do not say that they can leave the contract if they bill is paid through the month, it says they can leave once they have had service for 24 months from the date of activation.
This is well written and clearly indentifies the situation.
Examples:
1) A financial obligation for a service or product to be rendered within a fixed period of time;
2) A financial obligation for a service or product to be rendered on a continual basis;
3) A service or product exchanged for another service or product
The essence of the contract is thus two-fold, the promise to perform and the value for which the promise is made.
Therefore all contracts have some finite value.
No court has found a contract to be a time frame without finite value.
Just because a contract SAYS something does not mean it can always be enforced.
Example: A contract to sell narcotics is unenforceable as well as ILLEGAL.
You are right, USCC might not have suffered monetary damages if the customer had paid for the full cycle prior to canceling the service. Still Kreetz canceled contract before its defined period of time, and the contract has been violated for not keep the service for 11 more days.
The Terms and Conditions states that the "agreement is effective upon acceptance by U.S. Cellular and continues until terminated in a manner as provided in this agreement. If you or U.S. Cellular terminate Service for any reason during the Initial Terms as specified in your Service Order (12 or 24 months), you may be assessed an early termination fee. Upon termination for any reason, you are responsible for the payment of all charges."
Termination...
(continues)
Unfortunately these boilerplate disclaimers, which I often use in contracts I draft for clients, do not legitimize unlawful charges.
I am interested in this new duty you have established for reps of carriers, when new customers seek to have their numbers ported to them from their current service provider.
How can an employee of a carrier who's training and knowledge is limited to that carrier's policies and restrictions have a duty to diclose another carrier's possible or probable policies?
When their is solicitation of changing providers I think the consumer reasonably expects that the agent for one carrier will know little to nothing about the actual policies of the competin...
(continues)
Cellular contracts are not $ amounts- they are time frames.
This is well written and clearly indentifies the situation.
... and what is consistently being argued is that somehow the contract is unfair because of the timeframe since the person may have (no one's sure) already paid what may have been due under the contract, not counting taxes, fees, other other service charges... Scary.
Non-negotiable consumer contracts which charge excessive or unjustifiable fees and penalties have been repeatedly found to be unenforceable by courts and have even been held to constitute per se consumer fraud.
(continues)
They know that no client will even pay $1000 to save $300. It is not to their economic advantage.
You should have paid better attention to what I have stated earlier. I have not stated that the entire USCC contract is voidable. Just that certain provisions MAY BE voidable under certain circumstances.
The reason that neither this contract nor ones similar to it may not have been voided outright is that they are changed as a condition of settlement prior to trial.
Just because a jury never gets to decide a wrongful death case of negligent design of fuel tanks (GM pick-up trucks) because it settles prior to verdict, that doesn't indicate that the design was not defecti...
(continues)
The reason that GM had to redesign the fuel tanks is that it was a risk to the public health. Now, getting a contract canceled is not a risk to public health, so that argument doesn't work either. Again, that is not relevant to the case at hand. The account was not canceled because it was defective, it was canceled due to the fact that there was a request sent in ...
(continues)
Now I remember, AT&T wireless rep. Salesman.
GM redesigned the fuel tanks so that the company would not bleed to death from litigation.
Just in the same way that Ford replaced Firestone Tires.
That is not a public health issue.
Public health issues are medical risks and issues common to the general public such as tobacco smoking.
Consumers do not need to have their health or physical safety threatened to have standing to bring claims for consumer fraud.
I congratulate you that you have learned a new word "class action", Fortunately you seem to know as much about them as a layperson.
It is not a joining of plaintiffs bu...
(continues)
Ford didn't replace the Firestone tires. Firestone had to redesign them because they posed a safety risk to users of the tires. A tire cannot simply "explode" under normal usage conditions. That is a design flaw / manufacturing defect. Firestone solved this by redesigning the tires. It was a consumer safety problem. Not an early termination of a contract issue.
GM redesigned their fuel tanks for the same reson. A gas tank c...
(continues)
-Because dipchits like kreetz are in this world who can't understand simple English find a bottom-feeding lawyer looking to make a quick buck to find a loop-hole that any non-moronic person would find unethical.
24 month contract, not 23 month and 20 days, but 24 months. I could ask my 2 year old nephew if 24 is < or > or = to 23.7 (I'd put $ on a right answer)
I believe that USCC will not charge the ETF if you sign up and finish your contract...
Kreetz, you phucked up! Do the rest of us a favor and own up to your mistake and take it like a man... >
Remember ours is a nation of laws.
Keep that in mind the next time you or someone close to you acn't get along with their spouse and feels the compulsions to file for divorce and they still want to see their kids.
Or when that lawyer is what stands between that individual's freedom in the open light or being caged like an animal for the rest of his life.
Perhaps you would have preferred a little trip to Iraq before 2003 to first hand experience what it was like to be in a place with a different type of law.
As I have said ad nauseum, I do not assert that ETF's are unenforceable. I have repeatedly stated that it is possible that a court might find one enforceable when applied to a situation such as that of my hypothetical.
If you remember my hypothetical is the one where the customer has satisfied his entire financial contractual obligation to the carrier. I.E. where he has paid all the monthly service and usage fees prior to porting.
I admit that would be rare.
However, I'll give you a real example to illustrate my point. In October 2003 my father's 2 year contract with Verizon ex...
(continues)
Basically the LNP more than likely would not have any influence on a c...
(continues)
just out of curiosity how much are you charging us for this legal advise??? đ
athens said:...
If the customer didn't pay his full monthly service and usage fees for the duration of the contract - as a lawyer I say go for it. Make him pay the ETF.
But if he paid everything and decided to port early what is the purpose of implementing the ETF at that point.
The FCC Order even states that the a carrier that is owed money, cannot obstruct the request to port.
The reason I got onto this tangent is what I perceive as non-lawyers equating private company policy as being per se lawful.
Company policy is what it is - a company rule meant to serve the company's needs. It is only lawful when a court of appropriate jurisdiction says it is.
I initially observed that these forums can be fun when the
(continues)
He is also a customer of U. S. Cellular. Word of mouth can be a very powerful thing. It doesn't mean we have to agree with him, but let's be nice to him. We work for a great company, I know I don't want anyone talking bad about such a great company, as I hope most of you do not either.
Like I said, it doesn't mean he is right, but let's be nice to each other.
Several of the contributors to this thread apparently work for that carrier.
When I advised him of what kind of representations non-lawyer employees of his and other carriers were making on this thread, to say he was concerned is puting things mildly.
He asked for the web address for this thread. He did not think that his company's employees giving unauthorized legal advice and opinion on behalf of the carrier is funny.
I mused that perhaps those employees really do not like their jobs at the carrier.
It is to speak our opinions, and have discussions about different subjects. Not to be mean, call each other names, make un-warrented threats.
Most of us do NOT go to this forum to be the one who is right. We do this to get a different point-of-view. Talk about things we like, and don't like. Not to be bullies.
Let's drop the whole thing! âšī¸
I love working for USCC, I love our customers, I enjoy coming to this site to see/talk to other people who do what I do. And to hear what things bother us, and our customers.
If you read my last response, I cited the Illinois Court of Appeals ruling on a lawsuit filed against Verizon relating to ETFs.
That Court did not laugh at the Plaintiff or her attorneys.
And that case is likely going to develop into a class action.
Why don't you tell the Illinois Appellate justices and the Ninth Circuit U.S. Appellate Justices what you think about the binding nature of every provision of a telecom contract. Unless you would rather not be laughed at.
You submited the port reguest through Cingular, Cingular is the one who cancelled your USC account when your #(s) were fully ported out. Stop blaming others for your mistake.
(continues)
Besides did you ever read your contract with USCC?
I hope you read your contract with Cingular or there may be more surprises to come.
I say don't blame USCC on your lack of responsibility of not fulfilling your commitment.
(continues)
The system USCC works off automatically charges the ETF. It's the way it was designed to work.
Athens has a point that the customer did pay his final bill. USCC has a point that the line was ported out, and there for the BAN was cancelled. There is a HUGE gray area here. That's when the customer needs to call, and talk to any customer care rep in CR.
All this badgering is non-sense. USCC is a great company to work for, and to be a customer. We all know that. USCC is not the kind of company that will pu...
(continues)
đ Ooooppps my bad. THis would depend on the market area also, since SWCC does things differant than the others. Never anyone on the same page with this company. Kreetz if you have been with them for a long time call em back and tell them about it. What is 11 days, if you have been there for years ? đ Im sure that service has paid for itself...
(continues)
I have heard of Bonehead people, but you take the cake. US Cellular is one of the most lenient carries when it comes to porting. If you are out of Contract there is no problem with porting. IF you were with Cell One for instance, you would have to give a 30 day notice regardless if you were out of contract or not and the cancellation fee is not 150 per line with them it is 200. Maybe next time you decide to carrier jump you should look a little more deeply into the process. ASK QUESTIONS????? The first thing to do is ask you old carrier questions like: When does my contract expire? IF I port now will I be assessed a break fee? what will it cost me to port? A contract is a contract until the day after it expires. Remembe...
(continues)
This may be a lame example, but I can't just want to stop paying my car payment, but keep the car when I still owe money on the car. That's kind of what is happening here, but not really. Their contract was close, very close to ending. So the two are different, but the point I am trying to make is the loop holes only happen when both parties are ok with the changes.
Like I said before. T...
(continues)
If by "loop holes" you mean excuse from performance of certain or all conditions of a contract, the law in fact does recognize such excuse from performance.
Performance may be excused for the following reasons:
1) Legal or actual impossibility - death of one of the parties, cessation of existence of a legal entity, physical impossibility due to terrain, etc.
2) Statutory - laws prohibiting certain provisions of a contract
3) Certain types of Bankruptcy
4) Unconscionability of enforcement of a contractual provision;
5) Non-conforming goods or services (this actually is statutory under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Under your example of a car loan, if the loan was issued ...
(continues)
I do not know why you are coming at me with this. If you have read what I wrote, I have continuosly stated that you have a good point. I work for USCC, and will stand behind my company because I love this company. I will enforce any policy they have, becuase that is my job.
All your points are true. You are a laywer. It is your job to research these kinds of things. You went to school for a very long time. You seem to be very good at what you do. I do not have the same kind of education as you do. Most of us on these forums do not. That's not why we come here. To prove who is right and who is wrong. You have every right to make your point which you have, thank you for that. But before you come at me, realize that...
(continues)
(continues)
USCC churn rate is one of the lowest churn rates out of all the carriers out there.
"politics of porting?" no comment! lol! my life does not REVOLVE around the cellular industry!!
Mine only does when i am at work. đ