Home  ›  Carriers  ›

U.S. Cellular

Info & Phones News Forum  

all discussions

show all 89 replies

Unfair Fees

kreetz

Feb 7, 2005, 8:16 PM
My wife and I were thinking about switching carriers when our contract with U.S. Cellular expired. My wife called them and asked when the contract ended. After that, we contacted Cingular, and were going to get the new service started, before our current contract with USC expired. We had not idea that porting out our number would also terminate our contract with USC. A few weeks later, we got a bill from USC for $300, for early termination. We were never told that we would be charged $300 for porting out our number. USC charged us, when there was less than a month left on the contract. The claimed that they're records indicate that Tessa was told this, but that is an all lie, had we known that they would charge us $300, we would have ...
(continues)
...
fincher

Feb 7, 2005, 10:11 PM
Ah, but surely you know the term CONTRACT. 😲

Expect the same response over here as the one you got on Howard Forums. 😁
...
speedywalk

Feb 7, 2005, 10:47 PM
I must agree with fincher. You were under contract, albeit for 11 days, but still under contract. Remember: it is NOT USCC's fault for the ETF. CINGULAR should have told you that it would automatically cancel the service upon port out. I work for a divested AT&T store, and what we are TRAINED from day one to tell people on number-ports is that it will TERMINATE your service with said carrier and we DO NOT reimburse any ETF's that may be incurred if you are still under conract.

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)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 2:09 AM
The binding nature certain aspects of these one-sided contracts is questionable. The contracts do not provide for the customer prematurely terminating the agreement, yet the carrier may cancel at any time for any reason. Also, the carriers' inaccurately claim that while they may not guarantee service in a particular location, the customer in that location may not cancel for any reason.

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)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 12:34 PM
Kreetz,

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)
...
DuckKane

Feb 8, 2005, 1:32 PM
It's good to see that there's someone here who actually read the laws, but... How about advising the "victim" to try to work it out with USCC first! I'm sure that if he paid for service for the month, or had about 30 days left but cancelled early, they would be willing to settle with him for his remaining payment... Or payment of taxes, if he paid already for services provided.

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)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 2:44 PM
If the customer has defaulted on a financial obligation to the carrier, to no fault of the carrier, there is no doubt that the customer is on the hook for the balance of the financial obligation on the contract to the carrier. That is provided the carrier has continued to provide service that meets a UCC standard of fitness for its intended purpose.

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)
...
speedywalk

Feb 8, 2005, 3:36 PM
Unlawful trickery? It's a contract. It's black and white, plain and simple. I don't know exactly how USCC contracts read, but ATTWS contracts a just one paragraph long. Summary: "This is a contract terms 2 yrs. You are bound by the terms and conditions of the service policy for ATTWS. Termination of service before 24 mos. will be a breach of contract, and incur ETF."

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)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 4:14 PM
Sounds like all you guys work for USCC.

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)
...
DuckKane

Feb 8, 2005, 4:27 PM
No, many people don't work there. I don't. But I know better than to mess up my contractual agreement a month before it expires and blame the carrier. An 24-month contract is just that - 24 months of service. Let's all stop looking for loopholes and explanations as to why the company has no right to enforce the provisions of the 24-month contract and focus on something that some people seem to lack:

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)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 5:08 PM
The FCC is appointed by the elected president of the United States, and is responsible for issuing orders that enforce the Federal Communications Act, enacted by the Congress.

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)
...
speedywalk

Feb 8, 2005, 6:15 PM
They are not implying ownership of ANY phone number. What they are claiming ownership over is the BILLING ACCOUNT. When you port out a phone number, there is no longer a phone number tied to the BILLING ACCOUNT so it therefore terminated. When you terminate the BILLING ACCOUNT, you are charged an ETF. The reason that a number port request requires a billing account number is to ID which account the number is tied to. A cellular company LEGALLY cannot charge you for a service you can no longer access, since your number is no longer in their systems, they simply close out the billing account. THAT is what incurrs the ETF. Not any "implied ownership of the phone number."

I do not work for USCC. As I have said before, I work for an AT&T store...
(continues)
...
techman20

Feb 19, 2005, 1:55 PM
It would have happen no matter what carrier u were with,when u have 11 days left with cingular port your number to another carrier and i bet u they will charge u ETF. my ? is if u only had 11 days left why not wait till that 11 days were over then change service that would have avoided this whole thing...and as much as i can't stand some of the sh*t these companys do they were right in charging u the ETF if u should bitch to anyone i would yell at cingular, they are the ones that screwed u not uscc....
...
silvabullit

Feb 8, 2005, 4:41 PM
isn't Nweb a browser?
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 5:11 PM
NWeb is indeed a BREW web browsing application. However it was not available on the Moto V810 in November 2004, as was advertised to me by USCC. Nor is it expected to be available until summer 2005.
...
brettrules05

Feb 9, 2005, 8:51 AM
where was this advertised??
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 5:29 PM
In the USCC store the sales manager and two agents gave the wrong info. Then several Easy Edge CS agents did not even know.

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)
...
schnozejt

Feb 9, 2005, 4:27 AM
Nope I dont work for USCC.

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.
...
Gene Hackman

Feb 24, 2005, 10:50 AM
Did anyone notice the flaw in most of theese arguement and replys? The number portablilty mandate states that the customer may take his/her number to any provider, it makes no mention of exemptions from legal service agreements. By the customers own admission, they were able to take their number to a carrier of their choice with no further interference from the old service provider...they also said that they were aware of an existing agreement with the old provider, and made no attempt to find out whether there would be charges or to see if they would be waived. once the port starts the old provider CANNOT by law contact the customer... Am I alone here?
...
schnozejt

Feb 25, 2005, 6:29 AM
Gene, everyone stopped discussing about this because athens cannot understand such facts as you presented.
...
lmpff

Feb 8, 2005, 4:56 PM
We do have proration to think about as well. If a cust. signs up in the middle of their bill cycle, we prorate, so we dont charge them for a full month if they only have it for half. So then we would have to do it if they cancelled within the last 30 days right?. If the cust. had 1000 minutes and canceled 11 days early, according to my calculations, he could talk on the phone 33.33 minutes a day for one month and be within his 1000 minutes. Let's say that he used up 900 minutes when he canceled, that means he's gonna have to pay $100 in overage charges. Then we still get unhappy calls about trying to "screw the customer for leaving". This is why the cust. needs to fulfill the contract. It's very simple...
Leave carrier before contract...
(continues)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 5:21 PM
Another carrier rep, I see.

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.
...
speedywalk

Feb 8, 2005, 6:22 PM
I see the deeper issue at hand here. The REAL issue is that YOU are upset that you didn't actually do the research to make sure that the phone you were looking at really had the features you need. You don't really care one cent whether kreetz's ETF is justified, you're just upset that you got the short end of the stick on a phone deal so you're out to screw the company in any way possible. I'm glad you keep throwing your own little interjections in the discussion at hand, which by the way has NOTHING to do with your phone's lack of features. If that's the real issue, start a thread about that. THAT one you might be able to win, this one, you clearly are wrong. Consumers have no idea about the policies and procedures that are required behind ...
(continues)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 6:58 PM
I do not particularly care about my equipment's limitations. Motorola makes a quality product.

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)
...
athens

Feb 8, 2005, 7:08 PM
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.

Please advise on your qualifications to interpret the FCC order.
...
speedywalk

Feb 8, 2005, 7:56 PM
I'm stating that all of the "account cancellation requests and instatement requests" do INDEED terminate a billing account. It is this termination of accounts that results in the ETF. If it happens even one day early, it is a breach of contract. Therefore, subject to any and all ETF's incurred by such action. The phone number cannot be active on two billing accounts at one time. It's either active in company A or active in company B. If company A charges for early deavtivation, when company B request the number to be active in their books, company A must terminate said service and the fees charged apply.

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)
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 12:16 AM
Your blanket statement that government cannot control wireless carrier fees is inaccurate. The very essence of the Federal and State Consumer Protection Acts, the Federal Communications Act, and FCC is the regulation of all aspects of the telecom industry, particularly those affecting excessive or unjust prices and fees consumers are charged by carriers.

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)
...
speedywalk

Feb 9, 2005, 11:38 AM
Ummm.....OK...and your point? That has to do with BILLING regulation, of which there is precedent in this industry. Contract early termination fees are only subject to "fair and ethical" standards (i.e. not charging $10,000 for early termination). Now, if the early termination fees were illegal, don't you think that there would have been some sleazy lawyer that would have put an ad on TV "have you been charged an early termination fee by any carrier? Call me at 555-555-5555 I can help you get the damages you deserve!"

Really. They are not illegal. Why is it so hard to understand?

Speedywalk
"It ain't broke, it just needs duct tape!"
...
Correction

Feb 18, 2005, 8:56 PM
I think the conversation has gotten out of control.

đŸ˜ĸ
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.
...
JessiCSR

Feb 25, 2005, 1:17 PM
Too bad the Terms and Conditions advising of the ETFs is a legal document.
...
fincher

Feb 9, 2005, 12:14 AM
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)
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 1:01 AM
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 info is exchanged in a construct...
(continues)
...
fincher

Feb 9, 2005, 8:50 AM
athens, I do not disagree with your sentiments. We should, however, remember how this thread began. In fact, you should take a look at the thread on this case on Howard Forums in the USCC area. There are highly-regarded USCC reps there who gave reponses to which even Mr. Rooney would support.

Here is the link:
http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5 ... »
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 10:16 AM
fincher,

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)
...
fincher

Feb 9, 2005, 10:39 AM
1. I do not see where kreetz wrote he relocated. If he had poor service, why did he wait so long to address it? Seems to me he wanted to switch for other reasons, which is fine; he just lacked patience.

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)
...
DuckKane

Feb 9, 2005, 12:58 PM
What scares me more is Athens' ability to ignore a simple fact (broken contractual agreement on kreetz' part) and pursue his lawyer-speak in trying to convince us that we're wrong, that we work for USCC, and so on. If kreetz thought USCC was violating an agreement by not providing reasonable service, he should have sued them instead of violating his contractual agreement. In our litigious society that would have been fair and square.
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 3:21 PM
What would be fair and square would be a provision in the USCC contract as follows:

"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)
...
djmimel

Feb 9, 2005, 7:46 PM
Why all these shots at USCC? It's not like every other wireless carrier in the united states wouldn't have done the same thing. Are we now going to sue everybody when we don't like the consequences?
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 1:42 PM
My suggestion for child-like contributions on these forums:

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)
...
justpeachy

Feb 9, 2005, 1:57 PM
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. It is the carrier doing the port-in that is responsible for ascertaining whether or not the customer is out of contract with their current carrier- that's just good customer service and it's what every wireless employee is trained to do. and, I would add, extremely poor customer service on Cingular's part by not asking the app...
(continues)
...
fincher

Feb 9, 2005, 2:08 PM
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.
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 3:19 PM
For a contract to be a binding contract it must have consideration:

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.
...
glc0484

Feb 9, 2005, 6:14 PM
Ethans,

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)
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 8:11 PM
You have read the contract well. I have the same one.

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)
...
DuckKane

Feb 9, 2005, 3:21 PM
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.
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 3:27 PM
What's scary is non professionals giving advice on this forum regarding legal recourse which some un-informed consumers may reasonably rely on.

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.
...
tequilasundae

Feb 9, 2005, 4:06 PM
the fines are only excessive and unjustifiable to someone who doesn't wish to pay them,,, đŸ˜ŗ
...
speedywalk

Feb 9, 2005, 4:43 PM
Actually, what's scary about the situation is that a "lawyer" is arguing with individuals in said industry about policies that regulate said industry. If the contracts were illegal, THEN WHY ARE THEY NOT EVER CHALLENGED SUCCESSFULLY IN COURT? I mean, really. Surely you two individuals are not the first to look at the contrats and think they are "illegal." The real question is, if they are illegal, then why has not a single court in the nation struck them down? I'm sure it's because every customer that thought they were being screwed over took the contract with the corresponding service agreement to a REAL lawyer and the lawyer told them that they didn't have a case because they signed a legally binding contract that will hold in c...
(continues)
...
athens

Feb 9, 2005, 5:18 PM
Because the clients cannot afford it and the carriers know it.

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)
...
speedywalk

Feb 9, 2005, 8:48 PM
OK. First of all, the "monthly fees" can be used in any shape manner or form the carriers like. Once the subscriber writes the check, it is no longer their money. The carrier can spend THEIR money anyway they like. If you're going to use that excuse I hate that the money I spend on monthly fees puts up towers in Chicago and not in my home town. So that has nothing to do with it.

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)
...
athens

Feb 10, 2005, 1:26 AM
By the way what did you say your qualification was in the area of contract and consumer fraud law?

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)
...
speedywalk

Feb 10, 2005, 12:47 PM
Seeking acceptance? Where did that come from? Anyhow. I'm just explaining that your opinion is wrong. You may have it, but it is in error. There are people in my area that are of the opinion that they should be able to drive 100 miles per hour on the highway, they get caught, they get a fine. Their opinion is wrong.

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)
...
silvabullit

Feb 10, 2005, 4:58 PM
"Explain why, at their expense, the wireless carriers are constantly modifying, adding or otherwise removing language from their contracts."

-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...
...
athens

Feb 10, 2005, 7:15 PM
Bottom feeding lawyers are what keep this Nation from collapsing.

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.
...
athens

Feb 10, 2005, 7:07 PM
We are closer to some common ground, but again I think you need to modify your disagreement with my opinion as being wrong to just one you disagree with.

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)
...
speedywalk

Feb 9, 2005, 1:18 PM
Correct. However in the initial post, there was no mention of relocation. This is the reason that cellular companies will let you terminate service without an ETF due to lack of coverage. Now the caveat with that, is according to the restriction in most carriers, this does require relocation out of the carrier's home service area. Since this cancellation will be handled at the care level, there would not be number portability. Especially if the new carrier does not have local numbers available in the area (that is why my store cannot port numbers from Emporia, Kansas as we've had requested since it is not in our home service area--therefore they are not LNP eligible).

Basically the LNP more than likely would not have any influence on a c...
(continues)
...
xAnder1620

Feb 15, 2005, 10:36 AM
athens

just out of curiosity how much are you charging us for this legal advise??? 🙂
...
schnozejt

Feb 15, 2005, 1:51 PM
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)
...
bk77

Feb 15, 2005, 4:44 PM
WOW!! Let's be nice to each other. He has his own opinion, and has made valid points. He has the right to make his point, as we all do, but let's be nice about it. Just becuase he made his point, and most of us don't like it doesn't mean that any of us are right.

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.
...
athens

Feb 15, 2005, 5:22 PM
By the way, I spoke with an in-house attorney for one of the wireless carriers last week.
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.
...
bk77

Feb 15, 2005, 7:04 PM
Have we forgotten the whole reason for this forum?

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! ☚ī¸

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.
...
schnozejt

Feb 15, 2005, 1:54 PM
Please don't argue--You are wrong. Take it to court and have the judge laugh at you.
...
athens

Feb 15, 2005, 5:07 PM
Lawyers often complain about the uneducated general public who they take as clients.

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.
...
djmimel

Feb 9, 2005, 6:13 PM
Well said 😁
...
schnozejt

Feb 8, 2005, 6:15 AM
You were under the assumption that your cell # was going to be in two billing systems at once? When you give a port consent to Cingular you are authorizing them to have USC RELEASE your number. You state that your wife called to ask what the contract date was, your wife wasnt asking anything about LNP so why would you think USC is doing anything wrong?

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.
...
silvabullit

Feb 8, 2005, 11:12 AM
🙄

USCC > Cingular
...
lmpff

Feb 8, 2005, 12:03 PM
I agree with the rest of the group. When you signed that contract, it clearly states that you will have to pay the ETF if you were to cancel before the end of your contract term. When your wife called to see when the contract was up, did she ask what would happen if you switched carriers before then? And I'm appalled that the Cingular Rep didnt warn you that you're USC account would automatically be cancelled as soon as the port was complete, but he/she must have assumed you knew. In two years, if you leave Cingular 11 days before your contract is up, I can guarantee that they will charge you the full ETF for both lines as well, all cellular carriers will. I sympathize with the shock of the large bill, but sometimes you have to learn th...
(continues)
...
djmimel

Feb 8, 2005, 12:15 PM
I bet that Cingular representative didn't bother to ask if you were in contract did they?

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.
...
60660

Feb 10, 2005, 2:33 PM
Check this out...this topic is ridiculous..here's a message for kreetz..no matter if it was USCC, Cingular, T Mobile, Verizon, etc, that you ported from before your contract was up, you would've gotten charged the ETF. It has nothing to do with the carrier. The only reason you are so mad is because there is only one month left and now you have to pay $150. Well, if that was the case, why couldn't you wait the month?? If it was a deal that Cingular is offering for a limited time, why not sign up with a new number and port you number over later?? And if you aren't even aware of these options, then that means that the rep from Cingular did not let you know about them. Correct? I can tell you that I've worked for a few different cell phone carri...
(continues)
...
athens

Feb 10, 2005, 7:08 PM
Ten wrongs do not make a right.
...
bk77

Feb 11, 2005, 2:49 PM
WOW!!! I have been gone for a while, and I come back and read all that has been going on. The matter could have been taken care of easily if the customer just calls customer relations and speaks with them in a kind way.

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)
...
bigdaddyjay

Feb 16, 2005, 4:51 PM
The sad thing is that they left US Cell for Cingular, US Cell has a far better network in Chicago and they paid 300 bucks to end up on Cingular's crappy network!!!
...
60660

Feb 16, 2005, 7:13 PM
LOL!! Very true. That is quite sad. đŸ¤Ŗ
...
littleharjo

Feb 18, 2005, 3:42 AM
đŸ¤Ŗ If you work for US Cellular you will know that the rules change one week to the next. Could be that the break fee is pro-rated. Then next week the standard full $$$. ☚ī¸ If the customer has been with the company for a long time and always paid, AND has no other past due or canceled accounts that are del, then why not go ahead and cancel with out the fee ?? He only had 11 days ? 😕
🙄 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 ? 😕 Im sure that service has paid for itself...
(continues)
...
uscczach

Feb 23, 2005, 11:29 AM
Wow,

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)
...
JessiCSR

Feb 23, 2005, 1:44 PM
Hey buddy. all that information can be found in the contract you signed. So, if you didn't read the terms and conditions, it's no one's fault but your own.
...
setlikeamf

Feb 23, 2005, 2:39 PM
All contracts have loop holes! This thread ended a couple days ago. đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ đŸ¤Ŗ
...
bk77

Feb 23, 2005, 3:05 PM
But you can't expect loop holes with a contract. That's the whole point of a contract. When two parties come into a contract, whatever it may be it is a contract. The loop holes happen if both parties come to an agreament to adjust, make changes, etc on the contract. Not just with this situation, but all situations a contract is a contract.

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)
...
athens

Feb 26, 2005, 10:40 AM
The law does not recognize the term "Loop Holes".

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)
...
bk77

Feb 26, 2005, 2:30 PM
Athens-

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)
...
kimmie117

Feb 25, 2005, 3:21 AM
Well kreetz I wnt to point out that yesterday I called verizon for my sister and asked if they offer buyouts. I was told flat out it is $175 anytime even a day early. I then asked if she could go to a lower plan til the contract is up...the answer was that would extend the contract 12 months. As most know who have or have had USCC a customer can change plan almost at any time to suit their usage (first six months of contract cannot go down). As for the ETF well that you should have contacted USCC prior to porting to see if they could do anything. Like many people you may hear one thing...start thinking and as you think on that one thing you don't hear the rest. Happens all the time at the point of sale. People get the cell phone in th...
(continues)
...
halifax_gal

Mar 1, 2005, 12:15 AM
Welcome to Cingular mr.kreetz! we'll treat u right over here 🙂
...
silvabullit

Mar 1, 2005, 3:22 PM
yeah thats why they didnt ask if you were still in contract or not... đŸ¤Ŗ 🙄
...
halifax_gal

Mar 1, 2005, 10:23 PM
Everyone knows the company you cancel from should tell u that u r still in contract,,they should at least in their save attempts notice this and use it to try to keep the cust,,unless they did not make any save attempts, in which case shows they do not care about keeping the cust's they have 😛
...
bk77

Mar 2, 2005, 1:41 PM
If you have read all of these threads you would know he ported out, and we can not, at all, try to keep him from porting. We can not predict that someone is going to port, and we can not try to save them unless they state to us that they are going to port. Even then there is a fine line on what we can, and can not say to them. And, once the port process is going we can not contact the customer in any way, except to advise the customer on any financial things that need to be discussed. We did tell him he is contract, and he did state he knew this. Maybe you should ask your company, or take some refresher course on the policies with porting.

USCC churn rate is one of the lowest churn rates out of all the carriers out there.
...
halifax_gal

Mar 2, 2005, 6:31 PM
If he was told he is in contract, THEN THERE IS NO ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH!!
"politics of porting?" no comment! lol! my life does not REVOLVE around the cellular industry!!
...
Correction

Mar 2, 2005, 6:59 PM
I don't think a rep can make any Save attempts if a customer has already started the port out process. At least thats what I was told in training.
...
bk77

Mar 2, 2005, 7:22 PM
You are very right!!!!
...
bk77

Mar 2, 2005, 7:21 PM
Yes there is, you obviously missed it though. The NSP, Cingular, should have advised him that when he ports that out of the OSP then there MAY be an ETF. Which was incurred in this case. Unfortunatly. ☚ī¸

Mine only does when i am at work. 🙂
...
luciouslestat

Mar 4, 2005, 12:00 PM
Which in a port situation there would be no opportunity for a save. cust visited cingular said they wanted to port out and cingular didn't say anything more, just proceeded to port them. A port request is an automatic request to cancel so cust didn't even talk to uscc until his etf was found.
...

You must log in to reply.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.


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.