<![CDATA[Consumerist: early termination fees]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: early termination fees]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/early termination fees http://consumerist.com/tag/early termination fees <![CDATA[ Verizon Wireless To Hike ETFs On "Advanced" Devices ]]> Are you looking to get a smartphone on the Verizon network anytime soon? Make sure that you like it before you sign a contract, since starting November 15th, Verizon will be imposing a higher early termination fee—up to $350—on contracts for "advanced" devices. That means smartphones.

Why would they do such a thing? Not just for the sake of greed. It's because of their "buy one Blackberry, get one free" promotion for the holidays. WIthout the ETF hike, this could have led to an exciting new way to subsidize your purchase of a sexy new Tour: get another Blackberry of any type on the second line, cancel it, eat the $175 ETF, sell it on eBay and profit from the difference. Instead, there's now a $350 ETF, which will decrease by $10 for every month that the phone is activated.

Confirmed: Verizon Wireless to charge up to $350 early termination on "advanced devices" [Boy Genius Report] (Thanks, GitEmSteveDave!)

(Photo: Honou)

]]>
Consumerist-5396848 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:37:10 EST Laura Northrup http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5396848&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Video: Ditch Your Cell Phone Contract For Free ]]> In this video, a blonde dame in glasses shows you how to escape your cellphone contract for free with several tried and true tips for defeating those $175 early termination fees.

The advice ranges from sneaky (place your phone into roam mode to trick the cell phone company into thinking your contract is more trouble than it's worth) to the outrageous (move to a blackout area). Other hints include finding a friend to take over your plan and whining incessantly to customer service. Of course, there's also the ever-popular pastime of watching for materially adverse changes to your cellphone contract and using them as an excuse to rip up your service agreement. Watch and learn!

How to Get Out of Your Cell Phone Contract for Free [SpendLess TV, via Bargain Babe]
(Photo: FastFords)

]]>
Consumerist-5360657 Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:00:32 EDT Phil Villarreal http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5360657&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Tmobile Raising Overage Rates 9/01 - Cancel Without Fee ]]> Tmobile will be raising overage rates September 1st, and customers can use it to cancel without early termination fee.

For single line plans under $59.99 and pooling plans under $89.99, overage rates increase to $.45. All other single and pooling plans increase to $.40. The rate increase amounts to what is known as a "materially adverse change of contract," which, under standard contract law, voids the original agreement, making it so customers can leave their cellphone contract without the usual early termination penalty.

Our source referred to some customers receiving a letter on July 27th and being able to cancel without ETF. It wasn't clear whether this meant anyone could cancel, or just those who got the letter.

When arguing with the customer service rep, and yes, you will have to argue, they may say things to you like you have to have had overage charges recently for the change to affect you. Or that based on your plan history, the change won't effect you. That's now how materially adverse changes work. It's if it could effect you.

If you need it, here is the relevant paragraph from the Tmobile contract to read:

Changes to the Agreement or Charges. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IF WE: (A) INCREASE THE CHARGES INCLUDED IN YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING ACCESS RATE PLAN, OR (B) MODIFY A MATERIAL TERM OF OUR AGREEMENT WITH YOU AND THE MODIFICATION WOULD BE MATERIALLY ADVERSE TO YOU, WE WILL NOTIFY YOU OF THE INCREASE OR MODIFICATION AND YOU CAN CANCEL THAT SERVICE WITHOUT PAYING A CANCELLATION FEE (WHICH IS YOUR ONLY REMEDY) BY FOLLOWING THE CANCELLATION INSTRUCTIONS IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU DO NOT CANCEL YOUR SERVICE BY FOLLOWING THOSE INSTRUCTIONS, OR YOU OTHERWISE ACCEPT THE CHANGE, THEN YOU AGREE TO THE INCREASE OR MODIFICATION, EVEN IF YOU PAID FOR SERVICE IN ADVANCE. IF THE NOTICE DOES NOT SAY HOW LONG YOU HAVE TO CANCEL, THEN IT IS WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTICE, UNLESS A LONGER PERIOD IS REQUIRED BY LAW. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROHIBITED BY LAW, CHARGES FOR PRODUCTS, SERVICES, OPTIONAL SERVICES, OR ANY OTHER CHARGES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING ACCESS RATE PLAN (SUCH AS DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE, ROAMING, DOWNLOADS, AND THIRD-PARTY CONTENT) ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE, AND IF YOU CONTINUE TO USE THOSE SERVICES, OR YOU OTHERWISE AGREE TO THE CHANGES, THEN YOU AGREE TO THE NEW CHARGES. VISIT OUR WEB SITE, RETAIL LOCATIONS, OR CALL CUSTOMER CARE FOR CURRENT CHARGES.

Give it a shot and let us know how it works out!

(Photo: DCvision2006)

]]>
Consumerist-5349481 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:46:25 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5349481&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Judge Greenlights Class Action Against DirecTV ]]> class action against DirecTV over ETFs gets approval to move forwardA California Superior Court judge has just been given the go ahead to a class action lawsuit against DirecTV over their practice of charging early termination fees.

The suit started with a complaint from an LA resident last September, who was hit with a $240 fee even though DirecTV failed to provide service. Then it was combined with another suit from two other California residents:

That suit, Imburgia, et. al, v. DirecTV, Inc., alleges that DirecTV failed to disclose that it had mandatory contract "terms of service," and that cancelling the service ahead of time would incur termination fees. DirecTV, much like cell phone companies, would also use instances of replacing equipment or making changes to the service to automatically extend the customer's contract. The suit alleges that the practices were not disclosed to customers beforehand.

If you have had a bad early termination fee experience with DirecTV, whether you live in California or not, you can contact the attorneys to share your information.

"Class Action Lawsuit Against DirecTV Can Proceed" [ConsumerAffairs] (Thanks to Michigan Telephone!)
"About the Case" [DirecTVClassActionSuit.com]

RELATED
"DirecTV Makes You Pay Termination Fee Even If You Can't Use Their Service"
"DirecTV: New 2-Year Contract With $480 Cancellation Fee For Switching DVRs"
(Photo: scriptingnews)

]]>
Consumerist-5315973 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:58:43 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5315973&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ AT&T Rep Tells iPhone-Crazed Customers To Cancel AT&T Contract ]]> Arnie and his wife have a fever, and the only cure is more iPhones. A shiny new iPhone 3G S to replace the clunky old 3G iPhones they've been forced to use, to be precise. Frustrated that the cell phone business insists on subsidizing the gadgets by only offering a sane price to new customers, or customers willing to upgrade, Arnie called AT&T. That's when he stumbled on a solution that's almost hilarious in its simplicity.

They canceled their AT&T contracts, since paying an ETF was cheaper than paying the non-upgrade price for new iPhones.

My wife and I have been loyal AT&T customers since 1997. We bought the first iPhone, and we were standing in line the night the iPhone 3Gs came out, but now for both of us to upgrade we have to pay a $400 penalty for being a customer already.

However in calling an AT&T CSR I found a cheaper way to upgrade: CANCEL YOUR PHONE. That's right, not cancel and deal with the Early Termination Fees which you can often get reduced or waived with service problems, which we have had many of. But even if we were to pay the ETF in full it would save us a total of $150 over paying the $200 per phone "upgrade fee" AT&T is demanding.

What's best is that the CSR we spoke with actually SUGGESTED that we cancel and then sign up with new phones. And she worked at the account save desk.

A AT&T Save CSR suggesting we cancel our AT&T account. Hah! I'm sure Ralph de la Vega would be interested to know that is going on.

Is this ethical? Is it clever, or just colossally stupid? iPhone and Apple probably should have suspected that their more gadget-crazed customers would resort to things like this, but for the sake of efficiency, this probably shouldn't be the cheapest option. That's all I'm saying, Apple and AT&T.

RELATED: Think The iPhone 3G S Costs Too Much? Don't Buy It

(Photo: a_ninjamonkey)

]]>
Consumerist-5284429 Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:34:23 EDT Laura Northrup http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5284429&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Comcast Lowers Your Bill, Then Charges Early Termination Fee ]]> Comcast agreed to lower reader O.'s monthly cable bill to $40, but they didn't warn him that the new, lower price would come with a hefty $150 early termination fee. O. could barely afford Comcast's service before, and wouldn't have agreed to the lower fee if he knew about the surprise fee. Comcast is telling him that he has no choice but to pay, and won't even let him return to his previous plan.

So like everyone else, I'm feeling the effects of the economic downturn. The last few months I have barely made my Comcast payments. I decided to downgrade service at the end of April. I spent twenty minutes on the phone with the "account specialist". Explained to her that I could no longer afford my current plan and hoped she could downgrade some things to lower my bill. She did her thing and lowered it about $40 a month. I was very pleased. She never mentioned anything about this breaking my contract or a fee. I didn't ask because I figured I was entering into a new contract.

My bill came today...$150 early termination fee.

I called and was told there is no way whatsoever to waive the fee. I asked if it was possible to switch me back to my old plan, so the fee wouldn't hit. Nope, can't do it.

It's no wonder everyone thinks these companies are the spawn of Satan.

Is there any chance at all for me to get rid of this fee?

Comcast can't rope-a-dope you into paying an early termination fee. They should have clearly warned you that changing your service level would trigger the charge. If they didnt, it's reasonable to ask them to either waive the fee or restore your old plan.

Reach out to Comcast's headquarters, either through an Executive Email Carpet Bomb, or through their ever-cheerful Twitter team.
(Photo: cmorran123)

]]>
Consumerist-5243872 Sun, 10 May 2009 12:00:02 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5243872&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Landlord Asks Mother To Pay "Early Termination Fee" After Son Fails To Honor Lease By Dying ]]> Debbie Eckert cleaned out her son's apartment after he died in a February fight, but the landlord, CCRT Properties of Brookfield Wisconsin, thinks she should pay several months rent and an early termination fee. The Wisconsin Department of Consumer Protection says that CCRT can pursue the 24-year-old teacher's estate, but that they have no right to heartlessly badger his mother.

"I thought they must not understand that Colin was killed. But no, they understood completely," Eckert said.

She said the apartment's property manager told her that they knew Byars had been killed. But the woman told Eckert the management company had been advised by their legal representative that they should go after the rent and fees.

"I said you might be able to do this, but should you do this?" Eckert said. The early termination fee makes her especially angry. "How was my son supposed to know he was going to be killed?" she asked.

Eckert says she isn't upset. "I just wanted the community to know how ruthless and heartless these people were."

Landlord demands dead victim's late rent, fees [Kenoshaw News]
(Photo: Kevin Poirier)

]]>
Consumerist-5228154 Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:00:44 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5228154&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ DirecTV Demands Nearly $500 For Canceled Service You Couldn't Use ]]> DirecTV agreed to let Anthony cancel his service without an early termination fee because his signal would randomly fade away without explanation. What DirecTV really meant though was that they would let Anthony cancel if he paid a final bill of $446.69. After speaking with two agents who agreed that the fee should have been waived, DirecTV reduced Anthony's bill to $445.42. A third agent told Anthony that he would need to negotiate any further deductions in writing with the dispute department...

Anthony writes:

We had a terrible experience with Direct TV. In late Sept we signed a contract with Direct TV. We started in November and they didn't give to us what was promised, three months free of HBO. Nearly 45 days later we started to have problems, the signal was fading, so we called asking for assistance and the operator, after following a script, took us for a long process where we restarted the system, and then the signal was up again. After few hours the signal was fading again, same call same process same results, signal up and then fading again, call again asking for a technician, the operator start again with the script telling me we don't need the technician because the problem was my TV.

At this point we asked for a supervisor, name Teresa ID 401453, asking to cancel the service because they weren't able to give me a decent service. She said in first instance, I have to pay an early cancellation fee, when I told her you are not giving me a service and i can't see the tv for four days I don't want to pay any fee, she agree and told me you don't pay anything.

After 20 day we receive a statement from DTV asking for 446.69 as cancellation fee my wife called again DTV spoke with a supervisor David (no id# ) and he told her she doesn't have to pay and he will escalate to management team solution and we will get a letter to avoid the fee. Today, 03/10/2009 i received another statement with the request of 445.42 I called again they put me on hold for 38 Min and a Specialist Ricky id 100212586 told me there is nothing to do you have to pay we can't cancel any fee and there is nobody who can take care of this matter, the only thing you can do is write a letter to Our Billing Dispute Department.

Now, I am an avid reader of your blog, I just moved here from Italy where customer service sometimes are much more efficient than this one, I feel frustrated and I would like to explain to somebody responsible from Direct TV. I was available to pay for a service, but I can't pay if they don't give a service. Now I have a contract with Dish Network they came out the next day they installed the service and since then, on the same television who DTV told me was obsolete or not working, is perfect.

Hopping from DirecTV to Dish Network isn't necessarily a step up the customer service ladder, but hey, if your signal is working, then enjoy!
Send a clear and concise letter to DirecTV's dispute department, but don't stop there. Copy the letter to CEO Chase Carey's office using this executive contact information and watch your problem fade away.

(Photo: mightynine)

]]>
Consumerist-5178162 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:50:16 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5178162&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Escape Sprint ETF-Free Over Administrative Fee Increase ]]> Want to break your Sprint cellphone contract without paying an early termination fee? On January 1, 2009, Sprint will increase the Administrative fee to $.99 per line. Because this is what is known as a "materially adverse change of contract," and because of the basic contractual principle that you can't change someone's contract without their explicit permission (not the tacit, "opt-out" kind), you can use it to argue that the fee renders your contract void and you can end service without a termination fee. You do have to be willing to argue without giving up with a number of different Sprint employees first, like Matt did...

Here's the fee notice:

Administrative Charge
Effective Jan. 1, 2009, the Administrative
Charge will increase to $0.99 per line. For
details on surcharges, please see Sprint Terms
& Conditions or visit sprint.com/taxesandfees

And Matt's story:

I called sprint with the bill (with the exact wording) open, and their taxes and fees site (sprint.com/taxesandfees). First I got a normal CS rep, asked about getting an ETF waiver because of this "materially adverse" change, she said no, but that she would transfer me to an "account specialist" (retentions).

Was transferred to retentions, got a woman who also said no. We debated a little bit, me asking why it wasn't materially adverse, her saying because its a fee, etc etc. Once I realized I was going no where with her I asked to speak to somebody else. Apparently I got to talk to the King of Retentions, or something.

I remember this part the best, because he picks up the phone and says "Hello! I heard you had a question about one of our government mandate fees?" This really set me off. I had been saying the whole time it was their administrative fee and picture message increase. Anyways, we debated, a lot. Basically the only key was to never stop. He kept saying they could change their fees at any time, it even says so in their T&Cs. I pointed out how that was not valid, and how it was the whole point of a contract that both parties agree to the terms as presented, and how could you agree to terms in advance? After about 10 minutes of this I said "is there anybody else I can talk to" and he said "no, I'm the end of the line before you cancel", and then he said "Do you want the number to legal" and I said "yes!".

I was put on hold for about 10 minutes, when he came back he was much much nicer. He said they couldn't ETF free it now because it hadn't affected the account. I told him the reason I called now is because I wasn't to make sure paying the Nov bill is "agreeing" with the change (I'm sure if I called back in Jan there would have been nothing that could have been done). I said ETF free in Jan was reasonable, and asked him to put the note on the account to let me cancel ETF free in January if the account was affected by the change, he obliged.

Called back the next day, and the note was there.

Yes, the account is still not canceled. Yes, that note could mysteriously disappear. But Matt was able to go most of the way towards getting it ready to be cancelled once that new fee starts hitting the account. He just needs to go the next step. He needs to argue with them that it doesn't matter if it hasn't hit the account yet, the terms of the contract have changed. That alone gives him sufficient reason. If they respond by waiving the surcharge, he should insist that the contract has still been changed.

Just because it's in the terms and conditions that they can change the contract doesn't make it so. Ski lodges can make you sign death waivers but if you really do bust your leg up, the lawyers know you still can sue and probably will win. If
contracts could really be changed like this mid-term, then car dealerships could decide 6 months into your lease that you need to start paying a $300/month administrative fee.

Whether or not they obviate the effects of the contract change, the contract was still changed without his consent. If you stab someone, and then put all the blood back in the wound and put a band-aid over it, you've still stabbed them.

Administrative Charge Increasing Jan 1... [Howard Forums] (Photo: your_favorite_mart ian)

]]>
Consumerist-5091023 Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:12:35 EST Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5091023&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The attorney who won a verdict against Sprint ... ]]> The attorney who won a verdict against Sprint in California has filed a $1.2 billion class action lawsuit, claiming that early termination fees are not legal. [Information Week]

]]>
Consumerist-5078502 Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:14:20 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5078502&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Leaks: Details On Sprint's New Decreasing ETF ]]> More details have emerged about Sprint's new decreasing-monthly ETF, thanks to a page from the Sprint customer service manual that fell into NeoWin's hands. Basically the ETF on a 2-year contract is $200 after the first 30 days and until month 20, then it starts decreasing by $10 at month 19, until it gets to month 5 where it holds at $50. However, they say it's their policy to waive it if there's less than 30 days left. Once again, the decreasing-ETF will only apply to new contracts signed after November 2, 2008. Full scan of the internal document, inside...

PREVIOUSLY: Sprint To Start Discounting ETFs Monthly (Photo: Sam Wilkinson)

]]>
Consumerist-5070842 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:38:34 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5070842&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Sprint To Start Discounting ETFs Monthly ]]> Sprint is expected to soon start making the early termination fee (ETF) decline every month, possibly as early as November 2nd. Previously, whether you canceled service 1 day into or one day before the end of your service contract, you would get a $200 fee. That fee is supposed to reimburse the company for the cost of providing you a cellphone at reduced cost. The change is expected to be only good for new subscribers and is not retroactive, so, sorry Charlie if you were hoping to go get an iPhone.

Sprint to join rivals in cutting termination fees [AP]
Sprint pro-rated ETF finally gets a date [neowin] (Thanks to Brandon!) (Photo: bryanbope)

]]>
Consumerist-5069001 Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:00:00 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5069001&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ DirecTV Debits A $446.60 Cancellation Fee — For Service You Canceled Within 24 Hours ]]> Meet Brandon. He canceled DirecTV after less than 24 hours (the agreed upon time limit to avoid a fee, apparently), only to see that DirecTV debited $446.60 from his checking account.

From CBS13:

Right away, he got on the phone with DirecTV.

"They told me there was nothing they could do and I had to write a letter and mail it off to the billing disputes," says Brandon.

Brandon wrote two letters to DirecTV and also disputed the charges with his bank. The bank credited him back the charges, but...

"Unfortunately DirecTV still had my account number and once they saw the money go back to me, they then a week later, took back the money again," says Brandon.

He again disputed the charges with his bank and they ruled in his favor. This time, Brandon changed his account number so DirecTV couldn't withdraw the money again.

The company then sent him to collections.

"Very outraged, very furious with the way they are trying to make me go every route possible in order to get my money back when it's their fault," says Brandon.

We contacted DirecTV. They told us Brandon called them again on April 9th to extend his service until the 10th, and that the cancellation fee is valid. We asked them if that made sense. Why would Brandon call to extend his service only to cancel again the next day?

Ultimately, it took the local news team's intervention to get DirecTV to fix their mistake. Boo.

Call Kurtis: Tug Of War Over Cancelled Service [cbs13] (Thanks, R.B.!)
(Photo: scentzilla )

]]>
Consumerist-5057497 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:19:04 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5057497&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Verizon Announces Monthly Plans With No Early Termination Fees ]]> Facing increased pressure from consumers and lawmakers alike, Verizon has announced that they will begin offering monthly cellphone plans with no early termination fees. Consumers wishing to take advantage of the plans will be required to pay full price for a phone, or provide their own phone, as Verizon will not be subsidizing the cost of handsets.

A spokesperson did confirm, however, the monthly members will pay the same rate as contract customers. If you're already a Verizon customer, you can switch to the monthly plan after your current contract is up.

From Bloomberg:

Verizon, which made about half of its $24.1 billion in revenue last quarter from wireless service, agreed in July to resolve a consumer lawsuit over early cancellation fees by paying a $21 million settlement. The agreement covered contracts that had a flat-rate cancellation fee and were issued before Verizon Wireless introduced a declining-fee structure in 2006.

Verizon's termination fees start at $175 and decline $5 for every month a user stays with the contract after 30 days. Customers can cancel for free in the first 30 days, Raney said.


Verizon Offers Monthly Plan With No Termination Fees (Update2)
[Bloomberg]

]]>
Consumerist-5054212 Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:29:50 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5054212&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Verizon Wireless Going Contract-Free Next Week? ]]> If the website Boy Genius Report is correct, next week Verizon Wireless will start offering contract-free, month-to-month service. Pretty much everyone will be eligible for it, but of course you'll have to pay full price for a phone or bring your own, there'll be an activation fee that can't be waived, and if you take advantage of any special offers that require a contract, you'll have to switch over to a contract agreement. It's supposed to start on September 21st.

"Verizon Wireless Going Contract-Free?" [Boy Genius Report via IntoMobile]

]]>
Consumerist-5051516 Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:32:34 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5051516&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Join The Verizon ETF Class Action ]]> Wanna get in on the Verizon Early Termination Fee class action settlement? I did and went to verizonETFsettlement.com just like the postcard told me. Basically, if you were a Verizon Wireless customer from July 23, 1999 to August 10, 2008, and you were either charged an ETF, whether you paid it or not, you could be eligible for a piece of a $21 million pie (after the attorneys get their fees first), just file a claim form by October 14. In typical fashion, I tried filing a claim but the site keeps timing out. Something to bookmark and check in on later and hope they fixed it. Even when you think you're giving Verizon its comeuppance, somehow you get screwed over. UPDATE: The website seems to be fixed now. By the way, at the end you will have to print out and mail in forms. They want you to attach documentation of your ETF. If you don't have documentation, you can still make a claim but you will get a lesser amount.

VerizonETFSettlement [Official Site] (Photo: Ben Vershbow)

]]>
Consumerist-5048989 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:34:10 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5048989&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Video Tutorial For Escaping Cellphone Without ETF ]]> Who needs a bunch of words to tell you how to get out of your cellphone contract without early termination fee when a nice boy will tell you how do to it? You just sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch Ely Rosentock's video tutorial. 9 minutes later, you'll know how to break your cellphone contract without ETF, or moving to California. Video inside...

Ely used the material from our posts and used it to break his ETF without fee. Now he gathers together all that information into easily-digested video format (he's also blogged it (posts 1, 2, 3).

This video talks about Verizon, but most of the tactics can be applied to every national cellphone carrier. Just lookup the relevant verbiage in your contract and replace it with what Ely quotes.

Video Tutorial: How to Get Out of Your Verizon Contract Without an Early Termination Fee [Crastinate]

]]>
Consumerist-5032081 Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:02:57 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5032081&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Get 75% Off Your ATT ETF By Switching To Pay-As-You-Go ]]> If arguing for completely getting out of your AT&T early-termination-fee isn't your thing, you can try doing what Felix did and get 75% off it.

He negotiated with the CSR and said he would switch to a pay-as-you-go plan and not switch to MCI if they waived his ETF. She down to sell him a smaller package. He remained silent. She tried the reduced package again. He repeated that he would switch if charged. Then she offered 50% off. He restated his position once more and stayed silent. She tried the smaller plan again. He said no. Then she offered him 75% off. So now he's free of annual contract and can switch to any other provider whenever he feels like.

Not a tactic that will make financial sense for everyone, but it might come in handy for some.

]]>
Consumerist-5032053 Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:20:22 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5032053&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Tmobile Introduces Month To Month Contracts ]]> Hate long-term cellphone contracts? Starting August 6th, Tmobile will be the first national carrier to offer month-to-month plans, straight up.

TmoNews says, "It sounds like these plans will be very similar, if not the same, to T-mobile’s current offerings of individual, or family time plans, with or without MyFaves." For new customers, this will mean that, if you buy from Tmobile, you will have to pay full retail price for your new cellphone. Unless there's some caveat against it, it would be smart though to buy your phone off eBay or convert pay-as-you-go Walmart-style phone to the month-to-month plan. There will also be an activation fee. But at least there will be no early termination fee.

Thumbs up to Tmobile on this one, even though it's probably just a placating gesture in advance of the FCC ruling on ETFs. Hopefully the other carriers will follow suit with similar placating gestures.

T-mobile Introduces Month to Month Contracts [TmoNews] (Thanks to Scott!)

]]>
Consumerist-5030869 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:12:55 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5030869&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Sprint Loses Early Termination Fee Case In California ]]> A California judge has issued a tentative ruling against Sprint regarding early termination fees. Although Sprint has two weeks to respond before the judge issues a final ruling, if the ruling stands then Sprint will have to pay $73 million in refunds to former customers. That Verizon settlement for $21 million earlier this month must be looking pretty sweet to Sprint's investors right about now.

"Sprint Loses Early Termination Fee Case, May Pay $73 Million" [CNN Money]
(Photo: Maulleigh)

]]>
Consumerist-5030449 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:33:08 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5030449&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Tmobile Adds Flimsy Restrictions For ETF-Free Cancelers ]]> Tmobile is trying to impose certain new restrictions on people trying to cancel their contract without early termination fee (ETF) over the recent text message rate increase. Based on an email between a reader and Tmobile's executive customer service team, to qualify for ETF-free cancellation a customer:

1. Can't have unlimited messaging bundle on your account within the past 3 months
2. Has to have been charged for text messages during the past 3 months

A materially adverse change of contract nullifies a contract. I don't see how you can enforce restrictions on a null contract.

If you want to cancel Tmobile without ETF, here's how. Read the comments on that story to learn tips from many readers who've successfully used our advice. And remember, victory goes to the tenacious.

(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5027921 Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:11:00 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5027921&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Want The New iPhone? Here's How To Escape Your Current Cellphone Contract ETF-Free ]]> As the second coming of the Jesusphone 3G draws near, we wanted to remind customers of other wireless carriers that there are ways to escape your existing cellphone contract free of early termination fees, and trade your piddling Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile bills for hundreds of pages of gloriously itemized AT&T charges. Or just switch carriers.

One way to escape your contract is to call up your carrier and argue that they have made a materially adverse change to your service agreement. Most cellphone contracts contain a clause allowing customers to escape their contracts if a materially adverse change is made, usually in the form of a rate increase. Here's an example clause from a Verizon contract:

Your service is subject to our business policies, practices, and procedures, which we can change without notice. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE CAN ALSO CHANGE PRICES AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME BY SENDING YOU WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE BILLING PERIOD IN WHICH THE CHANGES WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE YOUR SERVICE AFTER THAT POINT, YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE CHANGES. IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU, HOWEVER, YOU CAN END THE AFFECTED SERVICE, WITHOUT ANY EARLY TERMINATION FEE, JUST BY CALLING US WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WE SEND NOTICE OF THE CHANGE.

Below are some recent rate increases by the major providers. Some of these might have occurred far enough back that they are outside the window to call and complain, but we've also heard from readers who didn't get any notice, or who got late notice, thus keeping them within the required period to contest the change.
T-Mobile
We posted about this a couple weeks ago, but just to reiterate: T-Mobile is raising its text message rates on August 29th. That's a materially adverse change to your contract. Run while you can.
Verizon
Although Verizon likes to play dumb about what constitutes a materially adverse change to your contract, a Verizon fee increase was the impetus for this article: A reader writes in that he used Verizon's recent Federal Universal Service Charge increase to escape without an ETF. Here is Verizon's increase notification:

The Federal Universal Service Charge (FUSC) is a Verizon Wireless charge that is subject to change each calendar quarter based on contribution rates prescribed by the FCC. On July 1, the FUSC changed to 2.42 percent of assessable wireless charges, other than separately billed interstate and international long distance charges. The FUSC on these charges changed to 11.4 percent.

Sprint Nextel
There are conflicting reports that, as of July 13, Sprint will be eliminating its SERO plan altogether, or making existing customers switch to unlimited data "everything" plans, or just forcing that on new PDA customers. Barring that, a text message increase probably isn't too far away.
Other Techniques
We offered advice on escaping your contract last year when the iPhone first came out. Besides complaining about materially adverse changes, you can sell your contract, complain that service is substandard, move to an area out of your network, join the military, or die.

PREVIOUSLY: 6 Ways to Cancel Any Cellphone So You Can Get an iPhone
"Material Adverse" Clauses in Cell Phone Contracts [United Consumer Action Network]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5023655 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:14:22 EDT Alex Chasick http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5023655&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Verizon Settles Early Termination Fee Lawsuit For $21 Million ]]> Verizon has agreed to pay $21 million in a California class action lawsuit brought over early termination fees. The plaintiffs alleged that the fees violated California state laws. Next case: Sprint, which Californians are suing for the same reason.

Verizon Wireless Suit Settlement Puts Sprint At Risk [Dow Jones]
(Photo: Ben Popken)

]]>
Consumerist-5023733 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:34:15 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5023733&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Graph: Which Cellphone Company Has The Best Early Termination Fee Policy? ]]> Discounting or pro-rating the early termination fees that cellphone companies love to tack on to their contracts is becoming more common, so we thought we'd make some graphs that show the strengths and weaknesses of the different policies. As you can see, T-Mobile 2-year ETF doesn't make any discounts until fairly late in the contract period — and their ETF of $200 is higher than either of the other two companies that offer discounts. (Sprint does not pro-rate or discount its ETF.) T-Mobile's ETF does, however, reach a point where their discounts are steeper than Verizon and AT&T's pro-rating.

As far as the other policies go: AT&T and Verizon have similar pro-rating plans, (for each month that goes by they deduct $5 from the ETF) but Verizon starts discounting earlier than AT&T, according to Consumer Reports.

When you look at 1 year contracts, T-Mobile's plan looks a lot better. Their discounts beat both AT&T and Verizon after 6 months. Also, if you cancel T-Mobile in the final month of either a 2 year or a 1 year contract, you'll have to pay either $50 or your monthly fee — whichever is less.

Something to watch out for: T-Mobile's trial period is only 20 days, while AT&T and Verizon both give you 30 days.















T-Mobile announces pro-rating of termination fees [Consumer Reports]

]]>
Consumerist-5020353 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:05:55 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5020353&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ How To Cancel T-Mobile Without ETF ]]> Want to get out of your T-mobile cellphone contract without paying a $200 early termination fee? Now you can. T-mobile is raising its text message rates August 29th to 20 cents per message. This counts as what is known as a "materially adverse change of contract." Under standard contract law, if one party changes the terms of the agreement in a way that financially harms the other party, then the contract is void. If the contract is void, so is any stipulation that you be charged a fee for breaking it (especially as technically they broke it first). You will have much better success arguing its a materially adverse change of contract if you are not currently in an unlimited text message plan. You don't have to wait until August to escape, members of the Slickdeals forums are already reporting success escaping without penalty. Stay tuned to The Consumerist for more information and tips on using this money-saving tactic.

SMS rates going up! [TmoNews] (Thanks to Arnaldo!)

(Photo: scentzilla)

]]>
Consumerist-5019916 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:25:00 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5019916&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ T-Mobile Introduces Declining Early Termination Fees ]]> Tmobile just announced that they will let early termination fees decline over the course of a contract. Previously, you had to pay the full monty whether canceled on the first day, or last day, of your contract. This chart shows you how the new fee breaks down over time:

Days left | fee

180: $200
180-91: $100
90-30: $50
29-1: $50 or monthly rate, whichever is less.

Glad to see another carrier joining in with declining ETFs. It's that much closer to doing away with them entirely. No word yet on whether this will only apply to new customers.

Here's the text of Tmobile's email announcement.

Beginning on June 28, 2008, the ETF for customers who choose a one-year or two-year service agreement with T-Mobile will decline during the course their contract. The ETF decreases from $200 to $100 if customers terminate service with 91 to 180 days remaining on their agreement; and decreases again to $50 with fewer than 91 days remaining. If customers terminate in the last 30 days of their term, the ETF is $50 or their standard monthly charge, whichever is less.

T-Mobile Eases Early Termination Fees [Washington Post]

(Thanks to Spencer!)

(Photo: shlomp-a-plompa)

]]>
Consumerist-5018901 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:31:22 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5018901&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ In Early Termination Fee Hearing, FCC Chief Regurgitates Wireless Industry Proposals ]]> The FCC held hearings today to discuss early termination fees (ETF) for wireless carriers, the ~$175 charged if a customer exits contract before the contract is up. FCC Chairman Kevin "Golden Child" Martin's proposals largely mirrored those offered by the carriers themselves last month. Here's what he said today:

  • ETFs should be relative to the phone's cost; a $5 phone should have a lower fee than a $50
  • ETFs should go down month by month
  • Contract lengths should be "reasonable" (whatever that means)
  • Extended a contract shouldn't refresh the ETF (no shit, they've already recouped the cost of the cellphone)
  • People should be able to get their first bill and look it over before the ETF goes into effect
Cellphone companies are eager to push for federal regulation so it can preempt state regulation and get them off the hook for various multibillion dollar class action lawsuits over ETFs. It's easier to control one body than 50. In my opinion, ETFs should be abolished and consumers should be able to purchase unlocked cellphones directly from manufacturers that they can port to any compatible carrier.

FCC chief lays out plan for cell phone fees [Washington Post]

]]>
Consumerist-5015889 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:57:55 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5015889&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Sprint Doesn't Charge US Government Early Termination Fees ]]> Sprint doesn't charge Uncle Sam an early termination fee if he decides to get out of his cellphone contract early. Why? USAToday reports:

"The government will never, never accept such penalty amounts," then-Nextel marketing vice president Scott Wiener wrote in an e-mail in January 2004...A spokesman for Sprint-Nextel, John Taylor, said the company determined it could not assess the termination fees in its federal contract because it would have been against the law.

Why do consumers put up with these fees, but the government won't? Why is it illegal to charge the government ETFs, but not us? Perhaps Sprint thought that if they started charging the government ETFs, someone would get wise and question the fees, and anti-ETF legislation would be enacted...

Government relieved of cancelled cellphone fees [USAToday] (Thanks to Jason!)

]]>
Consumerist-5015786 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:16:34 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5015786&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ BBB Works Against Sprint ]]>

Some people think the BBB doesn't work. They do, but only if the company cares about keeping a clean record. See when you look up a company in the BBB database it shows you how many complaints have been filed against the company, how many were answered, how many did the consumer report as being satisfactorily resolved, etc. So if you have a valid complaint, file it with the BBB, and the company cares about its BBB record, you have a decent chance of getting a solution. You might not believe it, but it turns out Sprint is one of those companies. Here's Kevin's story of how the BBB got his erroneous text message charges refunded and let him leave contract early without early termination fee...

Kevin writes:

I've filed two complaints with them so far in 2008. Here is the text of the one I filed in January...

"Double charged my debit card and refuses to credit the duplicate charge back to my account.
I called to make and a payment yesterday through Sprint/Nextel's automatic payment attendant. The pre-recorded service told me the payment "cannot be processed at this time, please hold for an operator." So a person gets on the phone and takes my payment manually. Then this morning when I checked my bank account online I saw that two payments had gone through. When I called to request the duplicate payment be reversed they refused. This comes after several battles with their customers service department over services ordered which were incorrectly authorized.

For instance, I have two phone lines and there have been 3 or 4 times now when I've had a service such as text messaging or insurance added to one of the lines. The customer service people have added the service to the wrong phone, thereby incurring extra charges and it takes forever to get a credit. These are small inconveniences and nothing I'd normally report to the BBB. But after refusing to issue a credit I've had enough with them. My contract with them is up in August after 3 years of being a customer. I've explained why I am unhappy with service and they will not let me out of a contract. I've talked with many acquaintances who've had similar issues and I feel it's time for someone to do something about this company. The problems with service began after the merger with Nextel."

After this I was contacted within 48 hours and the dispute was resolved where Sprint/Nextel issued me a credit for a free month of service.

Then in April I went over my text message limit. I beefed up the limit to 1,000 texts per month, but they added it to the 2nd line. This caused another huge bill in May. When I called to tell them they added the text plan to the wrong phone they refused to credit me or fix the problem.

At that point I filed the 2nd complaint with the BBB briefly describing what happened. It basically stated what I just did and less than 24 hours this time a Sprint/Nextel representative called me to resolve the issue...apologizing for the treatment I received and they resolved the issue VERY generously and told me they realize their customer service is lacking and they're "taking steps to rectify the situation." In addition to free unlimited text messaging they've offer to wave the penalty for severing my contract early. That says a lot and the fact that they acknowledged their customer service dept sucks.

To my satisfaction, I was told I can dissolve my contract with them before it's up in August without any additional penalties. I got a follow up email from the BBB today asking if I am satisfied.

Kevin is now a happy Verizon customer. Here's where to go to get started filing a BBB complaint online.

(Photo: mod_complex)

]]>
Consumerist-5011133 Wed, 28 May 2008 08:23:02 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5011133&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ ATT Begins Reducing ETF Charges Month By Month ]]> AT&T has started having early termination fees go down each month for new contracts (old customers are still screwed). The $175 fee for canceling AT&T service before the end of your two-year contract will go down $5 every month. This means that even by month 23 out of the total 24 you will still pay a $60 fee. While the other providers have announced their intention to do the same, Verizon and AT&T are the only companies to actually have ETFs go down over the course of the contract. This should not be confused with "pro-rating," however, as the fee is not being divided proportionally. If it was, the fee would go down $7.30 each month and by month 23 you would only pay a $7.30 penalty.

AT&T Launches Pro-Rated ETF System [Broadband Reports]
(Photo: mrbill)

]]>
Consumerist-5011063 Tue, 27 May 2008 09:57:27 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5011063&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Why Sprint Has The Lowest Customer Satisfaction ]]>

Brett sent us a story perfectly illustrating why Sprint has really crappy customer satisfaction ratings. While the other cellphone service providers scores hover slightly under the national ACSI average of 75, Sprint's are a dismal 56. It must be because of too many situations like the following danse macabre of incompetence:

1. Brett can't get coverage around his house
2. Tech support ineffective in solving this problem
3. Told he could cancel without ETF
4. Cancels, ETF taken out of his checking account anyway
5. Has so far spent four months calling and refaxing documents, still doesn't have his money back.

Possible solution: Call the Sprint Consumerist executive customer service line at 703-433-4401.

]]>
Consumerist-5010683 Fri, 23 May 2008 09:46:01 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5010683&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ To Avoid Billions In Lawsuits, Cellphone Companies Propose Tepid Early Termination Fee Reform ]]>

In exchange for amnesty from a series of potentially billions of dollars in class action lawsuits over early termination fees (ETFs), the cellphone companies have proposed some namby-pamby ETF reforms to the FCC. Their ideas:

  • Pro-rating early termination fees, so the cancellation fee goes down every month
  • Customers can cancel without ETF up to 30 days after singing contract, or 10 days after receiving their first bill
  • The overall fee would be slightly reduced

Cellphone companies main justification for early termination fees is that they have to recover the costs of selling cellphones at a discounted rate. True, but why then do I get charged an ETF if even if my cellphone was bought off eBay?

A cellphone manufacturer may charge the cellphone company $500+ per phone, but does it have to? Has anyone looked at whether the price reflects the real production cost? I'm not just making an argument here, I really am curious. Whether this model came about by malicious design or fortuity, the result is legal way to prevent consumers from exercising consumer choice and punishing companies for poor service. Early termination fees are the only reason why the entire cellphone service industry gets away with having below average customer satisfaction scores.

Proposal may ease cancellation fees for cell phone users [AP] (Thanks to Tom!)

(Photo: R80o (Mark Strozier))

]]>
Consumerist-5010372 Thu, 22 May 2008 09:43:16 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5010372&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Verizon Interprets "Materially Adverse" Differently From Reality So You Can't Cancel Without Termination Fee ]]>

Joseph would like to cancel his Verizon contract without early termination fee by arguing that the recent monthly administrative fee increase is materially adverse, but unfortunately for Joseph, Verizon's lawyers have filled their customer service reps brains with a bunch of hooey about what materially adverse means. In fact, when Joseph was reading the very clause in the Verizon contract that allows him to what he wants, the call center supervisor laughed at him. According to his account, when he criticized the poor customer service, she started screaming at him. The text of Joe's attempted EECB, inside...

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to inform you of an issue I am having with your customer service department. Today, 5/7/08, I tried to contact customer service around 5 PM. Unfortunately, every time I was transferred to the department I requested, I received the message "We cannot process your call at this time. . ." and then was disconnected.

I finally reached customer retention nearly an hour later. Among my many calls, of note, I spoke with Stephanie (ext. 7476) and Trish (ext. 7129) at the Cranberry, PA call center. When I informed these CSR's that I wanted my ETF waived due to the increase in the monthly administration fee being materially adverse, I was put on hold between 5-10 minutes EACH call, presumably so that the CSR could find a way to reject my request. (Although I want to close my account, I want to port my number to another carrier, so I cannot have my account closed before the number is ported).

Both calls escalated to the floor supervisor (once at my request, the other to "confirm that [she] could complete my request." Both calls were escalated to Danielle (ext. 4075, also at Cranberry, PA). This "Danielle" denied my request to have my ETF waived. During the first call, she was relatively professional, granting my request for an escalation contact number/address. However, when I criticized the poor customer service, she began screaming at me. During the second call, she laughed at me when I read the following clause from the contract:

Our Rights to Make Changes

Your service is subject to our business policies, practices and procedures, which we can change without notice. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE CAN ALSO CHANGE PRICES AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME BY SENDING YOU WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE BILLING PERIOD IN WHICH THE CHANGES WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE YOUR SERVICE AFTER THAT POINT, YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE CHANGES. IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU, HOWEVER, YOU CAN END THE AFFECTED SERVICE, WITHOUT ANY EARLY TERMINATION FEE, JUST BY CALLING US WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WE SEND NOTICE OF THE CHANGE.

She then said that the 15c per month charge wasn't materially adverse. I explained to her that the phrase "material(ly) adverse" has no quantifiable limit; one definition is: "of such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person's decision-making process." In the canon of law, (any) price is considered as having this nature.

I am hoping that one of you fine people may be able to assist me with this issue. My account information is:

Name: Joseph XXXXX
Phone#: XXXXXXXXXX
Account#: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Please contact me to discuss this further. I would greatly welcome an effort to restore my opinion of your company. Thank you for your time in consideration in getting this matter resolved.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Tkocs

If the EECB doesn't work out, Joe, you can also try some of these phone numbers.

]]>
Consumerist-5008272 Thu, 08 May 2008 12:00:33 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5008272&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ DirecTV Makes You Pay Termination Fee Even If You Can't Use Their Service ]]> chasecarey.jpgDirecTV is a lying pack of liars. They told Ian that if he moved to a place where he couldn't use his dish, then they would let him out of contract without early termination fee (ETF). Well guess what? He moved to a place without a balcony or roof access. Double guess what: Now DirecTV says he has to pay an ETF and they say there's no record of all those reps telling him that, and that that's not part of their policy. Triple guess what: Ian called up DirecTV sales and recorded their sales rep telling him that they DO let you out of contract if you move to a new place where you can't use DirecTV. Are DirecTV retention reps just not versed on company policy, or are they a pack of scumbags? I dunno, but you know what they say, never trust a company run by a man in a mustache. Ian's audio recording and letter to the CEO of DirecTV is inside...

Dear Consumerist,

I signed up for DirecTV in September of last year and have, until today, loved the service. Unfortunately, my girlfriend and I are moving to an apartment without a balcony or access to the roof and are prohibited from bringing our dish with us. Consequently, I'm forced to leave DirecTV's best-of-breed HDTV for Comcast's worst-of-breed YouTube-quality mush.

When I first spoke with a representative (ID #410930) about the service and its two year commitment, I was told that if I eventually moved to a place where I was unable to use the service the early termination fee (ETF) would be waived. About two months ago I again called DirecTV and, while making a minor change to my account, verbally confirmed with a service representative (ID #413117) that the ETF would be waived if that happened to be the case.

Yesterday, after double checking with my landlord that there was no chance I could install the dish, I reluctantly called DirecTV to cancel... only to find out that they won't waive the ETF. "Robby" (ID #402875) claimed to be the account supervisor despite being a first line representative and insisted that his own supervisor (ID #U2985) "doesn't get on the phones." He claimed that he could find no record in either of the previous call logs that I been offered a waived ETF. Another call this morning to DirecTV customer service found them in agreement: my ETF would not be waived. And, sure enough, the DirecTV Service Agreement makes no mention of moving to an apartment or area incapable of properly positioning the dish.

However, since I had already been lied to twice by DirecTV representatives I figured that I should call their sales department. So, this morning I called their sales number pretending to order new service and inquired as to whether or not there would be an ETF if I eventually moved to an area without service. Essentially, I replicated my initial sales call with DirecTV from seven months ago, but this time with a recording device.

Sure enough, the sales representative I spoke with repeatedly assured me that the fee would be waived if I were to move to a home that I could not get service at. So, at least DirecTV sales is consistent about giving false information. It should be noted that this representative was the rule, not the exception: all four times I have asked DirecTV sales people about the ETF waiver and all four times I have received the same incorrect response.

When I called retentions back and pointed out that I'd been told this repeatedly and had a recording, I was told that there was nothing that could be done except that a note would be made in my account and a higher up emailed.

If DirecTV's customer service representatives had simply been honest with me I wouldn't really have anything to complain about— I'd just pay my ETF without complaint. But the fact that sales and retention tell customers starkly different things about the service commitment is troubling, to say the least. I would have switched back to DirecTV the moment that I moved to an accommodating home, but why would I choose to do further business with a company whose representatives are apparently coached to lie?

Hopefully your readers won't make the same mistake I made: make sure anything that any DirecTV representative tells you is backed up in writing. Because even if you record them promising something they won't honor it. And if you do post anything about this, please remove my personal information.

Sincerely,

Ian
DirecTV Account #[redacted]

P.S. Neither representative could tell me exactly how much my final bill would be, even after I gave them a firm cancellation date. I was told "around $200", but at this point I have no reason to believe that this is the actual amount I'll be charged.

P.P.S. The ID numbers were given to me over the phone by "Robby".

Also, my service appears to have just been turned off— five days early (termination date was April 29). I confirmed that it was set for the 29th with two representatives. I can't even access my recorded shows on my DVR since they are dependent upon an active service. I'm calling DirecTV again now.

]]>
Consumerist-5007969 Tue, 06 May 2008 11:49:52 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5007969&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Verizon Offering Credits To Keep You From Escaping Contract Without Early Termination Fee ]]>

Alicia wants to escape her Verizon contract without paying an early termination fee, but she's having some trouble. She writes:

Just today, I was informed that Verizon is now increasing their monthly administration charge. I have a right to cancel with having the early termination fee waived because of this increase. The Verizon supervisors I spoke to (total of 4 people) refused to follow this clause and would not waive the early termination fee even though Verizon changed the fees. They said they would give me a credit for this increase, so then it would not adversely affect me, so I can't have the ETF waived. I made it clear that I had a right to cancel and have the ETF waived regardless of what credit they would be willing to give me. They said that having the ETF waived is not an option and they can not do that. Am I in the wrong?

Hi Alicia,

You just keep on refusing that fee waiver. The fee increase still has a material adverse effect, even if they give you a credit to cover it. If someone breaks your arm and puts it in a cast for you, they still broke your arm.

PREVIOUSLY: Escape Verizon Without Early Termination Fee Based On Administrative Charge Increase (Photo: Gizmodo) ]]>
Consumerist-5007305 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:00:00 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5007305&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Escape Verizon Without Early Termination Fee Based On Administrative Charge Increase ]]> Verizon is increasing the monthly administrative charge from $.70 to $.85, giving customers a chance to escape their cellphone contract without paying an early termination fee. However, it won't come easy. You need to have all the facts and support documents on hand and be prepared to work really hard to convince some reluctant customer service reps. Your best shot is to insist on speaking to the retentions department. Also, you need to say that the only reason you want to cancel is because of the administrative charge increase. If they ask why, just keep saying that it has a material adverse effect on you (here's what material adverse means). Lastly, resist any freebies or bonuses they toss your way. Text of Verizon's fee change and the contract clause giving you the right to break contract without early termination fee, inside... Taxes, Surcharges and Fees

Tolls, taxes, surcharges and other fees, such as E911 and gross receipt charges, vary by market and as of January 1, 2008, add between 4% and 35% to your monthly bill and are in addition to your monthly access fees and airtime charges.
Monthly Federal Universal Service Charge on interstate & international telecom charges (varies quarterly based on FCC rate) is 11.3% per line.
The Verizon Wireless monthly Regulatory Charge is 7¢ per line.
Monthly Administrative Charge (subject to change) is 70¢ per line. Beginning May 1, 2008, the monthly Verizon Wireless Administrative Charge for voice and email plans will increase from $0.70 to $0.85 per line. The Federal Universal Service, Regulatory and Administrative Charges are Verizon Wireless charges, not taxes. For more details on these charges, call 1–888–684–1888.

Our Rights to Make Changes

Your service is subject to our business policies, practices and procedures, which we can change without notice. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE CAN ALSO CHANGE PRICES AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME BY SENDING YOU WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE BILLING PERIOD IN WHICH THE CHANGES WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE YOUR SERVICE AFTER THAT POINT, YOU’RE ACCEPTING THE CHANGES. IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU, HOWEVER, YOU CAN END THE AFFECTED SERVICE, WITHOUT ANY EARLY TERMINATION FEE, JUST BY CALLING US WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WE SEND NOTICE OF THE CHANGE.

ALIVE AGAIN! Get Out Of Verizon Wireless ETF For Free! New one (Not Because of Texting) [Slickdeals]

]]>
Consumerist-5007234 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:21:33 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5007234&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Cellular South Pays Your Early Termination Fee If You Switch To Them ]]> Cellular South is so eager to get you as a customer that they will pay your early termination fee if you switch to them. They will pay up to $200, which comes in the form of a service credit. Cellular South covers Mississippi, coastal Alabama, the Florida panhandle, and parts of Memphis. Perhaps some national carriers will pick up on this awesome idea?

CellularSouth [Official Site] ]]>
Consumerist-5007232 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:47:09 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5007232&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ AT&T Introduces Pro-Rated Termination Fees ]]> con_attlogo.jpg It's finally official: as of May 25th, AT&T will join the ranks of the pro-rating carrier crowd (which so far just includes Verizon) and start reducing their early termination fees (ETFs) by $5 per month on both one and two-year contracts. This only applies to new customers and those renewing contracts on or after May 25th, so if you can, try to hold off on entering into a contract with AT&T for the next two months. What up, Sprint and T-Mobile? Why is it taking so long for you to pro-rate your ETFs? We guess you're too busy going out of business and suing creation, respectively.

"AT&T to pro-rate early termination fee" [Seattle PI]

RELATED
"Carriers Promised Congress They'd Pro-Rate ETFs; Senator Asks Them, 'When?'"

]]>
Consumerist-374493 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:51:29 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=374493&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Carriers Promised Congress They'd Pro-Rate ETFs; Senator Asks Them, "When?" ]]> con_calendarquestionmark.jpg In a letter to Sprint, AT&T Mobility, and T-Mobile, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has asked the companies whether or not they're going to start pro-rating their Early Termination Fee policies as promised, reports RCR Wireless. "Sens. Klobuchar and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) are co-sponsors of a sweeping wireless consumer protection bill" that carriers are against. In her letter, Klobuchar writes, "It is time for the wireless companies to adhere to the assurances they made to the American consumer and start pro-rating these fees." In response, Sprint said by the end of Q2 2008, T-Mobile said the first half of 2008, and AT&T Mobility said nothing at all. (Verizon already pro-rates their ETF.)

"Carrier ETF plans targeted" [RCRWireless News]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-368244 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:21:04 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=368244&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ AT&T Reps Don't Know Own ETF Policy ]]> backwardsatt.jpg8 out of 12 AT&T customer service reps don't know their company's own early Early Termination Fee (ETF) policy. Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports, called up AT&T to inquire about the policy and got several different answers. Some said that the ETF was halved after the first year of contract, while others said it went down each month. In fact, while AT&T has talked about switching to a pro-rated ETF, they haven't yet. Whether you cancel service 1 month into or one month before the end of contract, it will cost you $175. Consumers Union called the other major cellphone providers too, and they gave out the right information. Couple this news and the story yesterday about reps giving out wrong information about upgrading to a new iPhone locking you into a new two-year contract, and it plum looks like AT&T has a serious front-line rep training problem.

AT&T Sales Reps Gave Wrong Info On Termination Fees In Test [Smart Money via DSLReports]
(Photo: epicharmus)

]]>
Consumerist-354160 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:00:00 EST Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=354160&view=rss&microfeed=true