Cell phone companies propose fees loophole, but there's a catch

By Jacqueline Emigh, BetaNews

May 22, 2008, 11:09 AM

The wireless industry has proposed a plan to the US Federal Communications Commission giving consumers a chance to cancel their cellular service without any penalty.

That opportunity would begin for consumers either 10 days from receipt of their first bill, or 30 days after signing their contract. There's a catch, though: If the proposal goes through as written, the FCC will take away the right to states to regulate the wireless charges, which are called "termination fees."

The proposal also calls for cell phone companies to reduce termination fees over the length of of contract, based on the amount of time remaining on the contract.

In consultation with other major wireless providers, Verizon Wireless offered the proposal after meeting with senior FCC officials, according to a report Wednesday afternoon from the Associated Press.

Some representatives of consumer groups such as Consumers Union are reportedly up in arms over the FCC proposal, suggesting that the plan doesn't give consumers enough flexibility around canceling their cell phone contracts.

As previously reported in BetaNews, AT&T Wireless announced a similar pro-rating scheme earlier this month. Starting May 25, customers who are under a one- or two-year phone contract with AT&T Wireless will have $5 taken off the termination fee, for each month of the contract's length.

Add a Comment (12 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By foxfyre

edited May 23, 2008 - 5:33 AM

If the coverage is sufficient for your uses, a Skype based phone is more than adequate for all but the most extreme use - and you can get the service for ~$30 a year for SkypeOut land line access in North America using readily available WiFi and Internet access.

Screw the cell phone carriers.

I wish MetroPCS and their alternative business model the best.

And if Sprint were wise (yeah, I know...but its a nice fantasy!) they would leverage their WiMax capability to extend their service to effectively offer home wireless connectivity for all services (phone, fax, Internet, etc.) where you simply take your 'wireless home phone' with you as you would your cell - as the distinction ceases to matter...thus offering the cost incentive of having only 'one' service to provide for all of your phone and Internet access with the cost advantages of WiMax's increased bandwidth and lower density tower requirements providing a disruptive advantage over competing cell operators....oh well.

We have a choice. It is sad to watch so many simply whine or become willing victims instead of becoming aware of, and making, informed choices.

Score: 0

By gregmlr

posted May 22, 2008 - 3:35 PM

As always the feds are giving the corporations a better deal than the consumers. I've been with the same wireless provider for over four years and just signed a new two year contract with them the other day. Consumers really should educate themselves better before going out and frivolously signing a contract.

Score: 0

By monkeylips

edited May 22, 2008 - 2:22 PM

Why have a contract at all? Charge folks a FAIR price for the phones and be done with it. Most folks don't know how to unlock a phone anyway, where are they going to go? :oD

Score: 0

By tstr

posted May 23, 2008 - 2:19 PM

Phones are really expensive, if they were to charge their real prices tons of people would be shocked and quite a few would have to go without phones (especially teenagers, not that it's a bad thing, but it would change the whole economy of that sector at this point) or be hesitant about buying them.

Score: 0

By God Dammit

posted May 22, 2008 - 2:29 PM

Carriers have to get the money they lose from subsidizing the cost of the phones they sell back somehow. This means either having a long term contract or paying full retail price for the phones. If you don't like the high retail price for your phone contact the manufacturer, not your cell phone provider.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted May 23, 2008 - 5:22 AM

Here's an idea...

Sell unlocked phones with the code so that they are portable across compatible carriers and then provide sufficient service so that customers don't feel the need to jump!

Why in hell should anyone need to buy a new phone at your 'oh so nice subsidized price' if they already have a compatible phone?

And if they do buy a phone, all the carrier needs to do is recoup their ACTUAL wholesale cost! - forget your absurd MSRP fantasy!)

Where did you study economics? There is the reality behind the marketing brochure that you would benefit from understanding.

But this belies that fact that the US is essentially a mature saturated market where all of the money is being made on phone upgrades and customer churn as they jump ship.

The smart company (now there's an oxymoron!) will be the first to charge a flat $50 or 60 unlimited use (including data) fee. Period. They have the capacity and the first to market would capture a significant market share.

As it is, who cares. They are selling to teenagers and ditzes who walk around glued to their phone starting at 7AM! And they deserve what they get. And everyone needs the cutesy Borg earphone! They are so cool looking! ROFLMAO! At least it gives the rest of the folks advanced warning that they are Bozos.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

edited May 22, 2008 - 2:55 PM

You sound like you work for the carrier. There is no way the phone cost as much as the carrier claim.

Using Sprint Mogul as an example: On Sprint, it listed retails for $549 without contract. With contract and after rebate, it's $299. However, if you do a quick search on Amazon, the retail price listed as $349. $170 with 2 years contract & rebate.

So how come, an affiliated company can offer the product cheaper and still can make a profit. Why the carrier itself said they are taking a loss on every phone.

Score: 0

By BubbaKatz

edited Jun 17, 2008 - 1:12 AM

First: let's look at the fact that termination fees are really hostage negotiation fees. If you get crappy service, they get $200 or better per line instead of perhaps, $1500 per annum.

Duh.

Second: how much is the most expensive phone worth VS the annual revenue from a satisfied customer and his referrals?

Give great customer service, forget the horsepucky with insurance - the customer will stay with you forever if you TAKE CARE OF THIER NEEDS - give 'em a new damn phone and get on with GREAT customer service.

Any CSR who can't solve the issue without 14 more calls to CS, should be hawking shoelaces in Iraq. Any company that does not empower the reps to do this might think about switching to the manufacture of shoelaces.

Score: 0

By tstr

posted May 24, 2008 - 3:46 AM

You realize that the $349 price is displayed as the original 2-year contract discounted price, to show that Amazon is giving you a better deal on the 2-year discounted price (it has nothing to do with the actual full retail price).

Score: 0

By tstr

posted May 22, 2008 - 12:54 PM

Pretty much quite a few of the mobile carriers have already been offering 30-day trial periods and variable ETFs for some time now. Can't quite see what would really be changed here except perhaps more companies offering the variable ETFs, since almost all seem to provide something like a 30-day trial.

Score: 0

By bousozoku

posted May 22, 2008 - 12:46 PM

The proposal barely seems more than the voluntary plans in place with the various providers, so that you'll try their service.

Why should they bother spending the money to implement such a plan?

Score: 0

By TheNewGuy

posted May 22, 2008 - 12:28 PM

This reminds me of when I cancelled with my first cellphone provider. I was with Alltel for a while. I ended up moving to an area where the coverage wasn't that great. But I had been off of my contract for a year and paying month-to-month.

During that period, I received some incredible customer service. Why? They couldn't force me to stay. I was a three-year customer who had never missed a payment, and was no longer under contract. I could leave at any moment without penalty.

They constantly threw offers at me, including some I didn't even understand how they could justify it to the bean counters. (The last offer was two lines with unlimited minutes at my going rate of $45/mo for the both of them.)

I left them just because my phone didn't work where I lived. But it's interesting how far they will go for customer service when the customer is actually able to leave.

Score: 0