California judge rules Sprint fees unlawful

maverick · EVDO User Joined: 29 Jul 2008 Posts: 63

They'll definitely try to appeal the case, especially since they've already tried using Federal laws to exempt them from California law.

Fox McCloud · EVDO Junkie Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 618

I'd like to know further details on this case--as long as fraud isn't involved, I don't see why Sprint should have to pay a single dime--if a user abused the network and Sprint terminates them and forces them to pay a fee, well, then that should be ok--after all, it's Sprint's network.

But, again, I want to know the full details.

Alex · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject:

firedude · EVDO Junkie Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 435

Imagine that. Shocked

You would have thought they would have learned by example ie; Verizon?? Like they didn't follow that case closely. yeah right. Of course Sprint is disappointed. They thought they were able to pull one over. Seems there is some case law to refer to namely the NY AG's suit with Verizon. Just another way for sprint to try and refoup some of its losses. The courts don't seem to agree.

Fox McCloud · EVDO Junkie Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 618

ridiculous--talk about a violation of private property rights.

It's Sprint's network, so they make the rules--you're given a contract to read over when you initially sign up; if you break the TOS in the contract then you abide by the penalties listed in the contract.

As long as Sprint isn't just canceling people to be canceling them (to earn some cash from those customer's who don't do much for them at all), then this should be a no matter....of course, California isn't exactly known for their individualistic stance on rights or private property either...

jfulmer · EVDO Junkie Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 155

firedude · EVDO Junkie Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 435

waynefoutz · EVDO Junkie Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Posts: 240

I'm going to have to side with Sprint on this one. The knee jerk reaction as a consumer is to applaud, but this is actually bad for the consumer. The wireless companies are handing out $300 phones at a reduced price, in some cases free, in exchange for a two year commitment. I don't see anything wrong with that, It gives people access to phones who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them. This is just a case of a liberal judge telling the phone companies how to run their business. I hope this decision gets overturned.

jfulmer · EVDO Junkie Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 155

AmazinglySmooth · EVDO User Joined: 17 May 2006 Posts: 62

(1) Without the ETF, phone prices would higher initially, but eventually phone manufacturers would figure out how to lower the price to win more business.

(2) If the ETF is use to subsidize the phones, then it should decrease as the replacement value of the phone decreases.

(3) A more subtle point is that the user isn't told up front that they are paying each month for two different things: the service and the phone. Everyone knows it, but it isn't stated up front. I think this is why they phone companies are losing these cases.

Cheers

MichiganTim · EVDO Heavy User Joined: 08 Apr 2007 Posts: 108

I think the Cellular providers are out of control and need to be bitch slapped. Why isn't congress/FCC allowing these guys to get away with this crap. What is the cellura companines sitting on capital hill with all of the special intrest groupes paying are government off. IT's time for americans to stand up, band togeather and say enough is enough. NEED A GRASS ROOTS EFFORT TO STOP THIS CRAP. Look what happened when all of the illigal mexicans prtotested in all of are major cities across america for amnesty. Congress actually debated weather or not they should be granted amnesty. If we all stood up and said enough is enough and protested in all of are majour cities, I wounder what congress would do then, when al of us stupid americans are saying enough is enough. You were elcted by me to look after my intrests not the coporate greed!

Corporate America is out of control!
_________________
Vista64,EX720

waynefoutz · EVDO Junkie Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Posts: 240

MichiganTim · EVDO Heavy User Joined: 08 Apr 2007 Posts: 108

Here is my point:
1. Have you ever signed a contract to lease a car, and the automaker changes the terms of the lease at your expense.
2. Have you ever sighned a contract for a morgage to have the bank change the terms of the morgage, at your expense. ( I am not talking about ARMS).

My point is I have never heard of a contract out side of the cellular industrry that has the right to take things that were promised at the begining for the same price.

My Opninion: THIS IS CORRUPT behavior. I did not sign this contract to have sprint tell me that I have to now abide to a 5gig cap. Which this is ludicrous. This cap is for the stone age. Let alone they don't even offer me a choice of other plans for a higher $ amount, Which would take some of the sting out of this issue. I think it's wrong, and this practice should come to an end. Give me 50 gig a month. I am not asking for the comcast 250Gig. GIVE ME OPTIONS instead of slamming the door in my face!

I just don't understand how they can get away with writing these contracts like this!
_________________
Vista64,EX720

AmazinglySmooth · EVDO User Joined: 17 May 2006 Posts: 62

While I don't disagree with your premise, the contract is available to be read before you sign up. It does state that you are agreeing to accept any future changes after a 30 day notice period during which you can break the contract without penalty. You already agreed to this whether you wanted to or not. Also, the only laws concerning contracts have to do with other unrelated issues. Basically, for housing or cars a contract change would result in you being able to return the hourse or car without making any more payments--I don't think the counter party would want these things back. Service contract are different from asset contracts in this regard.

Regardless, you have a way out. I don't think you can successfully argue that this service is required for your health or safety so I doubt the government will be involved.