California judge rules Sprint fees unlawful

Sally · EVDO Heavy User Joined: 19 Jun 2006 Posts: 111

One sided contracts don't hold up when challenged.

That's the problem with the cap... Sprint has new customers over the barrel for the price of equipment and the promise to be a customer for 24 months... and if that isn't enough another $200 ETF. All of these components of the contract favor the carrier. And then add to that the clause that allows them to further screw the customer (implementing a ridiculously low cap on a thing sold as "unlimited)... and there's a problem here.

If this isn't a glaring example of one-sided contracts, I don't know what is.

As far as "people getting phones that couldn't afford them" as an excuse for these 24 month contracts, etc... phooooey. That's ridiculous, as well.

Cricket seems to be doing fine at charging crazy amounts for junk phones... but their customers don't eat it every month in the form of high bills or being stuck on contracts. And the typical person that Cricket seemed to cater to were the kind of folks that couldn't get a credit app to fly without another $200 deposit with one of the major carriers.