Verizon Wireless Ends its "New Every Two" UPgrade program

The start of 2010 brought some major changes in the US mobile phone arena. Of course, the coming of the CDMA iPhone for Verizon Wireless is the biggest one so far. However, Verizon also delivered some disappointment when it informed subscribers of the end to the popular "New Every Two" upgrade program.

But what is the "New Every Two" program anyway? Well, this program offers Verizon subscribers a credit of $30 to $100 toward a new phone every two years. So you see why it has become quite popular.

Unfortunately, this program will halt as of January 16. The company will stop offering the credit to new customers and won't re-enroll current customers in the program. Consumers can also say goodbye to the early upgrade program.

Brenda Raney, a spokeswoman for Verizon Wireless, has indicated that the carrier plans to shifting to a "simpler program" in which customers will be offered promotions and discounts directly. She stated in an email that "We are a retail business so the New Every Two promotion is evolving to be more in line with how retailers work with customers today. This will include promotional offers via e-mail based on preferences that are more tailored to customers' needs."

This means that customers signing up after January 16, they will not get to access this program. However, Verizon Wireless customers under contract prior to January 16, 2011, who meet the qualifications for New Every Two program will be grandfathered so they can use the benefit one more time.

That's it for this update. Tune in next week for more wireless contract related news and updates.

Verizon Wireless Contracts and Relocation

Relocation appears to be a major concern for mobile phone contract customers. And rightfully so since coverage and network strength may vary greatly from one area to another. Fortunately for Verizon Wireless contract consumers, the carrier has devoted a program to deal with this eventuality.

The Verizon Wireless Customer Relocation program caters to customers moving from one area to another. It handles the complications that relates to mobile phone contracts of consumers who decide to relocate to another area.

Relocating Consumers should contact Customer Service at (800) 922-0204 and a representative will help determine what changes need to be made on the account.

But the big question is, will you need to sign a new Verizon Wireless contract when you relocate?
Here is the carrier's answer:

It depends on the plan type. If you are keeping the same plan and promotion in the new market as the old, your contract will not be extended. The contract, however, will be extended if you purchase equipment at our discounting prices, or accept a new promotion.

But what about fees? Well, there are no fees for changing your calling plan or your area of use. However, prorate charges will apply if you change your service.

Check out the Verizon Wireless Customer Relocation program if yu have more questions.

That's it for this post. Tune in next week for more mobile phone contract information and related news.

How to Access Wireless Contract and ETF Information Online

Contracts are notorious for the tricky terms and hard-to-read fine print they employ. This can lead to painful fees and fines for consumers who find it hard to find out when their contract expires and other important details on their contracts. Fortunately, some important mobile phone contract and early termination fee information can be accessed right on your computer. Here are a few tips to help you find out:

AT&T

• Customers can view their contract expiration date when accessing their account online (Att.com/mywireless).
• To find out whether the contract has ended or provide a specific date for expiration simply click on the "My Profile" tab on the far right of the screen and click on "User Info."
• This section also provides a hyperlink on ETFs, which directs customers to an Answer Center that provides specific details on AT&T's ETF policy and fees as well as a two-page "Customer Service Summary" which is a PDF detailing the customer's service, plan, and support shortcuts.

Sprint

Log into My Sprint, select "My Account," and scroll over the "I Want To" tab in "About My Devices." Look for the "I Want To" tab and select the "See My Contract Details" link once the box pops up. This will lead to information on when their wireless contract expires.

Sprint provides a chart that allows customers to calculate their prorated fees. IT also provides a link from the site footer to Sprint.com/terms and conditions and Sprint.com/etf.

T-Mobile

T-Mobile subscribers can get general information about T-Mobile's ETFs within the "Terms & Conditions" link at the bottom of the home page on the carrier's main website . The "MyT-Mobile" account page also provides a link to general ETF policy details via the "Terms & Conditions" link.

T-Mobile does not currently include details about individual ETFs on the customer's online account site.

Verizon Wireless

Go to MyVerizon.com and click on "Change Plan".


That's it for this post. Tune in for more info on mobile phone contracts and related news.

Settlement Proposal for AT&T Wireless Contract-related Lawsuits

AT&T has proposed some benefits as settlement for wireless contract-related lawsuits. Perhaps after witnessing Verizon paying a substantial sum to a class action suit, the carrier has decided to take pro active actions.

This proposal was made to consumers who sued AT&T for unfair billing practices. A hearing to consider the fairness of the proposed settlement will be held Nov. 15.

AT&T Wireless customers who signed wireless contracts after March 1, 1999 and who submit the appropriate forms may be eligible for the following benefits:

• $8 for mMode data service
• $10 for ENH Discount International Dial
• $8 or a 250 minute AT&T phone card for out of cycle billing
• $7 for Universal Connectivity Charge.

If you wish to participate in this settlement, then you must mail or submit a claim form by Feb. 13, 2011.

Click Here to get more info on settlements with AT&T.

That's it for this post. Tune in to this wireless contract blog to get more news and updates on related topics.

Verizon Wireless to Pay $21 Million for Wireless Contract ETF Settlement

Here's a great update for those who have a score to settle with Verizon Wireless. The nation's largest wireless carrier will pay for a class action lawsuit in California over early termination fees. Verizon Wireless will pay a total of $21 million to the 175,000 members of the class.

Each person in the class-action claim is estimated to receive $87.50 after challenging the carrier's practice of charging a $175 fee for breaking a wireless-service contract early.

The carrier will be made to pay after appeals court in California ruled that the class-action settlement should be upheld.

This Verizon Wireless contract settlement ends all litigation over how early termination fees were applied. However, this should not be applies to its current early termination fee policy. Verizon Wireless has increased ETF from $175 to a pro-rated $350 for "advanced devices" like smartphones and netbooks.

Scott Bursor, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the case commented,

"Yesterday's ruling by the Court of Appeal confirms that this is a terrific settlement for Verizon Wireless customers, and now more than 175,000 of those customers will get a substantial refund"

This case was filed in 1999 and centered on a flat $175 ETF.

Tune in for more details on this wireless contract news and update.

Class Action Suit Against Verizon Wireless Now Allowed

Here's some good news for consumers who have some wireless contract grievances against the nation's largest carrier. Last month, a federal appeals court has ruled that Verizon Wireless customers can resolve disputes over alleged fraudulent cell phone charges on wireless contracts as a class.

The former ruling only allowed consumers to dispute fraudulent cell phone charges on wireless contracts individually through arbitration.

Verizon's wireless contract states that disputes should only be arbitrated individually. However, various consumer advocates say this can unreasonably favor companies since it makes arbitrations, especially small claims, very expensive.

This decision made by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is more consumer friendly towards those who wish to dispute any wireless contract problems a s a class.

That's it for this wireless contract update on class action suits. Tune in next time for more on the latest happenings in the world of cell phone contracts.

Verizon Wireless Hit with Class Action Suit Over Data Fees

Verizon has another wireless contract dispute on its hands and it involves the issue of data fees. The major wireless carrier is facing a class action lawsuit from the law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. in the state of New Jersey.

Verizon is being accused of charging its non-smartphone customers for data service that these customers never used. According to the lawsuit, the carrier has forced consumers to pay for alleged 'accidental' charges that could accrue if a non-smartphone user, that is a user who is not paying for a data plan, accessed the Web or other data services. Verizon Wireless charges non-smartphone users without a data plan $1.99 per megabyte.

The folks at Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. wants to reimburse people and businesses should it turn out that these alleged Verizon charges were improper.

However, Verizon has previously commented on these alleged accidental charges and explained that simply opening the mobile browser on a phone does not incur any charges. The carrier explained that users will only be charged when they navigate away from the Verizon Wireless home page and access other information, applications or services.

Well. let's see how Verizon deals with this wireless contract disputes. Perhaps, the consumers will get lucky as in the recent case where AT&T decided for a settlement.

That's it for this post. Standby for more news and information on wireless contracts.

US Carriers Respond to Rising Text Messaging Rates Concerns

Here's an update to the concerns over the rising rates of Text Massaging that are being charged by Wireless carriers.

A few weeks ago, I made a post about Sen. Herb Kohl, chair of the antitrust subcommittee sending a letter to the four major U.S. wireless network providers. The letter conveyed the senator's and consumer's concerns about the doubling of the rates for sending text messages even though the cost involved with sending them remained constant. The letter was sent ot the offices of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless.

Now, these carriers have expressed their response to Sen. Kohl's letter on the doubling of the rates for sending text messages. According to an RCRWireless article, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless have denied that anything illegal was involved in the doubling of the rates for sending text messages.

According to the carriers, they have offered competitive bulk texting plans that have actually made the costs of sending text messages more affordable for mobile phone to consumers. They also would like to express that thay have suffered an increase in antitrust class-action lawsuits due to the congressional questions about the rising text messaging charges.

T-Mobile's representative defended his company by declaring that charges for text messages charged by the carrier has even dropped by half. He also expressed that the concerns over the rising cost of text messaging are exaggerated and untrue. Sprint and AT&T have also released public responses to Sen. Kohl's letter. Interestingly, Verizon Wireless requested that its response remain confidential.

The wireless carriers want to make an effective response to the inquiry because a number of class-action lawsuits have been filed against them citing Sen. Kohl's letter as the foundation for the complaints. They want to clear up this problem as soon as possible since text messaging is a major part of their revenues.

Well, I expected the major US carriers to respond effectively to this inquiry. Text messaging has steadily grown in popularityover the years so they have to take it seriously. Of course, the antitrust class-action lawsuits that have been filed against them also needs to be taken seriously. Tune in to this blog for more updates on this wireless contract issue and other related news.

Courts Hand Different Rulings on Carriers Billing Litigation

Here's an update to the complaints that have been filed against a few mobile phone carriers. According to a RCRWireless.com article, various federal courts made different decisions on the billing litigation against Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility. The article also indicated that the number of antitrust class-action texting lawsuits filed against major US carriers have increased steadily. All of these factors indicate that the mobile phone industry will continue to face challenges from frustrated customers and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Let's look at the various federal courts decisions on the billing litigation. Verizon Wireless scored well when a U.S. District judge ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts New Jersey law. This means that Verizon's motion on the enforceable arbitration clause was granted. However, the story doesn't end there.

Verizon Wireless did not scroe well with other courts including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. These courts ruled in favor of consumers by deciding that class-action complaints cannot be necessarily foreclosed by individual arbitration clauses.

AT&T also faced some rough waters in the decisions made on the litigations and suits that they are facing. For instance, a federal court in San Diego did not rule in favor of the top US mobile phone carrier. The case filed against AT&T and other carriers including T-Mobile for charging customers for unauthorized mobile content on their monthly bills was not dismissed. The judge in charge of this case has temporarily ordered that AT&T cannot settle the class action case in Georgia.

However, AT&T Mobility has not yet raised the flag of surrender even though, the judge ruled in favor of the consumers. The company is currently reviewing and considering their next course of action.

Well, it seems that the battle is till raging. Class action suits are still being filed against carriers despite the waivers on the wireless contracts they require from their customers. We just have to wait and see who gains the upper hand on this one. Weill it be the consumers or will the carriers win at the end of the day. Tune in to this blog to find out.

Wireless Contract Updates: ETF Settlements and Wireless Wiretap Immunity

Here are a couple of news update that are related to wireless contracts. Let's begin with Verizon agreeing to pay some ETF settlements.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Verizon Wireless has settled with subscribers who have filed class-action lawsuits over early-termination fees in wireless contracts. The mobile phone carrier is willing to pay $21 million to settle these wireless contract disputes. Some experts say that this move will to put renewed focus on a federal effort to restrict early termination fees.

Well, this is certainly good for Verizon wireless subscribers especially those who are disputing ETF's. It will be interesting to see the effect of this move. Perhaps the other carriers will also decide to settle the class action suits that they are facing. Maybe the FCC will implement guidelines to take control of these fees.

Let's move on to the news about telecommunication getting immunity from warrantless wiretaps.
http://www.rcrwirelessnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/FREE/732008705/1078

The US President Bush will soon sign the new electronic surveillance legislation that can free companies from dozens of privacy lawsuits. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was revised and the changes were passed by the Senate yesterday and the House last month. These revisions effectively grants AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. retroactive immunity to in connection with their participation in the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretap program.

Here's a statement from the American president regarding the wireless wiretap immunity granted to the carriers.

“This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they’re saying, and what they're planning. It will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will, themselves, be protected from lawsuits for past or future cooperation with the government. It will uphold our most solemn obligation as officials of the federal government to protect the American people.”

Well, I think this is great news for both subscribers and and the carriers. The mobile phone carriers will be able to protect the privacy over their customers and won't have to worry about privacy lawsuits. Privacy is part of the wireless contract between the two parties. No customer would want to trust any carrier who will not be able to provide security and privacy so they can be protected from losing customers.

This deal is also great for customers because they won't have to worry about the threat of wire tapping. They know that their private conversations and messages will be safe from the prying eyes of the government.

Tune in to this blog for more wireless contract updates.

Proposal to Ease ETF's of Wireless Contracts

Here's some more interesting wireless Contract news. CNN.com reported that the government is quietly negotiating to help cell phone customers avoid expensive early termination fees when they decided to cancel their wireless contracts.

Verizon Wireless has submitted a proposal to the FCC after the carrier consulted with other leading mobile phone service providers. The wireless contract proposal to the Federal Communications Commission states that the wireless industry would give consumers the opportunity to cancel service without any penalty. This would only apply up to 30 days after customers sign a cell phone contract or until 10 days after they receive their first mobile phone service bill. The proposal ton the FCC also suggests that the fees should be capped and and be reduce month by month over the course of a contract based on how long customers have left.

The article posted on CNN.Com reports that cell phone companies will be freed from suits filed in state courts by angry customers, in exchange for the government's approval. The proposal ,made by Verizon also request that the authority of states to regulate the charges, known as early termination fees should be taken away. Interestingly, the Federal Communication Commission declined to release any comment on this issue.

However, there have also been reports that the proposal is doomed even before it was filed to the FCC. Those who are close to the issue have suggested that the negotiations are on the verge of collapsing. Key stakeholders are continuing to negotiate on an ETF compromise but there are indications a deal remains an uphill battle. Two consumer groups approached by Verizon Wireless appears not to believe that the concessions offered by industry are adequate when consumers could surrender the ability to take legal action against mobile-phone operators.

I have blogged several times about wireless contract complains arising from ETF's or early termination fees. The wireless industry is currently facing a series of long-running, class-action lawsuits in state courts. If this proposal is unsuccessful, then I don't see the class action suits beign filed against carriers decreasing any time soon.

New Class Action Suits Filed Against Sprint and Verizon

Here we go again. It seems that class action suits are once again targeting wireless carriers. I have made several post that documented the disputes between carriers and customers over wireless contracts and other aspect of consumer-seller relationship. Let's take a look at the case filed against Sprint.

Sprint has been the subject of numerous class action suits and this time the mobile phone carrier has been accused of charging subscribers for unauthorized mobile content. A similar complaint was hurled against Alltel more than a month ago in Illinois federal court.

Subscribers have accused Sprint of billing customers of unauthorized charges that are caused by collaboration between wireless carriers and aggregators that represent premium mobile content providers. The lawsuit that began in state court before being moved to federal court in Kansas states:

“Sprint has for years been systematically, repeatedly and without authorization, billing its customers for purchases of products and services not agreed to by those customers. Sprint and third-party service providers have, on information and belief, profited significantly through this practice.”

In response to this accusation, Sprint emphasized that they are adhering to standard industry practices. A spokesman commented that "we adhere to the Mobile Marketing Association guidelines which emphasize the need for subscriber consent before third-party content is delivered to a handset.”

Sprint's wireless contract devotes a paragraph to third party-content. Here is a part of that paragraph

To protect our network, Services, or for other reasons, we may place restrictions on accessing certain Data Content (such as certain websites, applications, etc.), impose separate charges, limit throughput or the amount of data you can transfer, or otherwise limit or terminate Services. If we provide you storage for Data Content you have purchased, we may delete the Data Content with notice or place restrictions/limits on the use of storage areas. You may not be able to make or receive voice calls while using data Services.

Let's now look at the class action suit launched against Verizon Wireless. The wireless carrier is once again being accused of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint filed inn Alabama federal court claims that TransUnion L.L.C. and Verizon are ruining the credit of a wireless subscriber. Verizon Wireless and Alltel Communications L.L.C.. were also accused of violating FCRA laws in Pennsylvania and Georgia federal courts because of alleged breaches of credit privacy.

According to the plaintiff, Verizon Wireless is continuously trying to collect more than $1,000 from him. He feels that this is unlawful because The carrier falsely reported the disputed debt on his credit reports. The plaintiff claims to have followed Verizon Wireless’ instructions with regards to dealing with possible identity theft by filing l out a police report and sending a copy to the carrier.

Unfortunately, the problem remained even though, a collection agency later received the police report. The plaintiff was forced to contact TransUnion L.L.C. and Equifax because the overdue account remained on his credit reports. Equifax responded by removing the account but TransUnion allegedly did not do the same.

Verizon declined to release any statements in response to this accusations. Here is a part of Verizon's wireless contract statements on credit information,

You’ve authorized us to investigate your credit history at any time and to share credit information about you with credit reporting agencies and our affiliates. If you ask, we’ll tell you the name and address of any credit agency that gives us a credit report about you. It’s illegal for unauthorized people to intercept your calls, but such interceptions can occur. For training or quality assurance, we may also monitor or record our calls with you.

I hope that both parties can sort out their differences and reach a settlement. Of course, it would be naive to think that wireless contract disputes and other problems will cease.The mobile phone industry is among the leader at customer complaints so it's unlikely that customers will stop filing complaints against their service providers.

Two Carriers Defy Class-Action Suit over Credit Privacy

I've blogged about disputes and conflicts between customers and Mobile Phone carriers in this wireless contract info blog. Most of these disputes originate from problems over wireless contract polices.

Now it seems that plaintiffs’ lawyers have found a new weapon to pursue class-action consumer litigation against the mobile-phone industry. It's known as the "Fair Credit Reporting Act". After doing a bit of research I found out that the Fair Credit Reporting Act is an American federal law that regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer credit information.

Amendments made to the FCRA about five years ago, orders that account information on printed receipts given to customers should be significantly limited by businesses that accept credit cards or debit cards for payment. This new guidelines have been imposed by early December 2006.

Recently, class-action lawsuits have been filed against Verizon Wireless and Alltel Corp. because of alleged noncompliance with the law. The financial implications of the class-action suits are potentially massive because both companies have millions of subscribers.

If a court finds willful noncompliance with the law, then the consumer is entitled to a maximum of $1,000 in statutory damages, plus actual damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

The lawsuit against Alltel states that:

“Although defendants had up to three years to comply, defendants have willfully violated this law and failed to protect plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity theft and credit card and debit card fraud by continuing to print more than the last five digits of the card number and/or the expiration date on receipts provided to debit card and credit card cardholders transacting business with defendants,

In court filings, Alltel and Verizon Wireless have denied allegations in the lawsuits. Let's see the wireless contract policies of both carriers when it comes to credit information. I have posted on this topic before but this should refresh you minds.

Here is Verizon Wireless contract policy on customer credit information.

Further, you’ve authorized us to investigate your credit history at any time and to share credit information about you with credit reporting agencies and our affiliates. If you ask, we’ll tell you the name and address of any credit agency that gives us a credit report about you.

This is a very interesting piece of news because of its possible impact. Verizon has a lot of customers so this may be a big blow for them. The same goes for Alltel. It's a smaller company so it would be interesting to see how they handle themselves if the court rules for the plaintiffs.

More Wireless Contract Complaints

I looked around for some consumer complaints that are directed towards wireless contracts. Some of these complaints are a few years old but it will also be interesting to see if the wireless contracts adapted to cater to those complaints. We may also be able to learn a few things by looking at these wireless contract complaints.

I visited consumeraffairs.com and found numerous wireless contract complaints. here is an example filed by Lonnie of Sullivan IL.

"U.S. Cellular sold me a two year plan in December 2002. They carefully pointed out there was a $150 early cancellation fee if we cancelled before the two years was up. In November 2003 U.S. Cellular lost their ability to use Verizon's tower in our area. Suddenly our phone service tanked. We could not call out many times. During calls we would frequently get dropped. We were often unable to get calls. Our messages never showed up. We gave U.S. Cellular until this month to fix the problem, which is their problem as far as I am concerned. However, the service never improved and I finally cancelled this month. Naturally the customer service representative told me I had to pay the $150 cancellation fee, even though I was cancelling because of their erratic service. As far as I am concerned, U.S. Cellular's much vaunted customer service stinks."

This wireless customer claims that he had no choice but to cancel his wireless contract because of the poor service he was getting. When US Cellular was unable to get service from a Verizon tower in Lonnie's area, the customer began to experience problems like dropped calls and lost messages.

The customer asked the carrier to remedy the problem but there was no response from the network so Lonnie had no choice but to cancel his wireless contract. Unfortunately, Lonnie was asked to pay the early termination fee because he opted to terminate his contract.

This complaint encourage me to look at the coverage policy of US cellular. May the wireless contract has offered a solution or a statement regarding customer getting poor coverage. this is what I found:

You understand that Service may be interrupted or unavailable due to atmospheric or topographical conditions, governmental regulations or orders, or system capacity limitations. Representations of coverage by U.S. Cellular or its agents are not guarantees.

The wireless of US Cellular states that many factors can lead to customers having poor coverage or service. Thus the carrier cannot guarantee coverage to customers. Maybe this statement was crafted to discourage customers from continuously complaining about getting bad coverage. Perhaps this statement was meant to inform customers that coverage may not always be available. The important thing is that customers have to remember that US Cellular do not guarantee coverage.

Here is another wireless contract complaint from Keith of Derry NH. This compaint involves warranties.

"I bought phones for me and my two kids. My daughter's phone stopped working and Go Wireless refused to honor the warranty. They have a Verizon Wireless sign bigger than their own sign and represent themselves as Verizon. But when it comes to customer service they did NOTHING. The manager Nathan was rude and unprofessional. When I complained to Verizon Wireless directly, they made it clear that Go Wireless does not speak for Verizon."

This customer claims that Go Wireless representing themselves as Verizon offered a warranty for theuir mpobile phones. However, when the devices failed to perform, the vendor did not honor the warranty. Verizon denied any relationship with Go Wireless and any responsibility for the defective devices.

I scanned the Terms and Conditions of Verizon Wireless for any policy or statement concerning warranties. I found this statement in capital letters:

WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE CONCERNING YOUR SERVICE OR YOUR WIRELESS PHONE. WE CAN’T PROMISE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR–FREE SERVICE AND DON’T AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO MAKE ANY WARRANTIES ON OUR BEHALF. THIS DOESN’T DEPRIVE YOU OF ANY WARRANTY RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST ANYONE ELSE.

So I guess this disclaimer makes it clear that Verizon Wireless does not authorize any one to claim any warranties on the behalf of the company. Customers must avoid shady dealers who claims that a warranty is backed by the company. This statement from the wireless contract clearly indicates that warranties made by dealers for the company are not genuine.

Well, I guess that's it for today. Reading complaints from consumers can give some feedbacks about a company. You might even find it helpful to post your own complaints in these sites. Perhaps your sentiments may move carriers or law makers into action.

Wireless Contract Policies on Network Coverage

Do you receive great network coverage from your wireless carrier? If you have signed up for a top wireless network then you will probably have great mobile phone reception. But if your location has a lot of weak or dead spots then your mobile phone experience may be unpleasant. After all a wireless phone is useless as a communication device without network coverage.

The system of radio communications antennas owned or used by your service provider defines the area of service coverage that affects your cellphone. The reception quality you get largely depends on your location and the network design of your carrier.

However, you might not be aware that the coverage or the availability of service is also stated in the wireless contract you signed to get your mobile phone plan. It is important that you see what your wireless contract says about service availability before you sign it. Otherwise, you may not have the right to complain about coverage after you have signed it. Let's take a look at some wireless contracts and see what they have to say about coverage or service availability.

The Service Availability and Access/Coverage section of AT&T's Terms and Conditions states that,

AT&T does not guarantee availability of wireless network. Services may be subject to certain equipment and compatibility/limitations including memory, storage, network availability, coverage, accessibility and data conversion limitations. Services (including without limitation, eligibility requirements, plans, pricing, features and/or service areas) are subject to change without notice. When outside coverage area, access will be limited to information and applications previously downloaded to or resident on your device. Coverage areas vary between AT&T BroadbandConnect, EDGE and GRPS. AT&T BroadbandConnect only available in select markets. See coverage map(s), available at store or from your sales representative, for details. AT&T BroadbandConnect download speeds only available on the AT&T BroadbandConnect network. Actual download speeds depend upon device characteristics, network, network availability and coverage levels, tasks, file characteristics, applications and other factors. Performance may be impacted by transmission limitations, terrain, in-building/in-vehicle use and capacity constraints.

This statement from AT&T clearly indicate that they do not guarantee the service of a wireless network at all times. A device may not be able to connect to AT&T's network due to a variety of reasons including terrain, capacity constraints and other factors. This statement also points out the importance of looking at coverage maps. Look at your carrier's coverage map to find out if you'll have optimum coverage in your area.

Let's now check out the Network coverage policy of another wireless network. The Coverage; Where Your Device Will Work section of Sprint Nextel's wireless contract states that,

Our coverage maps are available at our stores and on our website. The specific network coverage you get will depend on the radio transmissions your Device can pick up and Services you've chosen. Our coverage maps provide high level estimates of our coverage areas when using Services outdoors under optimal conditions. Coverage isn't available everywhere. Estimating wireless coverage and signal strength is not an exact science. There are gaps in coverage within our estimated coverage areas that, along with other factors both within and beyond our control (network problems, software, signal strength, your Device, structures, buildings, weather, geography, topography, etc.), may result in dropped and blocked connections, slower data speeds, or otherwise impact the quality of Service. Services that rely on location information, such as E911 and GPS navigation, depend on your Device's ability to acquire satellite signals (typically not available indoors) and network coverage.

Sprint Nextel's Terms and Conditions stresses that coverage is not available everywhere. If you are unlucky, then your location may fall into the "gaps" of Sprint Nextel's wireless network. There are also uncontrollable factors that may rob you of a good reception such as geography and weather. You can also get an idea of the quality of coverage in your area by looking at Sprint's coverage maps.

Now let us look at the "most reliable network" and see their take on coverage or service availability. Veriszon Wireless' Customer agreement says that,

Wireless phones use radio transmissions, so we can't provide service when your phone isn't in range of a transmission site used to provide service. Even within a coverage area, there are many factors, including network capacity, your phone, terrain, proximity to buildings, foliage, and weather, that may impact availability and quality of service.

If the "most reliable network" can't provide service all the time then, coverage is really not available at all times. Even Verizon can't overcome a lot of the factors that may affect the quality of reception. Well, it's not yet an exact science as these wireless contracts tell us so we may have to wait for new technologies that can overcome these obstacles.

The wireless contracts tell us that as of now, coverage or perfect reception is not guaranteed. You can't really complain about having no coverage in your area because no network has complete control over factors that may affect your reception. I hope this post on coverage will give you some useful info.

Sprint is the Next Target of Class Action Suit

The Class Action Suit menace has struck again.

In this early part of the year, major wireless carriers have been hit with class actions suits for a variety of reasons. Verizon Wireless was sued over the unjust early termination fees they charge in exchange for freedom from their wireless contract. Some consumers also filed a class action suit against T-Mobile for being charged with receiving unwanted text messages. This week the victim is Sprint Nextel Corp according to this RCR News article.

The complaint against Sprint Nextel Corp. stems from allegations that they are defrauding their wireless consumers. The complainants assert that the wireless network has misled and deceived them by extending their wireless contracts without their consent.

This statement from the plaintiffs in the 23-page complaint that was filed in Illinois federal court will explain,

“Defendants have misled and deceived consumers by extending consumers’ contracts for up to two years without providing adequate notice or obtaining meaningful consent to a contract extension when consumers made small changes to their telephone service, such as adding extra minutes or purchasing a new telephone; when they responded to solicitations by defendants for additional products and services; and when the consumer received ‘courtesy discounts’.”

This is a serious charge indeed. I guess you realize that being locked in a wireless contract without your consent is a problem. You will be forced to commit to that contract for at least two years and you will have to pay a fee to opt out of the contract. But the biggest issue here is the alleged deception and fraud of customers.

Being accused of deceiving customers is costly because the competition in the mobile phone industry is intense. If customers associate Sprint with shady practices and deceptive techniques then they will do business with other wireless networks. However, Sprint has protection from class action suits. The wireless contracts they require customer to sign have statements that guard against class action suits. Sprint Nextel's terms and conditions state that,

We each agree not to pursue arbitration on a classwide basis. We each agree that any arbitration will be solely between you and us (not brought on behalf of or together with another individual's claim). If for any reason any court or arbitrator holds that this restriction is unconscionable or unenforceable, then our agreement to arbitrate doesn't apply and the dispute must be brought in court.

And another wireless contract statement from Sprint also expresses that,

TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, WE EACH WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO PURSUE DISPUTES ON A CLASSWIDE BASIS; THAT IS, TO EITHER JOIN A CLAIM WITH THE CLAIM OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, OR ASSERT A CLAIM IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF ANYONE ELSE IN ANY LAWSUIT, ARBITRATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING.

These statements clearly indicate that Sprint has anticipated that they might be under sieged from class action suits. The complaints that have signed the contract may be bound to these conditions. However, the law will decide what will happen in the end.

So far, 2008 has not been great for mobile phone networks. Class action suits have been filed against them and they stand to lose a lot if the complainants emerge victorious. Verizon for instance may have to shell out billions in early termination fee refunds. The bad publicity these suits generate can also have negative effects on the networks.

I hope that this complaints will move them into initiating fair business practices and more customer friendly programs.

Protecting Consumer Privacy

In my last post, I blogged about the efforts of Verizon Wireless to stop a company from mining the Internet and other sources to get wireless phone numbers and other private info. The company's aim was to create a profitable mobile phone directory.

Verizon Wireless is staying true to the privacy statement found in their wireless contract or Terms and Conditions. Let me post that lovely statement from the wireless contract of the "most reliable wireless network" again,

We don't publish directories of our customers' phone numbers. We don't provide them to third parties for listing in directories either.

Well, I found an update to this consumer privacy crusade of Verizon and other consumer rights groups. This article reported that after receiving numerous complaints, the controversial company, Intelius Inc. has made a decision to shut down the service. This is certainly good news for consumers who want privacy protection from their wireless contracts, cellphone network and consumer rights activists.

Intelius Inc. made a mistake by launching their online directory assistance for cell-phone numbers. Their website claims to have 90 million numbers in its database and for $15 each, interested can have as many numbers as they want.

In the face of stiff resistance, Intelius had no choice but to give up a potentially lucrative service. Liz Murray, a spokesperson for the besieged company explained her company's decision in this statement,

"As a company, we have strived to be at the forefront of innovation. We realize that in this instance we may have been ahead of our time. Wireless carriers attempted to develop a similar product a few years ago and found the market wasn’t ready; it’s clear that the market is still not ready. We always listen carefully to our customers, which is why we recently discontinued our cellphone directory.”

Well, I agree with them that the market isn't ready yet for this service. Many attempts to create a similar directory have failed in the past. For instance, CTIA — The Wireless Association unsuccessfully attempted to create a cell-phone directory. However, opposition from consumers and legislators forced them to abandon their project.

But then again, who would want to have their privacy violated. If a company offers personal information without getting the consent from private citizens. This unethical method will always be assailed by consumer rights groups, legislators and other concerned individuals.

I hope that legislators can successfully pass a law that would prohibit the marketing of cellphone numbers without consumer consent. Wireless contracts and carriers may not be able to provide complete protection for their subscribers. Perhaps this may also be a chance for you to find out if you are being protected by your wireless network.I value my privacy and knowing that my carrier is doing its best to protect me is very reassuring.

Mobile Phone Directories and Consumer Privacy

While I was surfing the net, my eyes caught an interesting Mobileburn article. It was about Verizon Wireless condemning data mining of wireless phone numbers in order to some sort of a directory.

The article indicated that a certain company is making plans to sell the wireless phone numbers of private citizens to interested parties. The company made it known through their website that it will offer “unlisted or unpublished” numbers and will identify the wireless service provider of consumers' for a fee. And how will this company gather the numbers and info of private citizens?

Apparently, the company will mine the information about a consumer's personal number and carrier from the World-Wide-Web, personal Web pages and other sources. The controversial aspect of their method is that they do not have the consent to gather personal information of consumers who own the rights.

How about you? Do you feel that that data mining of mobile phone numbers should be illegal? For my part, I don't think that this method should be allowed. I wouldn't want my cellphone number and other personal information to be distributed to people I do not know. The possibility of being bombarded by ads and other offers is also not an idea that I would welcome.

For these reasons, I am glad that Verizon Wireless called on that company to halt the mining and sale of wireless consumers' personal information. This wireless network prides it self in having a long-standing policy of keeping its customers’ wireless numbers private. The wireless contract or Term and condition of Verizon Wireless clearly states that,

"We don't publish directories of our customers' phone numbers. We don't provide them to third parties for listing in directories either."

This statement from the carrier's wireless contract indicates that they are aware that customers consider their wireless phone numbers as private. They also feel that wireless phones should be free from intrusions from telemarketers and other unsolicited calls and messages.

Let me give you other wireless contracts or terms and conditions that have policies against mobile phone directories and third parties. AT&T's wireless contract emphasizes that,

AT&T IS NOT A PUBLISHER OF THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION OR CONTENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE, STATEMENTS, OR OTHER INFORMATION, SERVICES OR GOODS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES. Third-party content or service providers may impose additional charges. Policies regarding intellectual property, privacy and other policies may differ among AT&T's content or service providers and you are bound by such policies when you visit their respective sites or use their services. It is your responsibility to read the rules or service agreements of each content provider or service provider. Any information you involuntarily or voluntarily provide third parties is governed by their policies.

AT&T's terms and conditions do not openly state that they are against data mining of wireless phone numbers in order to some sort of a directory. They do make it clear that they are not involved with companies or any party that may attempt to do so. This carrier also puts the responsibility on their customers. I have to say that I prefer Verizon's stand on this issue. Anyway, let's move on to T-Mobile.

T-Mobile's terms and conditions states that,

We may list your name, address, and Number in a published directory with your consent. For more information on our privacy policies, please see our privacy notice at www.t-mobile.com/privacy. The way third parties handle and use your personal information is governed by their policies and we are not responsible for their policies, or their compliance with them.

T-Mobile has a softer stance on mobile phone directories. However, it will not publish your information without your consent. They also warn their customers that they have no power over third parties so customers have to exercise caution.

Lastly, here is US Cellular's stand on directories as stated in their Privacy Policy,

We will never disclose your CPNI or Personal Information to any third party other than in connection with collecting delinquent amounts owed us such as to a collection agency or credit bureau. U.S. Cellular® does not publish or support wireless directories of our customer phone numbers nor do we make this information available to third parties for listing in public directories. We may release CPNI and Personal Information about you or your account when necessary or appropriate in special circumstances such as when we, in good faith, believe that disclosure is required by a subpoena or other lawful process to enforce our Customer Service Agreement or protect the rights, property, or safety of U.S. Cellular®, our customers, or others. Disclosure may also be required in connection with a sale, purchase, merger, reorganization, liquidation, or dissolution involving U.S. Cellular®.

Like Verizon Wireless, US Cellular stress that they do not support wireless directories that contain the personal information of their clients. They also assure their customers that they will not make their information available to third parties for listing in public directories.

I guess that's all I can post today. I am oppose to companies that gather information about wireless customers in unethical ways. If you are also concerned about keeping your personal info private, then I suggest that you look into your wireless contract and find out how your privacy is being safeguarded.

News: Class Action Against Verizon has been Certified

I found an interesting article concerning Verizon Wireless today.

Apparently, a huge class action against the wireless network has been certified by an arbitrator. How huge? Well, the RCR News article says that Verizon may be forced to pay nearly a billion bucks in refunds for the early termination fees they have charged over the years.

This article caught my interest because Verizon wireless as well as other mobile phone carriers have class action policies stated in their wireless contracts or terms and conditions. Here's the statement from the wireless contract or terms and conditions of Verizon:

THIS AGREEMENT DOESN'T PERMIT CLASS ARBITRATIONS EVEN IF THOSE PROCEDURES OR RULES WOULD. IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, WE'RE PROVIDING YOU A FREE INTERNAL MEDIATION PROGRAM. MEDIATION IS A PROCESS FOR MUTUALLY RESOLVING DISPUTES. A MEDIATOR CAN HELP PARTIES REACH AGREEMENT, BUT DOESN'T DECIDE THEIR ISSUES. IN OUR MEDIATION PROGRAM, WE'LL ASSIGN SOMEONE (WHO MAY BE FROM OUR COMPANY) NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE TO MEDIATE. THAT PERSON WILL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF A MEDIATOR. NOTHING SAID IN THE MEDIATION CAN BE USED IN A LATER ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT.

Well, I'm not really an expert in law but it seems that the fact that this arbitration has been certified is not favorable to the beleaguered wireless network.

The arbitrator who made the decision is Eugene I. Farber, a former federal judge and senior arbitrator-mediator for the American Arbitration Association in White Plains, N.Y. He explained his decision in this statement,

“I find the claimants have complied with the criteria for class certification. My decision is also motivated by my conclusion that as a matter of equity and fairness, millions of class members are entitled to adjudication of the central common questions of fact or law in this arbitration related to whether the $175 early termination fee imposed by respondents Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless … is based upon an unenforceable liquidated damage clause.”

Farber's decision to certify the class action has historical significance as well as financial implications. Financial because the refunds that Verizon make hand out is estimated to be worth nearly a billion bucks. Historical because with approximately 70 million members of the subscriber class it is the largest class ever certified in arbitration. This class action suit is also the largest class ever certified on a contested motion in any type of forum, litigation or arbitration.

The implementation of early termination fees have always been a controversial issue. Consumer groups and customers have complained that it is an unfair practice and they have succeeded in forcing some carriers to make their ETFs pro-rated. In fact, Verizon Wireless was the first carrier to announce that their ETF will be prorated.

If this class action suit succeeds then Verizon Wireless consumers will gain a great advantage. They will be able to seek a refund worth nearly a billion dollars. And maybe this ruling will also trigger similar suits in other wireless networks because they too have been imposing early termination fees on their consumers. It may also change some of the statements in the wireless contracts and terms and conditions that will be signed by subscribers.

I'll continue to monitor the progress of this development. I'll also make sure that I post any updates of this class action suit as well as other related incidents in this blog.

Roaming Policies In Wireless Contracts part 2

This the the second and final part of my post about the roaming policies of the major wireless service networks. We took the wireless contracts of these companies and looked for statements that relate to their roaming policies.

In my last post, I gathered the roaming policies of Alltel, AT&T and Sprint Nextel and made a few comparisons. I am aiming to the same for three more carriers. But before I do that let me give a brief review of the definition of roaming.

The term roaming as used in the wireless telecommunications industry refers to the extending of connectivity service in a location that is different from the home location where the service was registered. Basically, if you use your mobile phone on a network that is outside the home service area of your carrier then you are roaming. OK, lets proceed to the roaming policies.

Let us begin with the roaming policy of T-Mobile. The Billing, Charges, and Late Fees section of T-Mobile's terms and Conditions express that,

Except to the extent prohibited by law, billing of roaming charges and minutes or Services used may be delayed or applied against included minutes or Services in subsequent billing cycles, which may cause you to exceed your included minutes or Services in a particular billing cycle. Roaming and other call rating (such as time of call) depend on the location of the network equipment providing Service for a particular call and not the location of the Phone. For billing purposes, you agree not to rely on indicators on your Phone (such as roaming and call time), which may be inaccurate.

In the first statement, T-mobile informs the customer that he or she may exceed the allotted included minutes because the billing of roaming charges or minutes may be applied to the included minutes of a plan. That is certainly something to consider before you make calls outside the home service area of your carrier.

The carrier is also warning their customers not to rely on the indicator of their mobile phones as they may be inaccurate. Arguments on bills based on the indicators will not be valid. they are also making it clear that the location of the phone is not the basis of roaming ratings but the location of the network providing the service.

Let us check out how US Cellular treats roaming. Their Customer Service Agreement states that,

Due to delayed reporting by other carriers, some wireless usage while roaming outside a U.S. Cellular market may be billed in months subsequent to your actual usage. The minutes used, and associated charges, will be applied against your monthly plan minutes in the month that the usage appears on your bill rather than the month the calls were actually placed.

US Cellular's roaming policy focuses on the billing aspects of roaming. Unlike the other carriers, they did not touch upon any penalties when abusing roaming or the inaccurate roaming indicators on the mobile phone.

They explain to their customers that the roaming charges they incur may be billed in months subsequent to their actual usage due to delays on the reports of other carriers. They also exp0lain that due to the delay the charges will not be deducted on the months that they actual roaming calls were made.

Let us now look at the the Customer Agreement of Verizon Wireless. The Roaming and Roaming Charges section of that document states that,

You're "roaming" whenever you make or receive a call using a transmission site outside your Home Rate and Coverage Area, or using another company's transmission site. Your wireless phone may sometimes connect to and roam on another company's network even when you're within your Home Rate and Coverage Area or Local Calling Area. There may be extra charges (including charges for long distance, tolls, or calls that don't connect) and higher rates for roaming calls, depending on your Calling Plan.

Interestingly, Verizon warns their customers that they may actually be roaming even if they are within their Home Rate and Coverage Area or Local Calling Area. This may be similar to T-Mobile's policy that the rating does not depend on the location of the phone but on the network.

They are also notifying their customers that roaming calls may have higher rates and additional charges depending on the wireless plan. However, they do not offer any policy that states a penalty may be incurred if the customer make too many roaming calls or the unreliable indicators on the cell phone.

Those are the roaming policies of T-Mobile, US Cellular, and Verizon. Every roaming policy is different but they also share some similarities. One constant factor is that roaming calls mean extra charges for the customer. I hope that my posts on the roaming policies of different wireless networks can give you some useful info.