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.

Renegotiate a Wireless Contract

Consumers who are not happy with their contract usually seek to cancel them. However, this is not simple as there's the issue of the ETF or early termination fee.

There are other ways of dealing with a restrictive and "unfair" contract. One can actually renegotiate with the service provider to come up with a better deal.

I've found a CBSNEWS article that mentions several important points that a user needs to look at when negotiating a contract. No, I'm only going to mention a few so you'll be tempted to read the whole article by yourself.

It's obvious that research is the key when discussing your agreement at the table. You need to know what the competitors are offering their customers. This way you can point out to your service that you are not getting a fair deal.

One also needs to have a clear idea of what one really wants to get while negotiating a plan. The consumer needs to clearly express their desire be it more minutes or lower fees. However, the demands should also be realistic or a deal will not be reached.

Persistence and tenacity is also important when renegotiating your wireless contract. You must be determined not to back down when discussing your realistic demands.

That's it for this post. You should read the rest of the article to learn the proper ways of renegotiating a mobile phone contract.

Reasons for Getting Multiple Wireless Contracts

Should you commit to a second mobile phone contract? How about a third or a fourth? Does signing multiple cell phone contracts make sense?

Well, a study conducted by the folks at Moneysupermarket.com indicates that one in five Brits have more than one mobile phone or contract. The subjects were British but the figures may also apply to the US market with a bit of difference.

So we know that a number of consumers choose to sign multiple wireless contracts. But what are the reasons behind their decision to sign more than one agreement?

Some of the respondents of this wireless contract information study reveal that they want to get the latest or hottest handset in the market. Six percent of those who have admitted to signing multiple deals revealed they had taken out a second contract in a bid to get a brand-new must-have handset. Extremely popular handsets like the iPhone have been known to influence consumers top sign an additional agreement.

Eight percent of those guilty of having more than one contract contend that signing multiple contracts is one of the best ways to get the texts and minutes they wanted for a cheapest price. I take this to mean that another carrier have attracted them to sign a deal because of better rates and offers

One in eight users is the survey revealed they had an additional handset for 'privacy' reasons. I think this means that they have separate devices for business and personal life hence they have multiple wireless contracts.

Some experts say that many consumers feel the need to sign multiple agreements because handsets have evolved into a part of modern life. We use these devices for a variety of reasons and so it has become common for a user to have multiple handsets and contract.

However, it is still advisable for consumers to shop for better deals before resorting to signing a new mobile phone agreement.

That's it for this wireless contract update. Tune in to this blog to get more mobile phone contract related news and information.

Alltel Announces New 1 Year Wireless Contract Option

Most people would usually choose 2 year wireless contract over a 1 year contract because a long term contract provides a higher phone subsidy. A phone on a two-year contract is twice as a cheap as a deal that comes with a 1 year agreement.

However, Alltel has come up with a revolutionary 1-year wireless contract offer. Alltel is offering 2-year postpaid handset pricing to those signing 1-year contracts. This means that new and renewing Alltel customers will get the benefits of long term agreements on a shorter commitment.

The company is hoping that this offer will provide enhanced flexibility and greater choice for their customers.

Well. this Alltel 1-year wireless contract offer appears to be quite beneficial for customers because they can get a cheaper deal with a shorter commitment. However, it appears that this offer is limited only to selected markets.

Apparently, this Alltel 1-year wireless contract offer is only offered to customers in the 91 cellular market areas (CMAs) that Verizon is required to divest. These areas will operate under Alltel Wireless until they are sold.

The Alltel 1-year wireless contract offer will only be available in some areas of Idaho, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. It's a shame that this Alltel 1-year wireless contract offer is limited only to some areas. Maybe this concept will catch on and the major providers will join in on the act.

Is this the end of the 2-year wireless contract. probably not. the major carriers want to keep as much customers as possible and a two year agreement is a useful tool in achieving this goal. However, the competitive market might give this Alltel 1-year wireless contract offer a chance to bloom.

A carrier might see this as a chance to lure customers into their service. Indeed, a shorter agreement would be a good way to convince customers because they will not be committed to a contract for long. The Alltel 1-year wireless contract offer definitely has potential and appeal.

That's it for this post on the Alltel 1-year wireless contract option,. tune in to this blog to get the latest news and updates on wireless contracts.

Sprint Pro-rated ETF Policy Now Official!

Sprint has finally made it official. In my previous post, I blogged about Sprint's plans to finally pro-rate its ETF or early termination fee. A few days ago, Sprint released an announcement containing the details of its new wireless contract policy on pro-rated ETF or early termination fee.

Sprint's announcement contained the details and benefits that are included in its new contract policy on pro-rated ETF. Sprint's new ETF policy is basically designed to give customers who have signed wireless contracts more freedom. By pro-rating its ETF or early termination fee, Sprint is making it easier for customers to make changes or opt out of their wireless c0ntract.

Sprint's old ETF policy charges customers who want to get out of their contracts a flat early termination fee of $200. The carrier's new wireless contract policy allows subscribers to pay a reduced fee based on how long they have remained faithful to their wireless contract.

Starting on November 2 Sprint subscribers with new or renewed contracts will have a $200 ETF for the first six months. Then Sprints ETF will be reduced by by $10 for the succeeding months that the customer stayed with the wireless contract. The old early termination fee will only apply for customers who want to get out of a wireless contract for the fir six months.

Subscribers who stay faithful to Sprint's wireless contract after six months will have the benefit of paying a reduced early termination fee based on the new pro-rated ETF wireless contract policy. The new Sprint pro-rated ETF policy will charge only $100 for customers who have stayed on a contract for 15 months. The pro-rated early termination fee policy allows a fee of as low as $50.

However, this new Sprint ETF policy does not apply for old wireless contracts that were signed before Nov. 2. Subscribers have signed a Sprint Wireless contract will be under the old ETF policy that demands a flat amount. Old wireless contracts will not benefit from the pro-rated early termination fee of Sprint's new wireless contract policy.

Sprint also announced other initiatives and programs designed to improve the customer experience in their announcement for the new pro-rated ETF policy. These new Sprint programs include one-on-one interaction between subscribers and sales representatives and detailed summaries that explains transactions.

Wireless Contract Update: Sprint to Prorate Early Termination Fee

Here's some great news for all Sprint subscribers. According to an AP article, Sprint is planning to follow other mobile phone carrier's with pro-rated Early Termination Feesor ETF's.

Now ETF's are probably the most controversial aspect of mobile phone contracts because they prevent customers from moving to another carrier before their existing contracts expired. In the past, national and regional US carriers used to charge a flat rate of around $150 to customers who want to get out of a contract before it expired.

Carriers impose this wireless contract policy to recover the cost of subsidized cell phones and to reduce the expense spent on signing up new customers. Of course, subscribers and consumers are no fans of ETF's because it restricts their freedom to move to other carriers and the fee is quite expensive for those who have multiple handsets or phone lines.

Fortunately, many of these carriers have decided to prorate the Early Termination Fees that bind their customers to their existing wireless contracts. And Sprint seems to be on the verge of deciding to prorate its Early Termination Fee. But what is a prorated ETF anyway?

A contract with a prorated ETF will charge a reduced reduce the fee based on each month a subscriber stays with the plan. This means that a subscriber who has stayed with a contract for 14 months will pay less than a customer who wants to opt out of a contract after three months. The less number of months remaining in a contract, the lower the Early Termination Fee.

Sprint's plans to reduce their ETF charges was revealed by CEO Dan Hesse during an an interview. Hesse indicated that the wireless carrier will be able to implement a prorated early termination fee system as early as December.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse explained that a new billing software should first be put in place before the prorated early termination fee system can operate. Customers will be able to benefit from Once is has the new software in place, it will deduct a small amount of money from the $200 ETF for each month that a subscriber stays with the plan.

I thin that this is a great update. One that many Sprint subscribers have been hoping for and they won't have to wait long. Sprint has been facing a lot of disputes and lawsuits based on ETF and perhaps this decision will provide a solution. Tune in to this blog for more information on wireless contract policies.

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.

Roaming in Rural Areas may be Enforced by Legislation

Here's an interesting update for mobile phone users residing in rural areas. A US Representative has introduced legislation that aims to require telecom recipients of rural universal-service funds to provide automatic roaming to wireless service carriers. But before we discuss this bill let us us first discuss mobile phone roaming.

Now I have discussed roaming in my previous blog posts but it wouldn't hurt to give another little introduction to this wireless contract term. Roaming as used in wireless telecommunications refers to the extending of connectivity service in a location that is different from the home location where the service was registered.

Roaming is significant because it allows users to communicate beyond their wireless networks. It is an important service to those who live in rural areas are because the reach of wireless networks is usually limited. Roaming is also significant to customers because it's an important part of their monthly mobile phone service bills. If you "roam" a lot when you use your mobile phone, then you might be looking at a huge bill. Now let's proceed to the legislation that might force roaming in rural areas.

The bill is officially named the Universal Roaming Act of 2008 and was introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman of California. This legislation aims to attach the automatic roaming obligation to any affiliate of a telecom carrier that receives high-cost USF subsidies. Some experts feel that this bill will affect the current debates on on roaming rights by some auction winners that cannot yet access their spectrum. However, the current economic crisis will keep congress busy so further action on the bill is expected to be done next year.

This legislation has been met with some opposition from large carriers because they feel that they not be forced to provide access to licensees that own spectrum but have yet to established networks. If they provide roaming access to these licenses, then a delay in build out of wireless systems is a good possibility.

However, the Universal Roaming Act of 2008 also have its share of supporters. The Rural Cellular Association feels that the legislation introduced by Waxman is far-reaching and beneficial to smaller wireless carriers. The Rural Cellular Association would also want to abolish the cap on USF subsidies given to wireless carriers desiring to build systems in rural areas.

Well, I guess we have to wait until the economic crisis has subsided to gauge whether this bill will pass. This legislation has significant impacts on the current roaming scene so it will be interesting to see further action on it.

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.

Senate Questions Wireless Carries on Rising Text Rates

Here's some interesting info for mobile phone subscribers who send a lot of text messages. According to this article, Sen. Herb Kohl, chair of the antitrust subcommittee sent a letter to the four major U.S. wireless network providers.

Sen. Kohl's letter was delivered to the offices of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless. The chair of the antitrust subcommittee wanted the letter to convey his concerns about the doubling of the rates for sending text messages even though the cost involved with sending them remained constant.

Here's the statement released by Sen. Herb Kohl the chair of the antitrust subcommittee:

"What is particularly alarming about this industrywide rate increase is that it does not appear to be justified by rising costs in delivering text messages. Also of concern is that it appears that each of companies has changed the price for text messaging at nearly the same time, with identical price increases. This conduct is hardly consistent with the vigorous price competition we hope to see in a competitive marketplace."

The current charge for sending text messages is 20 cents which represents double the messaging rates imposed by carriers three years ago. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless serve roughly 90 percent of cell phone users in the US and charge them the same text messaging rate.

The letter sent by Senator Kohl contains a formal request to the network operators asking them to explain the reasons behind the text price increases. Sen. Kohl is also asking AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to justify the 20 cents rates compared to the rates of sending / receiving emails and other services.

As of the making of this wireless contract post, the recipients of Sen. Kohl's letter has not yet responded. Well, this is certainly an interesting development. I for one, do not comprehend why the rate for text messages has doubled when the cost of sending them remained the same. It would be interesting to see how AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless respond to this letter. That is, if they will offer any response.

Standardized Billing System Might Solve Third-party Services Struggles

Here's an interesting wireless contract scoop. According to this article, Mobile phone carriers are trying to find ways to gain more control their third-party content partners. Third-party content is a part of most mobile phone contracts. Let's delve into this story.

Apparently, carriers like Sprint have been finding ways of dealing with their partners. Sprint for example have have warned their partners that they will forfeit their profits and lose their short codes if they continue to violate Mobile Marketing Association guidelines. Some Mobile Marketing Association guidelines violations involve failure to report billing errors and high refund rates. This move Sprint has encourage other mobile phone service providers to make similar warning to their third-party partners.

But why are the carriers trying to control third-party providers? Well, the main reasons seems to be the increasing complaints in the form of lawsuits from consumers and advocacy groups. All the major carriers and content-subscription service providers have been targeted by consumer advocacy groups.

Mobile phone carriers are also concerned about the reaction of customers to the incompetence and deception of some third-party providers produce. These unsatisfactory performance may cause the carriers to lose customers. Complaints about poor third-party also increases expensive calls to customer-service centers of mobile phone carriers.

There have been some suggestions that a standardized mobile payment platform will be a solution to the problems associated with third-party providers. A standardized mobile payment platform may also ease some the m-commerce space problems. However, a system in the US would would require an enormous effort from carriers and service providers. It may take some time before such a system can be implemented in the US.

let's take a look at some wireless contract policies that deal with third-party services. Here's a statement from Alltel's wireless contract:

The Services will be provided either by us or by our third party vendors or contractors. We reserve the right to change or modify the source of any Services provided to you without notice.

And here's the statement form AT&T's contract:

Third-party content or service providers may impose additional charges. Policies regarding intellectual property, privacy and other policies or terms of use may differ among AT&T's content or service providers and you are bound by such policies or terms 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 or terms. The accuracy, appropriateness, content, completeness, timeliness, usefulness, security, safety, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, transmission or correct sequencing of any application, information or downloaded data is not guaranteed or warranted by AT&T or any content providers or other third party. Delays or omissions may occur.

Tune in to this blog to know more about wireless contracts and related topics.

FCC Undecided on Changing Mobile Phone Roaming Rules

Here's some interesting wireless contract scoop for those who make a lot of roaming calls. According to a Reuters article, the Federal Communications Commission or FCC has not yet made a decision on chaining certain cellular roaming issues that have caused some problems for some mobile phone carriers.

This delay on changing the mobile phone roaming rules was seen as significant since smaller carriers have been expecting a decidion on this issue. Let's look at the heart of this conflict since roaming is one of the many aspects of mobile phone contracts.

The problem lies on whether carriers should be allowed to roam in areas where they own airwaves, but have not built networks, are affecting smaller carriers. Smaller carriers own spectrum in certain markets but lack the means to build the wireless networks and so they have to rely on o roam on the existing networks of larger rivals. The FCC has decided to look at this issue after the commission reaffirmed the rights of smaller carriers to roam on the networks of bigger wireless companies about a year ago.

Minor wireless network providers wanted to gain access to areas where they had acquired spectrum. unfortunately, they lack the means to build networks top exploit those areas. Neverthe less, thses small carriers wanted to preserve their right to roam in those areas.

Earlier, the FCC made a proposal that allowed smaller carriers who owned unused spectrum could continue roaming for four years before they lost roaming rights. The FCC wanted to give smaller carriers time to build out their own networks or to give the spectrum back to the government and continue roaming.

However, the FCC's five commissioners were unable to agree on the proposal so it was withdrawn. Some commissioners were concerned that they need more time to study the issue while some wanted to grant a longer phase-in period to smaller carriers.

The FCC did not indicate a specific time frame for making a decision in this issue. Well, this looks like an issue that won't go away soon. This issue affects regional customers who might lose their ability to make roaming calls if the FCC did not grant smaller carriers to roam on major net works.

Tune in to this blog for more news and updates regarding issues related to mobile phone contracts.

Sprint's ETF Lawsuit Loss Could Shake the Industry!

It been a few weeks since I've made a post here. The wireless contract scene has been quite so There wasn't anything to write about. But that's not the case right now. I've just found out that Sprint lost a lawsuit on its ETF wireless contract policy. Let's explore the details of this story.

Apparently, Sprint's early termination fees has violated a state law according to a California state judge when he ruled against the company. The members of the class who sued Sprint for it's ETF were awarded a total of $73 million in reparation for the fees.

The judge's tentative ruling says that Sprint will have to pay $18.3 million to customers who sued over the fees. Sprint should also credit $54.8 million to those who were charged but did not pay the fee. Well, Sprint seems to be in a bind now but the company does have two weeks to contest the ruling.

Not on to the bigger picture. The judge is also considering other lawsuits against telecommunications companies over mobile phone contract policies covering early termination fees. And recently, Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $21 million to settle an identical lawsuit. Overall, things are not looking well for mobile phone carriers.

FCC representatives refused to release any comment on this pivotal court decision however they did indicate that it will not affect the agency's plans on ETF. Currently, the FCC is dealing with lobbying over how best to handle the ETF policies in the wireless contracts of carriers.

The FCC has been asked by various Telecommunications companies to regulate the fees. They want the agency to protect them from class action lawsuits in state courts. The FCC has released information on a plan in which the cancellation fees would be reduced over the life of the contract.

Customers and consumer groups have continually assailed the ETF policies in the mobile phone contracts of cell phone carriers. Perhaps this important decision will fuel the efforts to regulate this troubl;e some fee. Tune in to this blog for more wireless contracts info, news and updates.

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.

Lawmakers Argue Over Roaming

Here's some more wireless contracts news. Apparently, lawmakers have been debating about over roaming. Some experts say that the controversy over this wireless contract policy may grow into a major fault line in the mobile-phone industry. Let me discuss roaming before we proceed to the meat of this news.

The term "Roaming" is used in wireless telecommunications to describe the extending of connectivity service in a location that is different from the home location where the service was registered. Now every carrier has it's own wireless contract policies on roaming and the charges that come with it.

Here's a statement from the wireless contract of on roaming:

Roaming charges for wireless data or voice service may be charged with some plans when outside AT&T's wireless network. Display on your device will not indicate whether you will incur roaming charges. Services originated or received while outside your plan's included coverage area are subject to roaming charges. Use of Services when roaming is dependent upon roaming carrier's support of applicable network technology and functionality. Check with roaming carriers individually for support and coverage details. Billing for domestic and international roaming usage may be delayed up to three billing cycles due to reporting between carriers. If your usage of the Services on other carriers' wireless networks ("offnet usage") during any two consecutive months exceeds your offnet usage allowance, AT&T may at its option terminate your wireless service or access to data Services, deny your continued use of other carriers' coverage, or change your plan to one imposing usage charges for offnet usage. Your offnet usage allowance is equal to the lesser of 6 megabytes or 20% of the kilobytes included with your plan and for messaging plans the lesser of 3000 messages or 50% of the messages included with your plan. AT&T will provide notice that it intends to take any of the above actions and you may terminate your agreement.

Now that we have discussed the concept of roaming, it's time to get back to the news. The trend to consolidate roaming policies and fees among mobile phone carriers is making an already rough-and-tumble roaming dispute even more volatile. Small carriers have remained dissatisfied with last year’s FCC ruling that declared automatic roaming a common-carrier obligation for cellular operators.

Unfortunately, the FCC ruling has fan the flames over an in-market exemption, the applicability of the mandate to push-to-talk service and the possibility of extending the new rule to high speed wireless Internet services.

To make matters worse the FCC has yet to rule regulatory challenges to its roaming order. Some lawmakers have made inquiries ion to the FCC's plans to proceed on challenges to the automatic roaming ruling.

The legislators are also concerned that the in-market exception will affect districts with large concentrations of low-income and minority citizens. This market is largely served by small and regional wireless providers.

Leap Wireless International Inc., SouthernLINC Wireless, U.S. Cellular Corp., MetroPCS Communications Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp., T-Mobile USA Inc. and several rural telecom associations are questioning the FCC roaming rule.

Well, I hope that the legislators and the FCC can figure out the best solution to this roaming controversy. Tune in to this blog for more wireless contract info and news.

T-Mobile Announces New Approach to Early Termination Fees

Here's some interesting wireless contract news for T-Mobile fans. According to Gizmodo.com, T-Mobile has just announced that they are taking a new approach to the early termination fees for their mobile phone contracts to provide greater flexibility for their customers.

Well, it seems that that ETF's are still a hot issue in the mobile phone industry. This announcement may also be related to AT&T's announcement that they have begun prorating their early termination fees. Here's a statement from Sue Nokes, Chief Customer and Operations Officer, T-Mobile USA, regarding this new approach,

“T-Mobile continues to set the pace in offering customers a number of flexible plans and services that don’t require a contract to help them stay connected to those who matter most. In addition, by providing this flexibility and choice, our hope is that T-Mobile customers will be happy customers for years to come.”

Let's discuss the details of this new T-Mobile early termination fees approach as it may be a bit confusing. T-Mobile wants their customers to know that starting on June 28, 2008, the ETF for customers who choose a one-year or two-year service agreement will decline during the course their contract.

This means that if customers terminate service with 91 to 180 days remaining on their agreement, then the ETF decreases from $200 to $100. It will then decrease again to $50 with fewer than 91 days remaining. Now in the event that a customer want to terminate in the last 30 days of their term, then the ETF is $50 or their standard monthly charge, whichever is less.

Now according to Gizmodo, this new approach to the ETF's of wireless contracts is not the same with pro-rated ETF's because the fee goes down in increments and never touches zero.

I think that this is a positive step towards resolving the wireless contract disputes between the mobile phone carriers and customers. Much of those complaints are focused on ETF's so any move towards reducing it should appease customers. Even the FCC has made proposals to reduce the conflict over early termination fees for cell phone contracts. Perhaps this move by T-Mobile will encourage other carriers to develop their own consumer friendly approach towards ETF's.

Tune in to this blog for more wireless contract news and information.

FCC Plans for Wireless Contract and ETF

In my last post I discussed the struggles that are centered on the controversial ETF or early termination fees that are charged for canceling a wireless contract.

Mobile phone companies usually charge early termination fees that can range from $150 to $225. These fees help them to recover the cost of devices, which they subsidize under long-term wireless contracts. These ETF's also lessens the burden signing up new customers. However, these fees have been assailed because they have curtailed the freedom of customers to shift to another carrier. The imposition of these fees have resulted in class-action lawsuits in several states and legislative proposals.

Now it seems that the FCC has decided to act and laid out some proposals on ETFs. Hopefully, these proposals will solve some of the problems concerning this policy but let us first take a look at the FCC proposals.

Kevin Marti, the current FCC Chairman, expressed that the proposal is similar to an industry plan that was offered by mobile phone carriers headed by Verizon Wireless. He also expressed that the proposal was drafted because ongoing class-action lawsuits would probably not provide an answer to the ongoing issues about the unpopular fees.

Here are the main elements of the proposal:

• the ETF would be related to the actual retail price of the device being purchased so that a $100 handset would have a cheaper ETF than a $300 phone

• ETFs should be prorated and reduced over the length of a cell phone contract

• wireless contracts should only last for a reasonable length of time

• Extended wireless contracts should not necessarily have their ETFs reinstated

• allow class action lawsuits regarding ETFs against certain carriers to move forward

These proposals seems to provide some answers to the problems that are plaguing the mobile phone industry, However, some experts think that the proposal lacks many vital elements. For instance, the proposal did not offer specific information on the government body that would be in charge of monitoring ETFs. The proposal also did not propose any federal program that would preempt state governmental rights.

I guess we have to wait for more updates on this development. Let's hope that the FCC and the mobile phone companies can come up with plans to provide the best service to customers. Tune in to this blog for more wireless contracts news and information.

The Battles Over the ETF Policies of Wireless Contracts

I have often blogged about ETFs or early termination fees in this wireless contract blog. That's no surprise because ETF's are probably the most controversial fees charged by wireless contracts.

These fees are very restrictive and expensive. The huge numbers of contract disputes and consumers complaints arising from early termination fees have been documented. All you have to do is to visit consumer rights websites, and you'll see that plenty of consumers are unhappy with these fees and the wireless contract policies that enforce them.

Currently, significant battles or disputes over early termination fees raging in major courts while carriers are being encouraged to make commitments on embracing consumer-friendly practices and opening their networks. The current scenario indicates that the foundation of a decades-old reign of ETF's are under attacked on all sides and it could be on its way out. I'm sure many consumers would like to see the demise of ETF wireless contract policies. Let us explore it more deeply.

Apparently, the mobile phone industry’s long-held argument that ETFs allow carriers to recoup costs associated with subsidized handsets are being undermined by a series of class-action lawsuits in California state court against national cellular carriers. Complainants feel that ETF's have another purpose and they intend to show the ETF was embraced as an arbitrary penalty. Experts say that other suits will use the same line of argument in pending class actions.

The disputes are also being held in the nation's capital. CTIA continues to lobby the Federal Communications Commission to approve a 2005 request to declare ETFs a component of wireless rates and therefore off limits to states. A 1993 law pre-empts state regulation of wireless rates, but reserves limited powers over “terms and conditions” to states. Some senators are also pushing a wireless consumer empowerment bill that would mandate pro-rated ETFs.

Experts are also saying the the impact of these battles over wireless contract ETF policies might be significant. For example, if courts rule in favor of the complaints then carriers may be forced to pay huge amounts of money. Some estimates say that the figures run in the billions.

The disputes over early termination fees might also have a huge impact on churn or the transfer of consumers from one carrier to another. Some carriers may be deeply affected if frequent shifts in subscribership results from the absence of wireless contract ETF policies.

I guess there's nothing we can do but wait. the battles are still raging and there are no clear winners. Tune in to this blog for more updates on wireless contracts, early termination fees and related topics.

AT&T's Prorated ETFs Are Now In Effect

Here's some excellent wireless contract news for AT&T subscribers.

The wireless carrier has formally announced that the change ion their wireless contract policy regarding ETFs or early termination fees has been implemented. Customers who have signed up an agreement or wireless contract with AT&T starting on May 25 will be charged with a prorated early termination fee should they choose to end or terminate their contract or agreement before it expires.

Here's the official press release issued by AT&T:

More Flexibility for Wireless Customers

San Antonio, Texas, March 31, 2008

AT&T (NYSE:T) today announced a new approach to early termination fees (ETFs) that provides greater flexibility for wireless customers.

Beginning on May 25, the company's new and renewing wireless customers who enter into one- or two-year service agreements will no longer be required to pay a single, flat early termination fee. Instead, that fee, which is $175, will be progressively lowered by $5 during each month, every month, for the term of the contract. (The single, flat ETF will continue to apply to new and renewing customers who enter into one- or two-year service agreements prior to May 25.)

The company noted that it continues to offer options for those customers who do not want term commitments or ETFs, including:

* Buy a phone at full price and go on a month-to-month service plan.
* Bring your own compatible GSM device. With this option, you can buy a SIM (subscriber identity module), slip it into the back of the phone, and select a month-to-month service plan.
* Choose one of AT&T's GoPhone prepaid wireless plans.

I know that a lot of customers have been waiting for this to happen. I have read countless of complaints about the high cost of these fees. Early termination fees can be a pain especially if you have signed several contracts. This decision by AT&T should make it easier for customers to shift to a different carrier.

You can tune in to the AT&T News Room for more press releases regarding wireless contract and important announcements.

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.