California judge rules early cell phone termination fees illegal : Christopher Null : Yahoo! Tech
Quote:
|
While an appeal is inevitable, the ruling could have massive fallout throughout the industry. Without the threat of levying early termination fees, the cellular carriers lose the power that's enabled them to lock customers into contracts for multiple years at a time. And while those contracts can be heinously long, they also let the carriers offer cell phone hardware at reduced (subsidized) prices. AT&T's two-year contract is the only reason the iPhone 3G costs $199. If subsidies vanish, what happens to hardware lock-in? Could an era of expensive, but unlocked, hardware be just around the corner? It's highly probable.
|
Cell phone hardware is subsidized? Seriously? If that's the case, then I would agree with the conclusion of this writer.
It's a catch-22 what I think of cell phone contracts. I don't use mine much, so it's a minor annoyance to have to sign a 2-year contract (one-time setup/connection charges, on the other hand...
). I have no use for a camera in my cell phone. Maybe that's a sign of my age. It's as useful as a bass-o-matic would be and I fail to see the correlation considering the crappy quality of pictures these things generate. So I don't care if the technology changes rapidly. I have little use for the latest-greatest cell phone accessories & new features. I don't have to have a different color every day to match my wardrobe. I just want to talk on the damn thing.
For the record, I've texted someone once. Only once. I don't understand the point of typing a message on a damn telephone. It's a phone. You're supposed to talk on it. Texting is like having a typewriter that types in pencil. It defies logic.
So what to make of this decision? Just another anti-corporate judge from California, or is there some substance to not having to pay early termination fees?
On the surface, this decision seems to violate the very basics of common law unless I'm missing something. All elements for a contract have been satisfied, and I don't see any basis to make the contract voidable.
Sorry for those who hate these lengthy contracts, but there's just no way this will stick on appeal. If a consumer signed the contract, then they're bound by the contract unless they can prove one of the elements necessary wasn't met, and that would be on an individual basis.
08-01-2008, 02:13 AM
California judge rules early cell phone termination fees illegal
Linear Mode
