Related
http://nationaljournal.com/tech/kohl-seeks-to-block-at-t-merger-20110720
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who chairs the Senate's Antitrust Subcommitteee, is calling for regulators to block the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, saying on Wednesday that it would be "highly dangerous to competition and consumers."
Kohl wrote to the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to argue that the merger would concentrate the market too much.
"I have concluded that this acquisition, if permitted to proceed, would likely cause substantial harm to competition and consumers, would be contrary to antitrust law and not in the public interest, and therefore should be blocked by your agencies," he wrote.
The senator's letter provides political cover to the FCC and Justice if they want to either block the proposed $39 billion merger outright or impose stringent conditions. The approval process is expected to last until at least the end of the year.
Kohl noted that cell phones are a daily necessity. “Therefore, in this industry, perhaps more than any other, full and vibrant competition is essential so that all consumers realize the benefits of this technology at the best prices and with the most choices.”
An AT&T spokesman disputed Kohl's assessment.
“We ... feel his view is inconsistent with antitrust law, is shared by few others, and ignores the many positive benefits and numerous supporters of the transaction," the spokesman said.
"This is a decision that will be made by the Department of Justice and the FCC under applicable law and after a full and fair examination of the facts. We continue to believe those reviews will result in approval of this transaction."
AT&T contends that competition will remain vigorous in the wireless industry even after the transaction.
It says that the merger will allow the companies to offer advanced wireless services to almost all Americans. That pledge has helped AT&T make inroads with lawmakers in both parties as it seeks approval of the deal. A group of 76 Democrats wrote to regulators in June saying that the merger may be beneficial to the spread of broadband access.
The letter from Kohl has been anticipated for weeks and helps set the tone for how Democrats in Congress will view the deal.
Earlier Wednesday, top Democrats in the House also expressed caution about the deal, saying that it could discourage investment and restrict innovation.
"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
"Such industry consolidation could reduce competition and increase consumer costs at a time our country can least afford it."
AMEN! ten chars
788346: SprintFreeMsg: Public hearings on proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger July 21, 25, 27 in Culver City, San Diego, Fresno. More info at www.cpuc.ca.gov/merger
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Cool now I may get back on Tmo when I move to Georgia next year when my sprint contract is up.
"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that's 'cuz 30 years ago a certain little company known as AT&T was broken up into the "baby bells" (Of which Verizon, aka Bell Atlantic was one) because they were found guilty of leveraging their monopoly status unfairly and in harm to the consumer and the market and ultimately innovation.
...to be fair they only stifled innovation in 'the market' so far as the market itself is concerned. There was no market, they owned the whole game. They were actually a very technologically innovative company...though I'm sure Bell Labs was a pretty distant branch from the root of all that evil.
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.
daneurysm said:
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great stuff, dude! If you were running for office, you'd have my vote!
Best news I heard all day... That and it gives me a chuckle to think of ATT still being forced to pay deutsche telekom billions even if the merger falls through
I'm still weary of it. There was an article out the other day talking about lobbyists working as staffers for politicians and guess who had the most of them, AT&T. and they all seemed to work for just the right people.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Unfortunately, I havent been able to find a job in almost 3 years and cant afford my bill. Is there anyone that can help me cancel my line and waive the ETF?
Free Dirk!!!
Right now Sprint is raising some of their regulatory charges, you can argue that these increases represent a material adverse charge which in accordance with their contract allows you to exit your contract with no ETF. I used this to exit Verizon, it should work with Sprint too.
If they ask you why you wish to end your contract
The increase in the Regulatory Charge represents a material adverse effect to me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They'll ask if there are any other reasons, there are not, do not complain about the service, the device, the monthly contract price.
THERE IS NO REASON BUT THAT CHARGE.
They may argue that these charges reflect a change in taxes and fees that Sprint is charged by local, state, and federal fees and are thereby not subject to the material adverse effect clause.
Sprint defines the regulatory charge as "Sprint Surcharges are rates we choose to collect from you to help defray costs imposed on us. Surcharges are not taxes on you or amounts we are required to collect from you by law." As this is not a fee required by law and explicitly a fee Sprint chooses to collect it is in fact covered under the material adverse effect clause.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They may try to offer to rebate the difference to you, if they do argue the following
The contract does not stipulate that Sprint may choose to mitigate a change in contract with an account credit. However the contract does explicitly state my option to cancel the line. If I were to accept or not accept the offer, which has no basis is the written contract, the material adverse effect is still represented in the new contractual fees.
In Cunningham vs. Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, reported at page 611 of the third Federal Reporter, volume 253, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that arbitration clauses are material terms to a contract.
If the contract has in fact been altered to allow for mitigation of the charges by account credit, then my standing in a potential arbitration has been negated. So such a clause, having the potential to alter my standing in arbitration would itself be a materially adverse change.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If they still refuse to let them go ask them
Are you explicitly notifying me, as a representative of Sprint, of Sprint's refusal to comply with the terms of a federally binding contract?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's all I had to do with Verizon
Okay, I'll give it another shot.
You could sell your phone and pay the ETF with that money.
USSENTERNCC1701E said:
Right now Sprint is raising some of their regulatory charges, you can argue that these increases represent a material adverse charge which in accordance with their contract allows you to exit your contract with no ETF. I used this to exit Verizon, it should work with Sprint too.
If they ask you why you wish to end your contract
They'll ask if there are any other reasons, there are not, do not complain about the service, the device, the monthly contract price.
THERE IS NO REASON BUT THAT CHARGE.
They may argue that these charges reflect a change in taxes and fees that Sprint is charged by local, state, and federal fees and are thereby not subject to the material adverse effect clause.
They may try to offer to rebate the difference to you, if they do argue the following
If they still refuse to let them go ask them
That's all I had to do with Verizon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, are you a lawyer or someone of that sort? This is amazing. I'm not being sarcastic by the way. I truly am impressed.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App
cruise350 said:
You could sell your phone and pay the ETF with that money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha! The **** I look like selling my phone?
USSENTERNCC1701E said:
Right now Sprint is raising some of their regulatory charges, you can argue that these increases represent a material adverse charge which in accordance with their contract allows you to exit your contract with no ETF. I used this to exit Verizon, it should work with Sprint too.
If they ask you why you wish to end your contract
They'll ask if there are any other reasons, there are not, do not complain about the service, the device, the monthly contract price.
THERE IS NO REASON BUT THAT CHARGE.
They may argue that these charges reflect a change in taxes and fees that Sprint is charged by local, state, and federal fees and are thereby not subject to the material adverse effect clause.
They may try to offer to rebate the difference to you, if they do argue the following
If they still refuse to let them go ask them
That's all I had to do with Verizon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love you dude. This worked 100%
StoneColdCarl said:
Wow, are you a lawyer or someone of that sort? This is amazing. I'm not being sarcastic by the way. I truly am impressed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah, studying physics and philosophy Thanks though
knowledge561 said:
I love you dude. This worked 100%
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad it helped. Good luck with the job, it's a **** market to be looking in
Does anyone know if you will be able to start a new contact right after you cancel this way as a way of getting an early upgrade, or will they kind of blacklist you for a few months after you cancel the contact?
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
el_capitan10 said:
Does anyone know if you will be able to start a new contact right after you cancel this way as a way of getting an early upgrade, or will they kind of blacklist you for a few months after you cancel the contact?
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've seen it somewhere that you can sign up immediately after through a third party vendor, specifically wirefly was suggested. I can't remember where I read this though, may have been here on XDA
USSENTERNCC1701E said:
Right now Sprint is raising some of their regulatory charges, you can argue that these increases represent a material adverse charge which in accordance with their contract allows you to exit your contract with no ETF. I used this to exit Verizon, it should work with Sprint too.
If they ask you why you wish to end your contract
They'll ask if there are any other reasons, there are not, do not complain about the service, the device, the monthly contract price.
THERE IS NO REASON BUT THAT CHARGE.
They may argue that these charges reflect a change in taxes and fees that Sprint is charged by local, state, and federal fees and are thereby not subject to the material adverse effect clause.
They may try to offer to rebate the difference to you, if they do argue the following
If they still refuse to let them go ask them
That's all I had to do with Verizon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that sir is great im calling tonight and will use this if need be
@USSENTERNCC1701E
Wow! Just... Wow! I'm not even with Sprint (I'm up in Canada), but I must say, I'm impressed! I do love to pin large corporations to the wall and make them accountable when need be! I've used somewhat similar tactics to have early upgrades, waived fees, even got a free computer once from my landline provider (back in the stone age when I HAD a landine)
I've found you can get just about anything you ask for as long as you do your homework, keep a cool head, and when in doubt, ask to speak to a supervisor. Good on you man
This should be stickied! I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who could use this sort of advice!
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we will change the world
Posted to FCC.gov
http://www.fcc.gov/document/verizon-wireless-pay-125-million-settle-investigation
VERIZON WIRELESS TO PAY $1.25 MILLION TO SETTLE INVESTIGATION
INTO BLOCKING OF CONSUMERS’ ACCESS TO CERTAIN MOBILE BROADBAND
Today the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau released a $1.25 million consent decree with Verizon Wireless that resolves an investigation into whether the company had fully complied with the FCC’s “C Block rules,” requiring licensees of C Block spectrum to allow customers to freely use the devices and applications of their choosing.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “Today’s action demonstrates that compliance with FCC obligations is not optional. The open device and application obligations were core conditions when Verizon purchased the C-block spectrum. The massive innovation and investment fueled by the Internet have been driven by consumer choice in both devices and applications. The steps taken today will not only protect consumer choice, but defend certainty for innovators to continue to deliver new services and
apps without fear of being blocked.”
Verizon Wireless offers customers its 4G LTE service on C Block spectrum. Verizon Wireless bid at auction to acquire that spectrum, understanding that it was accompanied by open device and application obligations. Specifically, licensees offering service on C Block spectrum “shall not deny, limit, or restrict
the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee’s C Block network,” subject to narrow exceptions.
P. Michele Ellison, Enforcement Bureau Chief, said, “This case was the first of its kind in enforcing the pro-consumer open access obligations of the C Block rules. It underscores the agency’s commitment to guarantee consumers the benefits of an open wireless broadband platform by providing greater consumer choice and fostering innovation.”
The Bureau launched an investigation after reports suggested that Verizon Wireless had successfully requested that a major application store operator block Verizon’s customers from accessing tethering applications from its online market. (“Tethering” is using a wireless phone as a modem to obtain Internet
access for another device, such as a laptop computer or tablet.)
The Commission also received an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Wireless had violated the FCC’s C Block rules by making such a request. At that time, Verizon Wireless’s terms of service required all customers who wanted to use their phones for tethering to subscribe to the company’s Mobile Broadband Connect service, at an additional charge. In response, Verizon Wireless stated that the additional fee reflected the fact that customers who tether laptops or other devices have the capability to use more data capacity than others. At the time of that response, however, Verizon Wireless required not only unlimited data plan customers, but also customers who paid for data on a usage basis, to pay the additional fee. Verizon Wireless asserted that third-party tethering applications could enable its customers to tether without paying an additional fee.
In addition, the company recently revised its service offerings such that consumers on usage-based
pricing plans may tether, using any application, without paying an additional fee.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So those of us on unlimited are not affected by this change. Looks like if you're unlimited (like myself), you either fork up the monthly tethering fee, or root/use 3rd party app.
krelvinaz said:
Posted to FCC.gov
http://www.fcc.gov/document/verizon-wireless-pay-125-million-settle-investigation
VERIZON WIRELESS TO PAY $1.25 MILLION TO SETTLE INVESTIGATION
INTO BLOCKING OF CONSUMERS’ ACCESS TO CERTAIN MOBILE BROADBAND
Today the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau released a $1.25 million consent decree with Verizon Wireless that resolves an investigation into whether the company had fully complied with the FCC’s “C Block rules,” requiring licensees of C Block spectrum to allow customers to freely use the devices and applications of their choosing.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “Today’s action demonstrates that compliance with FCC obligations is not optional. The open device and application obligations were core conditions when Verizon purchased the C-block spectrum. The massive innovation and investment fueled by the Internet have been driven by consumer choice in both devices and applications. The steps taken today will not only protect consumer choice, but defend certainty for innovators to continue to deliver new services and
apps without fear of being blocked.”
Verizon Wireless offers customers its 4G LTE service on C Block spectrum. Verizon Wireless bid at auction to acquire that spectrum, understanding that it was accompanied by open device and application obligations. Specifically, licensees offering service on C Block spectrum “shall not deny, limit, or restrict
the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee’s C Block network,” subject to narrow exceptions.
P. Michele Ellison, Enforcement Bureau Chief, said, “This case was the first of its kind in enforcing the pro-consumer open access obligations of the C Block rules. It underscores the agency’s commitment to guarantee consumers the benefits of an open wireless broadband platform by providing greater consumer choice and fostering innovation.”
The Bureau launched an investigation after reports suggested that Verizon Wireless had successfully requested that a major application store operator block Verizon’s customers from accessing tethering applications from its online market. (“Tethering” is using a wireless phone as a modem to obtain Internet
access for another device, such as a laptop computer or tablet.)
The Commission also received an informal complaint alleging that Verizon Wireless had violated the FCC’s C Block rules by making such a request. At that time, Verizon Wireless’s terms of service required all customers who wanted to use their phones for tethering to subscribe to the company’s Mobile
Broadband Connect service, at an additional charge. In response, Verizon Wireless stated that the additional fee reflected the fact that customers who tether laptops or other devices have the capability to use more data capacity than others. At the time of that response, however, Verizon Wireless required not only unlimited data plan customers, but also customers who paid for data on a usage basis, to pay the additional fee. Verizon Wireless asserted that third-party tethering applications could enable its customers to tether without paying an additional fee.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All it means is that Verizon has to stop blocking tethering apps in the market and thats it.
From my reading, they can't charge for tethering period regardless of what plan you are on. that is in addition to the usage based plans.
Oh yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on that...
Locked boot loaders is a bigger violation IMO
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
krelvinaz said:
From my reading, they can't charge for tethering period regardless of what plan you are on. that is in addition to the usage based plans.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats what I got from that but I was colin powelling.
I tethered before it was legal. /hipster
Maybe this had something to do with the end of unlimited data?
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
scy1192 said:
I tethered before it was legal. /hipster
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lmfao. You sir win 1 internet.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
scy1192 said:
I tethered before it was legal. /hipster
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But now it's mainstream
Looks like Verizon owes me $20 bucks for that one month I used Hotspot I'll be watching the mail...
krelvinaz said:
From my reading, they can't charge for tethering period regardless of what plan you are on. that is in addition to the usage based plans.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its doesn't say that at all, its talking about blocking applications and by that they mean Verizon's blocking of the tethering apps in the Martket. Its on just about every tech website as such.
http://www.droid-life.com/2012/07/3...ng-apps-please-pay-1-25-million-to-say-sorry/
http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/0...ng-tethering-apps-via-block-c-spectrum-rules/
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/31/verizon-to-stop-blocking-tethering-apps-settles-with-fcc-for-1/
Its about time this happened. I am hoping this is the first positive step in preventing carriers from locking out devices down. I guess one could also say this applies to custom ROMS and rooting as well...IMO :good:
sshaar said:
So those of us on unlimited are not affected by this change. Looks like if you're unlimited (like myself), you either fork up the monthly tethering fee, or root/use 3rd party app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You've already been affected. If you want to keep unlimited, no more $500/2 year phone subsidy, which basically cancels out the tethering fee. It's not like VZW didn't know this was coming. Of course, no new unlimited contracts, either.
This consent decree is pretty much meaningless - it simply forced VZW to eliminate unlimited smartphone plans and to find a way to extract an extra $20/month from those who still have them. Net/net, customers are worse off.
You can thank all the reprobates who violated their contracts and tethered 50GB per month for that.
k_flan said:
Locked boot loaders is a bigger violation IMO
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is nothing that says they have to unlock the bootloader.
What it does say: if a company decides to sell you a phone for Verizon that has an unlocked boot loader, Verizon cannot stop them.
If Verizon asks them to lock the boot loader and the company agrees and does, that is their choice. Just like if HTC said all Verizon phones will come s-off Verizon has to allow it. Only thing Verizon can do is stop selling htc phones. Which would be stupid on their part.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
nosympathy said:
There is nothing that says they have to unlock the bootloader.
What it does say: if a company decides to sell you a phone for Verizon that has an unlocked boot loader, Verizon cannot stop them.
If Verizon asks them to lock the boot loader and the company agrees and does, that is their choice. Just like if HTC said all Verizon phones will come s-off Verizon has to allow it. Only thing Verizon can do is stop selling htc phones. Which would be stupid on their part.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can Verizon request a company to lock down the bootloader, like the gs3? To me, it would be Verizon blocking you from loading software.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
The way I read it, Verizon can't stop a company, let's call it "Google" from offering a device which we shall call "Nexus" for sale, completely unlocked and Verizon must allow that device on their network.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
scy1192 said:
I tethered before it was legal. /hipster
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
Sent from my PG86100 using xda app-developers app
k_flan said:
Can Verizon request a company to lock down the bootloader, like the gs3? To me, it would be Verizon blocking you from loading software.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. They can request this. It just they cannot block you from having a device that is this way. So like they couldn't say because your rezound is s-off that they will have to cut your service.
Or like in the case of the GSIII we have the Verizon version and the. Samsung is releasing a developer version on their website with an unlocked boot loader and Verizon can do nothing about it.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
EveryOne Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.
The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
Created: Jan 24, 2013
Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Consumer Protections, Technology and Telecommunications
Learn about Petition Thresholds
It's up to you to build support for petitions you care about and gather more signatures. A petition must get 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov.
Over time, we may need to adjust the petition signature thresholds, but we'll always let you know what the thresholds are.
Signatures needed by February 23, 2013 to reach goal of 100,00087,845
Total signatures on this petition12,155.
PLEASE GO SIGN IT MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...legal/1g9KhZG7
Thanks
I wouldn't ask that _uck up for a glass of water if I was dying of thirst. And why would you want to expand his fingers of incompetence to include your cell?
Umm, why post this? I don't see that it is a huge deal. All this states is that you can no longer buy a phone from (for example) Verizon and take it to MetroPC or some other carrier and unlock it to use with their service.
Most phones now are global ready, and if you buy a Nexus from Google it is unlocked for you to use as desired.
This is NOT saying that rooting or unlocking your bootloader is illegal. So again, I don't see why it is such a huge deal.
jonathon1289 said:
Umm, why post this? I don't see that it is a huge deal. All this states is that you can no longer buy a phone from (for example) Verizon and take it to MetroPC or some other carrier and unlock it to use with their service.
Most phones now are global ready, and if you buy a Nexus from Google it is unlocked for you to use as desired.
This is NOT saying that rooting or unlocking your bootloader is illegal. So again, I don't see why it is such a huge deal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. You'll do what you want to anyway...or atleast I will lol
Plus I think the president has bigger issues to tackle quite frankly
sent from my Note 2
Kinda thought the same thing. Not really a big deal. It's my impression that this is mainly to curb abuse by people who get the phone, unlock them and resell them. Giving authorities a way to prosecute those that fit that category ( that essentially fraud the subsidy that carriers provide)
Sent from my SCH-I605
Lol, you can always buy a phone from your new carrier...? It's not like they are banning cell phones.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda app-developers app
purged363506 said:
Kinda thought the same thing. Not really a big deal. It's my impression that this is mainly to curb abuse by people who get the phone, unlock them and resell them. Giving authorities a way to prosecute those that fit that category ( that essentially fraud the subsidy that carriers provide)
Sent from my SCH-I605
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
TonikJDK said:
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have paid your ETF and/or finished your contract, why would it stop them from unlocking it?
They know they won't keep you by not doing it, and they certainly don't have use of the phone being locked in.
I think things are being blown out of proportion.
I think the real loud ones against this law are just upset that they can no longer default on a contract and sell the device unlocked on another carrier.
OP just wanted to start a political flame thread. Congrats. Mission will be accomplished.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
http://m.androidcentral.com/what-you-need-know-abut-cell-phone-unlocking
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda premium
People that know that they will need an unlocked phone because they will be traveling will either already have one, or go into the store with the intention of buying an unlocked phone for that exact purpose.
I personally don't see the big issue about this new law. If you know you're going to be traveling abroad and need an unlocked phone, then there are several to choose from on most carriers. Plain and simple.
TonikJDK said:
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you realize how hard it is to get new laws enacted. That's why so many existing ones are modified.
You think they are going to go after John Smith that unlocks his phone cause he got a new job traveling? That would be a PR nightmare.
Now Johnny Mule that does it to every major carrier around then sells the phone after to support whoever told him to do it.....Sure.
What about the shops that deal in stolen phones but they are unlocked for other carriers? Contrary to popular opinion, those databases are rubbish and fragmented.
There are quite a few ways that this could help criminal prosecution where right now there is very little.
Sent from my SCH-I605
A new for AT&T to earn more money??
Administrative Fee (Consumer and Individual Responsibility User (IRU) lines only)
The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What a B.S.! Can't stand these communication companies and the lack of options in this country.
sbi1 said:
A new for AT&T to earn more money??
What a B.S.! Can't stand these communication companies and the lack of options in this country.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Its ridiculous what this government let these corporations get away with. Of course at the working man's expense.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
lildoggs said:
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Its ridiculous what this government let these corporations get away with. Of course at the working man's expense.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't make enough money.... they justify by letting us pay only $200 for a $700 phone. Tha'ts how they get away with it... we can all go to the European way and just buy the phones up front and save a little on the service. But they will still make tons of money of us. $37 stock price for today 11%+ rise year to date... They obviously need more and more :crying:
I called AT&T yesterday to ***** about it, I asked the CSR "What 'new' expenses does AT&T have now that they didn't have last month?". Sure enough he started reading to me the same thing as I posted above. I said "don't read this to me, I can read it myself. I want to know what NEW EXPENSES do you have..."
He said "we don't have that info". I said "well, HQ should give you the answers".
I got so pissed at him that he ended up giving me a credit of the 4 lines times this bull**** fee for the next year ($30). Sure, I was happy and appreciative of his attempt to make a customer happy. Nevertheless, can't wait for my contract to expire to get the hell out. That's why I don't take 'free/discounted' phones from AT&T. Only international versions, nothing with AT&T logo on it. I will not be tied in contracts with big corporations any more.
Sure, it's much more difficult now to go somewhere else when Straight Talk no longer have AT&T sim cards, but we'll see.
sbi1 said:
That's why I don't take 'free/discounted' phones from AT&T. Only international versions, nothing with AT&T logo on it. I will not be tied in contracts with big corporations any more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could not agree more, well said.
Sent from the i777
Quick & Easy BBB, FTC, FCC links
Some momentum is growing at forums.att.com to have a mass of customers report to the BBB, FTC, and FCC, so I am posting easy links here, in case others wish to do so as well.
It's really quick and easy to make your voice heard .
BBB: www.bbb.org/atlanta/business-reviews/telephone-companies/atandt-in-atlanta-ga-7935/file-a-complaint
FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
You can base your info on the following but you will have to edit it to fit in the web forms:
"AT&T has raised the price on every wireless line in service by $.61 a month by adding a new fee to every bill, which they explain as follows:
"MOBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE" Effective May 1, 2013, the Administrative Fee will be $0.61 per line per month. The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance."
This is a baloney way of saying "price increase", and is a blatant violation of basic contract law which does not allow the changing of terms after the beginning of a bilateral agreement. The vast majority of ATT customers have 2-year contract agreements which prevent their switching carriers without paying a huge penalty clause.
The ATT Wireless Agreement reads: "If we increase the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary... you may terminate this agreement without paying an early termination fee or returning or paying for any promotional items."
CTIA Consumer Code reads: "Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers' contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee."
ATT claims that the price for the service remains the same and are only adding a "fee".
What's from stopping AT&T from adding an additional $50/month fee and not letting customers out of their contract?
$.61 doesn't sound like much, but some people have multiple lines. In addition, multiplied by 115.78 million customers, AT&T makes an extra $847 million a year from this dishonest price hike.
As it is not any kind of tax or government mandated charge, the new fee should be included in the basic price displayed in advertising and informational material. The new fee should only be charged on new contracts beginning after the increase, and existing contract customers must be allowed to either reject the price hike or be allowed to terminate their service without penalty, as the contract has already been breached by the carrier."
Coincidentally I just cancelled one of my add-on packages with Comcast cable and they also tried to charge a $2.xx administrative fee. Although the CSR waived it as a 'one time courtesy,' seeing the same issue here highlights what appears to be a growing trend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDbfCbQnH8
harryspar said:
Some momentum is growing at forums.att.com to have a mass of customers report to the BBB, FTC, and FCC, so I am posting easy links here, in case others wish to do so as well.
It's really quick and easy to make your voice heard .
BBB: www.bbb.org/atlanta/business-reviews/telephone-companies/atandt-in-atlanta-ga-7935/file-a-complaint
FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
You can base your info on the following but you will have to edit it to fit in the web forms:
"AT&T has raised the price on every wireless line in service by $.61 a month by adding a new fee to every bill, which they explain as follows:
"MOBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE" Effective May 1, 2013, the Administrative Fee will be $0.61 per line per month. The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance."
This is a baloney way of saying "price increase", and is a blatant violation of basic contract law which does not allow the changing of terms after the beginning of a bilateral agreement. The vast majority of ATT customers have 2-year contract agreements which prevent their switching carriers without paying a huge penalty clause.
The ATT Wireless Agreement reads: "If we increase the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary... you may terminate this agreement without paying an early termination fee or returning or paying for any promotional items."
CTIA Consumer Code reads: "Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers' contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee."
ATT claims that the price for the service remains the same and are only adding a "fee".
What's from stopping AT&T from adding an additional $50/month fee and not letting customers out of their contract?
$.61 doesn't sound like much, but some people have multiple lines. In addition, multiplied by 115.78 million customers, AT&T makes an extra $847 million a year from this dishonest price hike.
As it is not any kind of tax or government mandated charge, the new fee should be included in the basic price displayed in advertising and informational material. The new fee should only be charged on new contracts beginning after the increase, and existing contract customers must be allowed to either reject the price hike or be allowed to terminate their service without penalty, as the contract has already been breached by the carrier."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Complaints filed.
sbi1 said:
Complaints filed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You da man. How long did it take, a few minutes, right? We need more people to act.
Thanks for the heads up, I didn't even notice it. I filed a complaint with the FTC and will look into switching when my contract ends next month
Does this fee count as a material change in the contract? I'm guessing not. Sneaky
edit: I now read harryspar's post completely. When Sprint did this, many people were able to cancel and not pay an ETF, but I'm guessing AT&T will fight this but some people might be able to get away with it.
havanahjoe said:
When Sprint did this, many people were able to cancel and not pay an ETF, but I'm guessing AT&T will fight this but some people might be able to get away with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some people have been successful, see thread on fawallet.com: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1270724/
harryspar said:
You da man. How long did it take, a few minutes, right? We need more people to act.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. few minutes and the bastards "responded" to the BBB one with the usual B.S., to which I responded with (basically) "Cut the B.S.". Nothing will change until everyone files a complaint.
I went through a similar experience with Sprint last year. They claimed it was not a "material change" as another poster eluded to and when I digged very deep in my contract - there was a clause which allowed them to add up to $2.00 per month in "fees" without being considered "material" changes...
I think it depends on the rep you get, some people I know used the fee to get out of their contracts and some it did not work for. I was able to get the fee waived (it was only 20 cents per month or so that they were adding this time) but I didn't feel like fighting to get any further.