Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses Your Rights Online

Dumping ISP May Cost Customers $150 268

Dumpling$9 writes with a link to an article that seems to speak volumes about the modern consumer relationship with service providers. IBT reports on the outrageous fees facing users who drop their internet service contracts before they are up. "Pricing broadband competition can be difficult. Broadband is rarely priced as a stand-alone service. Whether offered by a telephone company or a cable company, it is usually bundled with other services such as voice and video. The advantage to the customer is easier billing and usually a price break. But the down side is if they drop one of the services to pursue a better deal elsewhere, they lose the discount ... It remains to be seen whether penalties for Internet customers will cut down on churn. Consumers Union in its annual cell phone survey found that nearly half of all cell phone subscribers who were considering switching carriers were deterred from doing so because of early termination penalties."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dumping ISP May Cost Customers $150

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah...sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:45PM (#18681603)
    Yeah...sucks. This is a "duh" story. Of course, you don't have to sign a contract if you don't want to, and just pay more in the short term. This hasn't been news since Ma Bell was broken up.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pintpusher ( 854001 )
      I get more and more cynical as time goes on but...

      It all comes down to this: no matter what, you must pay. There is no getting around it. You must pay. You must pay to save money (account fees). You must pay to spend money (transaction fees). You must pay for almost everything you do. If you can find something you do that you aren't currently paying for in some way, then you are lucky.

      damn. I need to get some more caffeine. or change my playlist here.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by packeteer ( 566398 )
        It all comes down to this: no matter what, you must pay.

        That's the idea behind currency. Everything you recieve someone had to work for. If you want to get anything other people want something in return. Currency allows us to trade our time and labor through a standard way. If you have something you are not paying for it is indeed lucky but also remember nobody is GETTING payed for that. Air is pretty much the only thing that takes food off somebodies table when you get for free.

        With all that said, I a
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pintpusher ( 854001 )

          That's the idea behind currency.

          of course.

          fork over money ... it just makes someone wealthier.

          hope you don't mind the editing. I think its still true to your point. This is the issue. I'm all for mark-up, added-value etc (I own a small business and do exactly this every day). Its the gratuitous fees for no other reason than pumping up someone's bottom line that I have a problem with.

          Here's a classic example. I was talking to a creditor the other day about the most expeditious method of paying them. My choices were to pay by mail (and be late :( ), pay online for no charge, or pay using t

          • by FLEB ( 312391 )
            It could be a PITA charge-- they either have cost or difficulty involved in handling phone charges, so they mark it up to discourage it.
            • Or they're just marking it up because banks are effectively a monopoly? I don't know about you, but I was reliably informed that banks made money by basically being an aggregator: Once you have a few thousand "small" eggnests, you could leverage the whole, usually in the form of large corporate loans which you would charge interest on, enabling you to make a profit, and pass a small fraction of it to the people who's capital you just used. It was a proper symbiotic relationship, mutually advantageous to
            • Re:Yeah...sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

              by hazem ( 472289 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @05:42PM (#18683151) Journal
              This creditor is most likely a credit card company and I hardly doubt they want to discourage people from using the phone system.

              Rather, they know that the people most likely to need the phone service are poor people without computers who have few other options. These people are more likely to be living hand-to-mouth and not have the money to make a payment until close to when their bill is due. These are the easiest people to screw over while they're down... either pay $15 to post an on-time payment, or send it by mail and pay a $30 late fee (oh yeah, and your new 39.9% interest rate).

              They don't charge $15 to recoup fees. They do it because it will extract the most money possible from people who have the fewest options.
              • This creditor is most likely a credit card company and I hardly doubt they want to discourage people from using the phone system.

                exactly right. luckily for me I wasn't in a position where I was forced to pay the $15 or the $30 plus more interest. I've been there. That sucks.

                And I think you are right, that was why I originally emphasised the "automated" aspect of the telephone payment system. They are not incurring any additional costs by accepting the telephone payment. In fact they are probably saving money as it means they can free up a call-center employee for the next call instead of keeping them on the line to take the payment

          • Its the gratuitous fees for no other reason than pumping up someone's bottom line that I have a problem with.

            Those are not gratuitous fees, those are marketing tools.
            [WHAT??]
            Yes...marketing tools. It allows them to lower the 'advertised price', and still earn the same profits.

            $100/month looks better than $120/month. But they don't tell you up front about that extra $20 in fees.

            I'm not saying they should earn less profit. That's another argument. But if they can snag you in at $100/month, and still
        • Re:Yeah...sucks (Score:4, Interesting)

          by FLEB ( 312391 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @05:01PM (#18682687) Homepage Journal
          Termination fees and contract lengths make sense to me. I agree that in some cases it can be anticompetitive (if exorbitant termination fees are used to mask poor service quality), but in many cases they are in lieu of a connection fee for initial labor or hardware, and it allows the customer not to get hit with overwhelming initial costs, but still lets the company bank on recouping their initial expenses-- It's recouped bit-by-bit, but still as good as guaranteed.
          • by Ajehals ( 947354 )
            this is one of those weird areas where the charges sound sane but are often not - for example, my current broadband provider waived a connection fee (£70) and the cost of a router ("valued at" £159.99).

            Sound reasonable except that the connection doesn't actually cost them anything (it was an existing phone line that I had used with broadband before - I checked with my phone company when I dumped their broadband and was told that if I was getting a different supplier they would simply move the l
      • Slashdot, Wikipedia, the grand majority of most news sources, most of the internets useful services, credit cards (for the 40% of people who pay them on time), wireless internet in an increasing number of places...

        So, pretty much a lot of the major inventions of the modern era. I'd say you're getting a lot more for free now than you could [insert any number] of years ago.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pintpusher ( 854001 )
          As I've said [slashdot.org], i'm all in favor of business and mark-up etc., so please don't think I'm off the deep end. I was mostly expressing my general frustration with a system that is designed, more and more, to pull money from the little guy and pass it farther and farther up the chain with more and more efficiency. Maybe I'm just too low on that chain.

          regardless, your examples are not all that great, excepting wikipedia.

          Slashdot requires me to pay in some fashion -- either through viewing the ads or taking the time
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      O rly?

      Step 1: Blame customer for violating hidden "unlimited broadband" cap
      Step 2: ???
      Step 3: Collect $150 and profit
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FLEB ( 312391 )
        Step 1: Read service reviews.
        Step 2: Read the fine print.
        Step 3: Run!

        (Opt. Step 4: Realize there's a broadband monopoly or that only one company's interested in serving your area. Slink back. Take it.)
    • With cell phone companies you lose either way. If you sign the contract, you get a free phone, and your monthly service costs $X. If you don't sign a contract, you have to pay $Y for the phone, and your monthly service still costs $X. So unless you plan on switching companies, and the cost to terminate your contract less than the cost of the phone ($Y) then you are better off getting the contract anyway. What I want to know is, if you plan on switching companies in the near future, then why are you signi
      • What I want to know is, if you plan on switching companies in the near future, then why are you signing up in the first place?

        A lot of people live at one address nine months out of the year (September through May) and another address during the summer (June through August). If the same mobile phone provider doesn't serve both areas, what should the customer do? Even for people other than students, how can the customer know, before he signs the contract, which features of the phone the network operator has shut off?

    • you don't have to sign a contract if you don't want to

      Unless you are not told of a contract when you sign up for service [slashdot.org] and your "acceptance" of one is allegedly implied by your not cancelling your service within 25 days.

      I would *never* have actually signed a contract with an ISP, because the lack of flexibility isn't worth the savings IMO.
  • This is *news?* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anomaly ( 15035 ) <tom.cooper3@gmail.DEBIANcom minus distro> on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:47PM (#18681623)
    So, in summary, if you sign a contract which has a clause which requires a penalty for early termination, service providers charge you that penalty. Duh!

    The business is very competitive, and there are lots of incentives to switch carriers. If you're not renegotiating with your cellular and broadband carriers when the contract comes close to ending, you're unwise.

    I don't excuse the size of the fees, but they will be disclosed if you ask the terms of the agreement. Don't want to pay a fee? Don't sign up, or don't break the agreement.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're forgetting about monopolies.

      In my area, if you want broadband there is one option: Comcast.

      What a choice.
      • Re:This is *news?* (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alisson ( 1040324 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @04:31PM (#18682283)
        Indeed. Utilities generally have no choice whatsoever. So, say you live in my area, and you want cable? Your choices are:
        1) Comcast

        Say you want land-line phone service? Your choices are:
        1) Qwest

        Say you want natural gas? Your choices are:
        1) Center-point

        Want electricity? Oh, gobs of choices here:
        1) Xcel

        Is this legal? Perfectly! Does it create competition? Not in any possible way. Does it always screw the customer, every time? Naturally. The US has essentially decided that as long as your monopoly only covers a county or two, it's not a monopoly. Because of course, no one's forcing me to live here. But if I choose to? My utility companies are forced on me.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by phulegart ( 997083 )
          You should probably redefine a bit of your terminology.

          If you want cable... do you mean cable television? Because you can most likely get satellite TV from one of several different providers. DirecTV is only one of them.

          If you want cable internet... do you mean broadband internet access? Maybe your telephone company doesn't offer DSL, but you do have other options for broadband... one of which is Wildblue (wildblue.com) satellite internet. Yes, it is satellite up and down (no telephone line required) an
    • Re:This is *news?* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:56PM (#18681783)
      The business is very competitive, and there are lots of incentives to switch carriers. If you're not renegotiating with your cellular and broadband carriers when the contract comes close to ending, you're unwise.

      I don't know about your country, but here in the US, there is very little competition for broadband. (Cellular is another story.) Most people have only two realistic options: cable or DSL, each from its respective monopoly. With each one, there's usually some discount for bundling, though the usefulness of bundling DSL is debatable since so many people have abandoned landlines in the past decade.

      So if you get sick of your cable internet, your only option is probably DSL from your local phone monopoly. Here in the southwest, that means Qwest, with MSN as your ISP (yuk). It is possible to get a different ISP, but that'll cost you more money, probably more than your service with cable internet was. The way I see it, DSP is only useful if 1) you're really cheap, and are willing to put up with 256k and MSN just to save $10/month, or 2) you want to run your own server(s) at home and are willing to pay extra for that privelege (this is what those higher-price DSL ISPs have over everything else). For everyone else, there's cable.

      Anyway, two or three choices isn't what I'd call "very competitive".

      And I've never seen any option for "renegotiating" with any of these options. They're all flat-rate, and cost the same for everyone. It's not like cellular with all the wacky service plans, pricing schemes, and promotions.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bahwi ( 43111 )
        Agreed. I switched to speakeasy DSL and I pay 2.5x what I paid for cable. I could've gone with sbc, I mean AT&T now, but I've already tried that before and just had too many problems. Why do I pay more? I need internet, I work from home, and Time Warner apparently doesn't make enough money to give me anything other than a busy signal or a "We're working on it..." answer(my net was done for over a week, I spent 4 hours on hold throughout the week, couldn't get an answer or anyone to come out, and more th
        • Wow. I guess I'm lucky in my experiences with Cox Cable here in AZ. While I wouldn't say they're anywhere near "5-nines" reliability, it's not bad overall, when it goes out (every few months perhaps) it's usually pretty short, and when I need service I don't really have much trouble there. Compared to the competition, I think it's the best deal going here.

          I actually tried Qwest/MSN back in 2002/3, despite my anti-MS bias. What a mistake. I had so many problems with that service actually working, plus a
      • I live in suburban MD near DC. I just checked and I have at least five options for DSL, and two cable companies offering broadband. None are super cheap, but I have options....
        • That's interesting that you have two cable companies offering broadband. Do they both have separate lines running to your house?

          As for DSL, don't you just have one telco, and then 5 different DSL ISP options? That's the way it is here. But as I pointed out before, that's not much of a choice. Here, there's one ISP (MSN) which is the "preferred" ISP; you only get a reasonable price if you use MSN. If you select a different ISP, Qwest won't give them the same rates as they give MSN, so your price ends up
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zCyl ( 14362 )
      Competitive? Negotiating? Don't sign up? In many places the first two don't exist, and in many cases the latter results in not having internet access (hardly a solution).

      In the modern world, most companies are competing to gain shareholders, not customers. Customers are merely a means to an end.
    • So, in summary, if you sign a contract which has a clause which requires a penalty for early termination, service providers charge you that penalty.

      Actually, with ISP's with self install kits you sign nothing, but the contract is implied.

      I worked for a rather major ISP once that did self install DSL kits (and they weren't the actually lin owners... like Bell South, Covad, and SBC... of course any of my former coworkers... all several hundred of you that were laid off... already know who i am talking about)
      • Re:This is *news?* (Score:5, Informative)

        by ptbarnett ( 159784 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @05:23PM (#18682963)
        I've had several people screaming about their lawyers are going to sue us and so on... But I really doubt most of these people ever saw their money back

        Forget the lawyers. Call your credit card issuer.

        I paid for a year's DSL in advance (at a discount) from a local DSL provider that had a good reputation. They even agreed to a refund if I left before the year was up. But shortly thereafter, they were bought by another ISP that had a well-deserved bad reputation.

        A few months later, my DSL went down for a week -- the second or third outage since the acquisition, but the longest one so far. It was some sort of administrative screwup that cut off the ISP's link to the rest of the 'Net. I had already planned to change providers when my year's pre-paid service was up. But, the long outage was enough to accelerate my switch.

        Fortunately, I had a second phone line at the time. So, I didn't have to wait for them to release their claim on my primary line. For a brief time, I actually had DSL from two different ISP's on the two different lines. But, when I called to cancel my service and request a refund, they replied: "no refunds". I pointed out my agreement with the ISP they bought, and they were unmoved. I offered them one last chance, saying that I would get my refund -- the only issue was whether they got dinged by their credit card processor for a charge-back.

        They still refused, so I called American Express -- who I used to pay the original bill. I explained the situation to Amex, and their only question was: "did you sign anything that committed you to pay for a year of service?" I said "no" -- knowing they would pose the same question to the ISP. I also knew that the ISP couldn't produce any such agreement.

        Within a week, American Express credited my account for an amount that was pro-rated according to the remaining (unused) months of service.

        My point: if you can, pay your ISP with a credit card. It gives you a lot more leverage, because they are bound by the merchant agreement.

      • My local landline monopoly/DSL ISP is ahead of that game. They'll have none of that "[X] I agree to the TOS and AUP" web form nonsense.

        Their Self-install kit included my hardware (modem, filters, cables), a cheat sheet with the particulars of the account (IP, gateway, DNS, POP3, etc.), a sheet with the TOS and AUP, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. I had to return the top sheet of the TOS/AUP (retain the yellow copy for your records), signed and dated, within 30 days, or else my account would be susp

    • And before I forget... Our web page and sales department were very skimpy when it came to letting people know about this fee.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by OzoneLad ( 899155 )
      "The business is very competitive, and there are lots of incentives to switch carriers. If you're not renegotiating with your cellular and broadband carriers when the contract comes close to ending, you're unwise."

      You'd think that in such a climate, they'd work harder to attract new clients and retain old ones instead of scaring / hosing existing clients into staying with them to the bitter end. This is customer retension through bullying, not through good service. Welcome to the free market, where you're f
  • Locally Owned ISPs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is a major reason I've never used anything other than locally owned ISPs. Sure I pay slightly higher a month but they have a clue and treat customers like, well, customers.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SydShamino ( 547793 )
      And you're still on dial-up, then?

      Seriously, I can't get anything faster without going to a national company.
      • OTOH, I was forced to switch to a smaller, locally-owned DSL provider (selling service on the local phone co's lines, oddly enough) when I moved and the phone company (who had previously told me that DSL was available at the new address, and then cut-off my service at the old address two weeks earlier than I requested, supposedly because it took that long to transfer service and they wanted to make sure it was available at the new address on the date I requested) spent a several months stringing me along wi
  • This is stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Seumas ( 6865 )
    You have a choice of cell phone carriers. You don't have a choice of internet service providers. You have whoever has a monopoly on your phone service in your region and whoever has a monopoly on your cable service in your region. If you terminate your service early, exactly where are you going to go?!

    Fuck this. Just a further attempt to fuck the consumer over.
    • crap. I really posted to the wrong thread...

      Fuck this. Just a further attempt to fuck the consumer over.

      my comments [slashdot.org] really belong in this thread.
    • by garcia ( 6573 )
      You have a choice of cell phone carriers. You don't have a choice of internet service providers. You have whoever has a monopoly on your phone service in your region and whoever has a monopoly on your cable service in your region. If you terminate your service early, exactly where are you going to go?!

      You do have a choice about whether or not you are going to enter into a multi-month contract with the provider to receive a reduced rate for the services they provide. You aren't required, by any means, to ac
  • by Quila ( 201335 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:50PM (#18681669)
    If you get Roadrunner cable with the free AOL, then cancel Roadrunner, your AOL contract will cease to be free and it will continue running. You have to wade through the horror that is canceling AOL, preferably before you drop Roadrunner.

    A lot of people have been bitten by this.
  • by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:52PM (#18681717)
    This is "Entering Contracts 101" and applies to everything from signing a mortgage, 5 year property rental, book club or video rental program.

    Don't sign up for a contract you might want to break out of.

    If you do sign up, then don't bitch about your own stupidity.

    • by bahwi ( 43111 )
      Yeah, but with little other option, it's kind of a cartel, or monopoly, as they all have those steep fees. Because of the forced monopolies, perhaps there should be limits to the fees that they can charge, after all, we don't have a choice, why do they have a choice to freely set the fees? I agree, you entered the contract and have to deal with it, but we're talking lawful monopolies here.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by toleraen ( 831634 )
        I'm pretty sure you have the option of not having Internet access. It's not like we're talking necessities like electricity or water here.
    • by zCyl ( 14362 )

      Don't sign up for a contract you might want to break out of.

      If you do sign up, then don't bitch about your own stupidity.

      And what's your brilliant solution when you have to choose between signing up for a contract and not having service?
    • There have been cases that I've heard about when the customer has a legitimate break out of their contract, the provider still tries to make life hard for the customer anyways.
    • If you were ever smart enough to get past contracts 101, you might have not made your self look so ignorant with your post.
    • by Detritus ( 11846 )
      In the real world, you may not have much of a choice. In areas where there is little competition, you will often find that all of the providers have the same onerous terms in their contracts. That's why there are consumer protection laws, to curb the worst abuses.

      At a minimum, early termination fees should be prorated.

    • Nothing to do with "Your rights online"

      WTF, man? It's about ISP contracts! How could this be any more about your rights online, unless you're taking that completely literally?

      I don't regard contracts between two unequal parties quite the same as I would a contract between two individuals. If one can find a way to get out of paying this sneak-wrapped exit charges, one should. You're just maximizing return for your shareholder -- you. And don't worry, Baby Jesus doesn't really kill a kitten if you dro

    • With a mortgage, the bank gives me the cash, and the house is my responsibility. It's a pretty simple agreement, and things only get dicey if you're on variable-rate and the interest really goes crazy. The same applies for a lot of contracts. However, will cell phones and other such things, the difference is that you are paying for a continual service with unspecified guarantees of quality. If your internet is down for two weeks, are you entitled to refunds? If you cellphone service starts sucking (dropped
  • Bah. (Score:5, Informative)

    by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy@nosPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:53PM (#18681727) Journal
    I am the anti-consumer, when it comes to broadband. I will dump all service at the drop of a hat, and switch to a competitor...The whole deal. I mean, cable, phone, I don't care. I have all the equipment to switch between Direct TV and Cable, and Cable and DSL, Phone and IPtelephony (direct TV is bundled through the phone company in my area), and whichever company pisses me off, I dump 'em.

    When we moved to a new place, the first thing I did was run cable to my office. Not because I want to watch TV there, but because the first time the phone company pisses me off, I dump 'em.

    I think they're scared of me...Last time my service went down (morons from the phone company screwed up my settings working on a neighbors equipment), they told me three days. I told them if it wasn't done before I got home from work the next day, I was calling the cable company...It was done when I went home for lunch.

    These days, if you have more than one option, make the most of it...Treat them like the bitches they are, and make them grovel for your money.
  • by J. T. MacLeod ( 111094 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:55PM (#18681763)
    Your ISP is subsidizing the cost of equipment instead of charging you an up-front sign-up fee. If you leave, your monthly payment is no longer paying that off. It makes perfect sense.

    It stinks that we can't get it for free, but that's the way it works.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      What equipment?
      The modem? well, no I can get my own.
      The wires? no, that's already in place and paid for.
      The hardware system? nope leased out or bought, so no need for subsidizing there.
      hmm,,, Mayge we are subsidizing the chairs they sit on?
      • What equipment?
        The modem? well, no I can get my own.


        Many of the intro rate contract plans include the DSL modem.
    • You are correct, if they supply the equipment, then they are entitled to recoup their costs. I will not argue with you there.

      When it comes to cell phone service however, I disagree, I have not owned a subsidized phone in years, my last 6 phones, all after market unlocked, 3 of them well over $600 each. I still have to pay $170 to cancel my service. Thats not recouping costs, thats blackmailing the consumer. Sure I signed the agreement, what choice did I have, they all have the same agreement, stay with
      • I'm pretty sure you can get Cingular service on a month-to-month basis with no contract if you don't opt for a subsidized phone.
    • Your ISP is subsidizing the cost of equipment instead of charging you an up-front sign-up fee. If you leave, your monthly payment is no longer paying that off. It makes perfect sense.

      I've known people that bought all their equipment -- cable modem or DSL modem and line filters -- and still got hit with the "early termination" fee. It's not about the equipment.

      • I've known people that bought all their equipment -- cable modem or DSL modem and line filters -- and still got hit with the "early termination" fee. It's not about the equipment.

        Yes, I am one of those people. And Speakeasy's ridiculous $300 termination fee is about three times the price of the modem that I bought from them.
  • by writermike ( 57327 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @03:57PM (#18681803)
    I am waiting for the corporate apologists to show up.

    "Hey! Why don't you read the fine print."
    "Gimp! Research your damn options and pay the extra $60/month for a contract-free options."
    "GUH! I have no patience for stupid consumers."

    But, seriously folks, why are these things okay?

    Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay?
    Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?
    Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false?
    Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not?
    Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?

    But, I know, I'm stupid because I didn't understand the legalese. I'm an ass because I didn't pay the extra fee for the contract-free option. I'm stupid because I didn't pay the extra $60/month.

    Of course, I'm stupid until one of these little things hits the one that accuses me. Then they're like, "HeeeeeY! WTF, yo?"

    As though...

    m
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by merreborn ( 853723 )

      Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay?
      Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?
      Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false?
      Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not?
      Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?

      Because consumers tolerate it, and the government doesn't regulate it.

      Ideally, in pure capitalism, consumers would either be savvy enough to see through these 'deceptions', or

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by owlstead ( 636356 )
        "Ideally, in pure capitalism, consumers would either be savvy enough to see through these 'deceptions', or at least principled enough to refuse to purchase from merchants they deem to use deceptive business practices."

        Indeed, that's the ideal situation. In practice, this becomes impossible and there is a strong need for governmental regulation. If, e.g. I want to choose an ISP, there are the following (possible) variables to consider:
        * mail service
        * mail scanning (free, not free)
        * helpdesk
        * news service
        * bi
    • by asninn ( 1071320 )

      Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay? Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print?

      Because text size doesn't matter. Anyone who signs a contract without actually reading all of it (and *especially* the "fine print") has only themselves to blame. And I'm not talking about people who sign contracts written in legalese and who are thus confused about the true conditions set forth therein - I'm talking about people who argue "it's difficult to read, so I didn't read it at all, a

  • Because it seems to me that this is more or less how this should be treated.
    • I think you will find many rent contracts have no break clauses whereby you are liable for the full term of the contract should you decide to leave early.
    • It depends on your lease agreement. Most agreements that I have seen, have an early termination penalty. For example, you may forfeit your security deposit. In other agreements, you are liable for a full year of rent. If you move out early, you still have to pay the rent until the year is complete. If don't pay, you can be sued. Watch your favorite afternoon court program (e.g., The People's Court), they have these types of lawsuits all the time.
      • by mark-t ( 151149 )
        What if you move out early because you've had an unexpected change in income, and can no longer afford to live there?

        Ever heard the expression "blood from a stone"?

        • ...What if you move out early because you've had an unexpected change in income, and can no longer afford to live there? ...
          Bankruptcy can get you out of all sorts of contracts. But I also note, that bankruptcy will not get you out of many (most?) civil court penalties. Once the court accesses the penalty, they can wait years to collect. Look at OJ Simpson, the Goldman's are still hounding him.
      • by Detritus ( 11846 )
        Normally, the landlord is expected to make reasonable efforts to find a new tenant. He can't just sit on his ass, leaving the property empty while collecting lease payments from the lessee. A lease isn't a lottery ticket, the landlord shouldn't expect to receive more than his actual damages.
      • Yeah, it does suck, I agree, but you do have an option: for a usurious premium, you can do a month-to-month lease. I don't understand why it's so common in contracts. Why don't they typically have buyout fees as the default exit clause rather than "hahahaha! sucker! you have to pay for the rest, regardless!" clauses. I mean, yeah you can negotiate such a clause before signing. Try it some time, and they're likely too stupid to understand the concept, and the market in some cities is illiquid or small eno
  • by solitarian ( 398175 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @04:04PM (#18681889)
    It's easy to get your ISP to drop you.
    download a lot of non-copyrighted material (you don't want to get in trouble) off of a file-sharing network. they will get rid of you and you won't be responsible for the disconnect charge.
    easy.
    • Unfortunately, you are incorrect, they can terminate the contract for any reason and still charge you the termination fee....
    • by asninn ( 1071320 )
      All material is copyrighted by default: what you're probably referring to is material where the copyright owner allows sharing. But I don't want to pick nits, so I'll just say that this doesn't work with all ISPs; some genuinely don't care about how much bandwidth you use. (Although why you'd want to leave one that doesn't is probably another question entirely.)

      Generally speaking, it's an interesting idea, though, if a rather Dilbert-esque one (there actually is an old Dilbert strip where Wally tries to get
  • Verizon FiOS just rolled out in my area a couple weeks ago. I've been using Earthlink since late fall, and it will cost me $149.95 to move from Earthlink to FiOS. I'd get several megabits more down for less cost with Verizon, but Earthlink has trapped me into its mediocre services (customer service is all over the place, and it can take multiple phone calls to straighten things out). Keeping customers in sub-par service with extremely high termination fees will just anger customers. Earthlink, this mean
    • Then you're stupid.

      They are BREAKING TERMS OF SERVICE by not providing... SERVICE.

      The next time they do stupid shit, log a bunch of calls, while recording them (give a disclaimer when they do). Then when they "bill" you, sue them for fraud.

      People just dont get when SERVICE is not given, TERMS OF SERVICE dont apply.
  • Can't you read? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mschuyler ( 197441 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @04:15PM (#18682035) Homepage Journal
    Note: In case of monopolized areas, none of this applies.

    Every contract I have ever had with a cell phone provider or internet provider or cable provider had a set expected length of contract AND a set date when that contract would be terminated. I may be mis-remembering, but I'm pretty sure NONE of them have been over two years. In EACH case there was some sort of incentive to get a lower price and some sort of incentive to switch carriers. Many times the switch incentive is enough to pay for the termination fees, if any.

    It seems to me that if you sign a contract with a company for a couple of years, you were paid to do it with a lower price. If you want to cut and run, you pay and should. This is not anti-consumer, this is stupid-consumer who didn't read the contract and now wants to bail ahead of time.

    It's the same with 'bundled' services. They are always trying to get you to 'bundle' everything with one carrier. You take them up on it at your peril. If you never bundle services you keep your versatility intact. yeah, it may cost you more, but are you sheep and go ga ga eyed every time they offer you ten bucks?

    Don't get me wrong. My Starband sucked so bad I dumped it the month my contract was up. My Dish Network was so bad and the customer service so God-awful I fired them on the spot and threw the dishes in the dump. But I'll tell ya, my DSL is so reliable and fast that it's worth my while to sign a contract. Absolutely no problems.
    • My problem with cell phone contracts is that it's not an optional incentive to use their services -- it's required. Just trying bring in your own phone as a new customer and buying month-to-month service. They won't let you do it. You have to sign a contract and take their "free" phone even if you have no use for it. Such a contract provides no benefit to me, and there's no way to avoid it, at least not at any of the three national providers I've tried.
      • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
        Absolutely untrue. You can't bring in just any phone, however. You need a phone that (a) works with their system and (b) they are capable of supporting. This means you pretty much need a phone that they consider to be current in their lineup of phones. There are a bunch of reasons why they do this, some good ones and some bad.

        I have stood next to people trying to get their CDMA phone accepted for use with a PCS carrier and the "customer" had no clue what was going on. To them a phone is a phone is a ph
  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @04:42PM (#18682455)

    "Pricing broadband competition can be difficult. Broadband is rarely priced as a stand-alone service. Whether offered by a telephone company or a cable company, it is usually bundled with other services such as voice and video."

    Wow, is this a DSL FUD campaign?

    I work for a support outsourcing company. I've worked for three different cablecos and there are three more here right now, included in that six are all the major players (Time Warner, COX, Comcast). Not one of these six do not offer cable modem service as a stand-alone service. Also, except for special bundled pricing arrangements, all of them are month-to-month (no contracts).

    Where are these mythical cable companies that force your to take video service and have contracts? Sounds like AT&T and co. are trying to draw parallels that don't exist between their refusal to sell naked DSL and their standard contracts vs. cable internet.

    The problem is I know Verizon has contract-free DSL service, and I'm sure they offer service without phone included as well.

    To me, the idea of signing up for any kind of contract for internet service with no quality-of-service guarantee is just stupid.

    The reason for the excessive churn is simple: poor customer service, and poor billing policies to prevent it. To stop it, all companies would have to get together and agree to these rules.
    • Full promotional pricing only for new customers.
    • "Retention" promos need to be significantly less than full promotions in savings/length of time.
    • If a customer leaves for another provider, the waiting time before they would be eligible for another "new customer" promotion needs to be longer than the promotions themselves.

    The way things are right now, the standard promotion is 6 mos-1 yr, and there is a 1 mos-3 mos waiting period for a new full promo. All that does is encourage "promotion hopping". Throw in the standard free installation and customers will happily jack-knife between providers each year so they're always on a promotion. If they call and threaten to cancel, they can many times get a temporary price cut that is close to what new customers get.

    This all sounds great to customers, but it can mess with the market as a whole in terms of what the "standard rate of service" is. Many people think that broadband service is too expensive in the U.S. compared to what you get in other countries, and I'm not going to get into that, but when it's so easy to get a discounted price for service the very term "regular price" becomes meaningless. If broadband providers want to keep their customers around, they are going to have to work together so they eventually are stuck paying the "market rate". Once you have people having to evaluate service based on what the providers think its really worth, you're going to see some changes in what's considered acceptable service for the price and what the price is. Right now the people who lose out are the ones not on promotion who are having to subsidize the huge numbers that are on the provider's balance sheet. Customers who don't call and bitch about their bill every week should not be penalized like this.
  • Here's a novel idea: Read the fine print before you sign on the dotted line.
  • by PeterChenoweth ( 603694 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @04:45PM (#18682487)
    Did anyone try asking?

    I have Dish Network for TV. When I signed up, the phone rep wanted me to sign a 2 year contract. I simply told them that I wasn't interested, and so they countered with a 1 year contract. Didn't really feel like that either, and so they finally offered a no-contract plan but required like a $49 activation fee. Fine by me.

    Same deal with Cingular. They say a 2 year contract is required, but it isn't. All you have to do is ask for less. They'll do a 1 year and might charge you $25 or $50 more for the phone. Big deal. Bring your own phone and tell them you want a month-to-month plan, and they'll do that too.

    Same deal with Verizon DSL. They have a month-to-month plan with DSL that costs a couple bucks a month more than the contract price. You just have to ask for it.

    The point is, you have to stand up for your rights as a consumer. Tell the company, "I'm here, I'd like to pay for your services, but your terms are unacceptable. What can you do about it?" If they won't bend, find another company that will. I have no sympathy for people that blindly sign contracts and then whine about the consequences later.

  • In the UK, TalkTalk is a combined telephone and Internet service. After signing up, you should have:

    1. The TalkTalk Broadband Start Up Pack.
    2. A BT line with TalkTalk broadband activated on it. The date when you should be able to use the broadband service for the first time is called the Commencement Date.

    If you don't have items 1 and 2 more than 28 days from the end of the month you were given in TalkTalk's online "Availability Checker", then you are allowed to cancel all of your TalkTalk services complete
  • by Organic Brain Damage ( 863655 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @05:04PM (#18682713)
    the ISP dumps the consumer?

    I've got 3 friends who have had their Cable Modems turned off because "they used excessive bandwidth." In those cases, I suspect the early termination fees are not recoverable. If that's the way it works, and you want out, just write up a little program that downloads lots of big files...put it in an infinite loop and voila...in a month or two, the ISP will cancel you.
  • Your rights online? The only "right" I see here is the "right" to be a whiny bitch that wants to get out of the contract easy. I can see it now, thousands of surfers marching on Washington demanding their rights to "No Fault Divorce from ISPs". Big cluestick time: You signed a contract, If you didn't want to pay these fees for early termination, you shouldn't have signed that contract. Most ISPs will gladly let you sign up month-by-month if you either pay additional setup fees or pay a higher monthly charge
  • I was within 2 months of fulfilling my 12 month DSL contract with SBC when I got married. My wife already had RoadRunner so after I moved, I called SBC (AT&T by then) asking them to disconnect my service. But since I fully intended to complete my financial obligation of the contract I wanted to pay for the remaining two months.

    They refused! I even tried asking them to disconnect my phone, but keep my DSL account and/or service active - even though I wouldn't be using it. Nope - no deal! They said

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @06:37PM (#18683643)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...