Lately there has been a lot of flack going on over the Early Termination Fee (ETF) system that the major cellular carriers use to encourage consumers to abide by the length of the contract that they have signed.
Apparently a lot of people are upset that the various cellular carriers are wanting to charge a fee to get out of the contract they signed. Now I can understand that they don’t like paying some extra fee to switch carriers, however, they signed the contract in the beginning stating that they would pay the extra fee if terminating the contract early.
I can understand that there may be instances where the ETF seems onerous due to a dissatisfaction with the services or a case where the ETF is conceivably improperly levied. In fact, I had to pay an AllTel ETF when my wife died solely because the cellphone was actually in my name and not hers. If the phone contract had been in her name then AllTel would have waived the fee and just canceled the contract.
What I don’t quite grasp is why the very consumers that signed the contract are so loathe to abide by the terms. If you have ever signed a lease on an apartment, house or car, I imagine that you have agreed to pay extra fees in order to break the lease. This is a common practice and everyone seems to accept that it is worthwhile, so why is it so bad to have the same clause in the contract on cellular service?
5 responses so far ↓
1 ez // Jun 13, 2008 at 1:11 pm
In the examples you cited, the lease is to have physical access to property. In the case of cell phones, it is leasing physical access to towers and lines… so similar.
I bet people think of it more like hiring a maid service to clean one’s house for a couple years and deciding to go with a better maid company only to be stuck with paying 2-4x their monthly bill in order to do so.
2 Andy Fore // Jun 13, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Ok, sure the examples are physical property, but the concept itself is the same.
You, the consumer, sign a contract and then when you decide to break the contract you get pissed off that you are penalized for doing so.
3 ez // Jun 13, 2008 at 5:13 pm
If your assumption is to narrowly define it as such and not try to consider it from other points of view, then… yes.
4 ez // Jun 14, 2008 at 11:38 am
http://applegeeks.com/lite/index.php?aglitecomic=2008-06-13
5 apad // Aug 8, 2008 at 12:14 am
Customer signs a CONTRACT with a company. Customer is dissatisfied with the service. Customer realizes that their perception of “service” pales in comparison to the legal knowledge of the company who wrote the contract. Customer loses battle.
Welcome to America!
Leave a Comment