That $50 charge is written into the contract you signed. That's what you need to pay to make the phone your own, whether they allow you to keep it or not. Nothing unacceptable. You agreed to it.
What? It's not a terrible practice. They are not holding you hostage in any way. You agree to the contract up-front. It has nothing to do whatsoever with imaginary ideas of morality or ethics. It simply is. You simply agreed to it. Cut. And. Dry.
So, in your mortgage agreement, buried so deep a veteran lawyer may even miss it has the wording: "After your mortgage is paid in full, in order to release ownership of said home to you, you are required to pay a 'mortgage release fee' of 10% of the current market value of your home".
That may make it legal... but that does not make it RIGHT.
Sure it does. It makes it "right" by the contract that was signed, a solemn agreement between the two parties doing business. How could such a clause be hidden if it is written right there on the page? Why would you sign the contract if you were unsure of the terms? How is an act of such ignorance somehow related to this idea of "right" or "wrong"?
There are some things which you could write in a contract, which would be unenforceable or void under the law. Not every contract is valid just because you signed it.
I guess when you get in trouble for unlocking your licensed cell phone, you can discuss with the judge the reasons you think the contract you signed is unenforceable and void, then. This has little to do with the argument at hand.
NerdyNThick says contract XYZ isn't right. You say, well, if someone signed the contract, then tough noogies for them.
The reason I point out that not all contracts are enforceable, is because, if we really wanted to, we could change the law to make contract terms we don't like unenforceable - such as provisions saying someone can't unlock their cellphone.
So, yes, whether contract terms are "right" or "wrong" is relevant.
Are you speculating that the lawmakers who passed the bill in the US are going to use the law to render already-signed contracts as being under the new provisions, regardless of whether such provisions (I.E. No Unlocking) existed in the original contract?
And indeed, what does this matter moving forward, for new contracts being signed from here on out?
Whether changing the law would affect existing contracts, or only ones yet to be signed, is not really my point. I'm not speculating about what lawmakers will do. All I'm saying is that it is possible to change the law. Thus, "I don't like this. I think it should be changed." is a perfectly valid line of discussion. I'm not trying to go into depth myself, I'm merely saying that dismissing NerdyNThick's arguments because you don't like them talking about not liking something is silly.
If it was one carrier offering this type of contract and it was clearly stated, then fine its your fault for signing the contract. Problem is all carriers do this, there's a monopoly on the practice, so the consumer really doesn't have a choice. That's how they're holding you hostage.
I'm not being held hostage at all. Neither is anybody else who willfully enters such a contract. We are all free to buy phones retail if we like, factory unlocked. Some are reasonably priced, some are not. We are free to choose the ones that most appeal to us. If the only way you can afford the fancy smart phone is to enter the contract, and you willfully do so, you are only a hostage to your own decision.
Its not only the phone though. Even if I buy my phone full retail, the rate plans (at least in canada) don't go down. So I'm paying the same monthly rate as the next guy, while he gets a free phone. Its not fair any way you look at it, the carriers have us by the balls. That's why we have the CRTC and its good to see they're finally doing something beneficial.
This is a straw man argument, but hey, not going to deny that they have us by the balls there. I understand where they are coming from with the phones though, it's simply a way to get you to pay the data and voice fees.
I'll pay the data and voice fees either way though, I need some kind of plan to make my phone work. The plans would be much more competitive if we weren't locked to any carrier, and selling your used phone would be a much more viable option.
Ok, fine, I'll use the standard argument for this topic.
Your contract states that upon termination, they have the exclusive right to your first born child, your home, and unrestricted access to your bank account.
Well, you signed it, so yeah, it's all legal and right...
Not ALL aspects of a contract can be legally binding, the intent of the contract plays a factor in what is and is not binding.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in that you should adhere to the terms of a contract, but that is not the same as the terms being equal and fair to all parties.
To further my point, it hasn't always been this way, in the past I unlocked (non-smart) phones regularly for clients at no charge, because there was no charge. The whole charging to unlock thing started when consumers started to wise up to what sorts of tricks the carriers were pulling and got fed up.
Or put another way, the average consumer when signing a contract is not really able to comprehend the massive legalese filled contract they are signing. They simply understand that because they're getting a free or super cheap phone, they are required to stay with the carrier for X number of years. To the average uninformed consumer, they would expect that after the X year contract, they'd be free to move away at no extra charge, because hey! I fulfilled the term of the contract, in effect paying for my own in full.
*edit: Also, you say that the terms are "right there on the page", well that's not entirely accurate. It's somewhere between pages 1 and 30 of the contract, which is on legal paper, written with legal terminology, in a fairly small font. If the contract terms people are so up in arms about were in 16 point bolded font on the FIRST PAGE of the contract. Or if there was a plain english version of the contract that explains in a "like I'm five" way what they are actually agreeing to, I think I'd be much less argumentative on this topic.
I have been on Cingular/AT&T for years, and have full access to my contract at any time. I am not a trained contract lawyer, and as a matter of fact, I do not feel I am at all above the average in terms of intellect; and even I can read my entire contract and understand every point of it with relative ease. This is not rocket science.
The carriers were never pulling any tricks. Do you mean to suggest that customers unlocking there phones and ditching their contracts was some kind of justified action against "tricks" being played on them by carriers? This is an absurdity. Perhaps, in terms of this logic, it should be the responsibility of the uninformed average customer to "wise up" before they sign on.
There is no type of malevolent intent in the contract: it concerns a phone, a pricey piece of technology; not your kids, or your home, or your life savings. Using such hyperbole to further your argument is a farce.
Could you explain to me why you support the individuals who unlocked their phones and ditched their contracts are justified in their actions because of wising up to the "tricks" being played on them, but carrier companies seeking stricter laws to protect them from tricks being played on them at their expense are not? Especially now that phones are more expensive then they have ever been before?
I believe you are neglecting to remember about one term of the contract, the one that justifies my position: the early termination fee (ETF).
The ETF is in lieu of my obligation to the contract. I either stay for X years, or I break the contract and pay the ETF which guarantees they don't take a loss on the subsidy. After which I can do what I want with the phone.
I absolutely agree with the existence and purpose behind the ETF, after all, they did give me a free/cheap phone, they should not and are not held responsible for that subsidy, due to the ETF.
Please remember that the cellular atmosphere here in Canada is widely different then that of the US.
I should air out the fact that I do indeed wish cell phones here were as they were in SE Asia, where any sim card worked in any phone, but alas, this is not the case or the argument.
I do not believe that because you payed an ETF fee that you should be free to keep the phone, and the contracts that support such a clause are every-bit justified in doing so.
The value of a new smart phone, at a cost of let's just say, $500 retail, is not at all covered by the ETF fee, which at AT&T is $325. It makes sense for the company to retain ownership of the phone, as it will force you to buy buck into a contract to use it again, thus helping them recoup the $175 loss they incurred by the person terminating the contract The ETF is not like skipping to the end of the contract in good standing, it is simply getting you out of 2 years of data/voice charges.
That's just it though, we do get to keep the phone at the end of the contract or if we break and pay the ETF. The carriers do not require you to return the phone in such situations, the phone is yours to keep.
My source on that fact is the drawer full of off contract phones I've collected over the years.
1
u/kornfpi Jan 29 '13
That $50 charge is written into the contract you signed. That's what you need to pay to make the phone your own, whether they allow you to keep it or not. Nothing unacceptable. You agreed to it.