Yeah but I usually get a discounted phone with a cancellation fee clause. Glad to see you are such a defender of the phone company.
A contract is a contract. If you sign it, even if it is a contract of adhesion or you don't read it, you are bound by its terms. If you don't like the terms, don't sign/buy the phone. Caveat emptor.
It's just a contract. If you don't pay the monthly fee, then that is a breach of contract. If they don't live up to their end of the agreement, then you can take appropriate legal action against them. It's pretty straight forward really. Technically, any contract is negotiable but in this case I don't think they will. Take it or leave it...
This kind of stuff just sticks in my craw. Whether it's an apartment or cell phone lease, it's completely unreasonable for any company to make sure they're going to get their money out of you even if you have found that their service is pathetic and despicable.
Always get dropped calls? Pay up to get out of the contract.
A/C always breaking down in your apartment? Pay two months rent to leave.
And when you get service better then you expected, and they come to you and say "Our contract says you'll only get 300kbps data transfer, and you're now getting 2mbps, so we want you to pay $20 more a month", or, "You're contract says you get no AC, but not that the AC works, we want more money!", you'd say "No, I have a contract!".
A contract is a contract. They can argue whatever they want. To be truthful, I don't know whether they're required to have opt-out abilities at all. Since when did it become OK to just say "Hey, I don't like the terms of my deal, I want to leave it, and I don't want to pay the other party for breaking this deal."
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco
That's for subsidized phones, Einstein. What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
Any more bad news, and Solipsism may need a new piece of technology to wank to.
Um, you signed a contract, ergo they have expectations that you will abide by the contract. Again, why do you have expectation you should be able to cut loose from the contract just because you want to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee
In a related line of thought...
How does this fly with the notion that Apple will be selling the iPhone in their retail stores and NOT signing up AT&T accounts/contracts?
I believe you need to sign up with AT&T before you can activate or use your phone. And I think you'll have to do that in the store, not later. There's no reason not to do this, its not like they'll have many options for plans, maybe two at the most.
Um, you signed a contract, ergo they have expectations that you will abide by the contract. Again, why do you have expectation you should be able to cut loose from the contract just because you want to?
That's for subsidized phones, Einstein. What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
The better question is since this isn't a subsidized phone, what justification does AT&T have to force you to sign a contract to begin with? The simple answer is they simply want to keep you beholden to them for two years. That's why they have a contract. And if there's no penalty for breaking the contract, then an awful lot of people would do so. Hence, the $175 cancellation fee. That's just reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
And there we have it. This solidifies my reason to wait to get one. It will cost you $175 if you don't like or can't use the phone. No thanks.
Uh, nope. If you don't like the iPhone, go ahead and sell it and transfer the contract to the buyer. I'm sure there'll be plenty of people who won't mind picking up a slightly used one for a small (say $50) discount. Voila, no cancellation fee because it's not cancelled. Cingular always let you do it, no reason AT&T won't. Or better yet, if you figure out in the first few days that you don't like it, just return it to AT&T for a full refund.
I figure the $500 price point is probably subsidized, they just aren't giving you the real option of a non-subsidized price, or rather they are: +$175 which is pretty typical anyway.
The real issue is why bother if it is going to be locked and there is no way to use it with another network? Perhaps it is not as locked down as they want you to believe.
...But if you paid a cancellation charge, would you be able to use the iPhone on any other carrier?
(I admit, this would be the only way I would spring for an iPhone. I had--and left--Crapular twice in the past, and would never use them as a company again. So, I'm probably just waiting for the iPhone 2G, 3G, mini, nano... when they're outside Crapular's "exclusivity" or unlocked.)
\
They're usable by any carrier... as long as its AT&T
...it is an interesting point because it could be illegal in some states.
What states could those be? Please get back with an answer after you do some research. I'm interested in finding in what states and on what legal theories this illegality would be based on.
PS: not being sarcastic, I really want to know because this seems highly doubtful.
And there we have it. This solidifies my reason to wait to get one. It will cost you $175 if you don't like or can't use the phone. No thanks.
Pretty much all carriers let you out of the contract in the first 30 days after signing. After that, they hit you with the cancellation fee. I'm sure this will apply to iPhone as well.
Isn't it possible to get out of a new contract with AT&T for 30 days? Could you simply purchase the phone, and then cancel your service contract within 30 days, while keeping the phone?
And please forgive me if this is a stupid question... Is it inevitable that somebody will unlock the iPhone? And if it is unlocked does that mean it could be used with a SIM card from another carrier?
I live in Montana where there is no AT&T service. (but there is GSM coverage - Chinook Wireless) I signed up with a California billing address and got a free phone today (if I'm getting a new contract I'm going to get a free phone or a significant discount). I may sell my "free" phone on the internet to recoup some of the cost of the iPhone. (the phone I got sells on Ebay for $250)
This makes the iPhone a $250 phone for me (if I sell) and I will generally be roaming on another carrier. I understand that AT&T reserves the right to cancel a contract if 50% of the calls are placed outside of the "home area". I figure that if they cancel my contract, I could hopefully get my phone unlocked and use it on Chinook Wireless with a SIM card from them. (and I'll probably get a free phone from them as well)
Anyway, this probably sounds ridiculous to most rational people. But I am completely irrational about the iPhone. It is an emotional attachment and I wouldn't hesitate to pay $1000 for the phone. I know there are likely to be some shortcomings with the phone... I just don't care.
A contract is a contract. If you sign it, even if it is a contract of adhesion or you don't read it, you are bound by its terms. If you don't like the terms, don't sign/buy the phone. Caveat emptor.
Putting aside whether this would be a good or bad policy, it's not how the law works in any jurisdiction in the U.S. that I'm aware of. The $175 cancellation fee is a liquidated damages clause which, since it isn't justified here by a subsidy on the phone, runs a very substantial chance of being deemed an unenforceable penalty clause (this is a matter of common law that will vary state by state, so it's hard to say much in general). It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out.
(As far as contracts of adhesion go, you're quite wrong on that as well - they get less judicial deference almost everywhere, but the specifics of how that works is a hotly contested issue in the law right now - but here that will just be subsumed as one of the several factors in the liquidated damages analysis.)
I'm really shocked that people are finding this out of the ordinary. There HAS to be some penalty for breaking the contract; otherwise, there's no reason not to break the contract. And, as many people have pointed out here, you don't HAVE to sign the contract. Just use another phone.
Since iPhone will only work on AT&T, why would you want to break the contract, anyway? Unless you were completely unhappy with it, in which case the first 30 days rule applies.
Putting aside whether this would be a good or bad policy, it's not how the law works in any jurisdiction in the U.S. that I'm aware of. The $175 cancellation fee is a liquidated damages clause which, since it isn't justified here by a subsidy on the phone, runs a very substantial chance of being deemed an unenforceable penalty clause (this is a matter of common law that will vary state by state, so it's hard to say much in general). It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out.
(As far as contracts of adhesion go, you're quite wrong on that as well - they get less judicial deference almost everywhere, but the specifics of how that works is a hotly contested issue in the law right now - but here that will just be subsumed as one of the several factors in the liquidated damages analysis.)
-S.
How do you know it's not justified by a subsidy on the phone? For all you know, Apple is charging AT&T $200 on every iPhone. The terms of their deal are not public. Besides, I'm sure it would be easy for AT&T to come up with other losses involved with early termination?the beefing up of infrastructure, visual voicemail, etc.
You want to cancel on them and then try to sue for your $175 back?go for it. You're going to lose.
Sorry to nick-pick, but AT&T is forcing people to sign contracts? People are being forced to buy this phone against their will now? Are they?
There is a choice here. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
Oh, for crying out loud. It's not rocket science. Do I have to spoon-feed you everything before you understand it? Okay, here: "What justification does AT&T have to force you to sign a contract in order to be able to buy an iPhone to begin with?" Comprende?
Comments
Yeah but I usually get a discounted phone with a cancellation fee clause. Glad to see you are such a defender of the phone company.
A contract is a contract. If you sign it, even if it is a contract of adhesion or you don't read it, you are bound by its terms. If you don't like the terms, don't sign/buy the phone. Caveat emptor.
This kind of stuff just sticks in my craw. Whether it's an apartment or cell phone lease, it's completely unreasonable for any company to make sure they're going to get their money out of you even if you have found that their service is pathetic and despicable.
Always get dropped calls? Pay up to get out of the contract.
A/C always breaking down in your apartment? Pay two months rent to leave.
And when you get service better then you expected, and they come to you and say "Our contract says you'll only get 300kbps data transfer, and you're now getting 2mbps, so we want you to pay $20 more a month", or, "You're contract says you get no AC, but not that the AC works, we want more money!", you'd say "No, I have a contract!".
A contract is a contract. They can argue whatever they want. To be truthful, I don't know whether they're required to have opt-out abilities at all. Since when did it become OK to just say "Hey, I don't like the terms of my deal, I want to leave it, and I don't want to pay the other party for breaking this deal."
That's for subsidized phones, Einstein. What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
Any more bad news, and Solipsism may need a new piece of technology to wank to.
Um, you signed a contract, ergo they have expectations that you will abide by the contract. Again, why do you have expectation you should be able to cut loose from the contract just because you want to?
In a related line of thought...
How does this fly with the notion that Apple will be selling the iPhone in their retail stores and NOT signing up AT&T accounts/contracts?
I believe you need to sign up with AT&T before you can activate or use your phone. And I think you'll have to do that in the store, not later. There's no reason not to do this, its not like they'll have many options for plans, maybe two at the most.
Um, you signed a contract, ergo they have expectations that you will abide by the contract. Again, why do you have expectation you should be able to cut loose from the contract just because you want to?
Um, re-read what I wrote. Um.
What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
No justification needed. That is their offer. However, it is an interesting point because it could be illegal in some states.
m
That's for subsidized phones, Einstein. What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
The better question is since this isn't a subsidized phone, what justification does AT&T have to force you to sign a contract to begin with? The simple answer is they simply want to keep you beholden to them for two years. That's why they have a contract. And if there's no penalty for breaking the contract, then an awful lot of people would do so. Hence, the $175 cancellation fee. That's just reality.
And there we have it. This solidifies my reason to wait to get one. It will cost you $175 if you don't like or can't use the phone. No thanks.
Uh, nope. If you don't like the iPhone, go ahead and sell it and transfer the contract to the buyer. I'm sure there'll be plenty of people who won't mind picking up a slightly used one for a small (say $50) discount. Voila, no cancellation fee because it's not cancelled. Cingular always let you do it, no reason AT&T won't. Or better yet, if you figure out in the first few days that you don't like it, just return it to AT&T for a full refund.
The real issue is why bother if it is going to be locked and there is no way to use it with another network? Perhaps it is not as locked down as they want you to believe.
Um, re-read what I wrote. Um.
Um, you wrote:
What justification does AT&T have for such a fee in this situation?
Louzer replied that it is a contractual justification. He answered your question.
...But if you paid a cancellation charge, would you be able to use the iPhone on any other carrier?
(I admit, this would be the only way I would spring for an iPhone. I had--and left--Crapular twice in the past, and would never use them as a company again. So, I'm probably just waiting for the iPhone 2G, 3G, mini, nano... when they're outside Crapular's "exclusivity" or unlocked.)
They're usable by any carrier... as long as its AT&T
The better question is since this isn't a subsidized phone, what justification does AT&T have to force you to sign a contract to begin with?
Sorry to nick-pick, but AT&T is forcing people to sign contracts? People are being forced to buy this phone against their will now? Are they?
There is a choice here. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
...it is an interesting point because it could be illegal in some states.
What states could those be? Please get back with an answer after you do some research. I'm interested in finding in what states and on what legal theories this illegality would be based on.
PS: not being sarcastic, I really want to know because this seems highly doubtful.
And there we have it. This solidifies my reason to wait to get one. It will cost you $175 if you don't like or can't use the phone. No thanks.
Pretty much all carriers let you out of the contract in the first 30 days after signing. After that, they hit you with the cancellation fee. I'm sure this will apply to iPhone as well.
And please forgive me if this is a stupid question... Is it inevitable that somebody will unlock the iPhone? And if it is unlocked does that mean it could be used with a SIM card from another carrier?
I live in Montana where there is no AT&T service. (but there is GSM coverage - Chinook Wireless) I signed up with a California billing address and got a free phone today (if I'm getting a new contract I'm going to get a free phone or a significant discount). I may sell my "free" phone on the internet to recoup some of the cost of the iPhone. (the phone I got sells on Ebay for $250)
This makes the iPhone a $250 phone for me (if I sell) and I will generally be roaming on another carrier. I understand that AT&T reserves the right to cancel a contract if 50% of the calls are placed outside of the "home area". I figure that if they cancel my contract, I could hopefully get my phone unlocked and use it on Chinook Wireless with a SIM card from them. (and I'll probably get a free phone from them as well)
Anyway, this probably sounds ridiculous to most rational people. But I am completely irrational about the iPhone. It is an emotional attachment and I wouldn't hesitate to pay $1000 for the phone. I know there are likely to be some shortcomings with the phone... I just don't care.
A contract is a contract. If you sign it, even if it is a contract of adhesion or you don't read it, you are bound by its terms. If you don't like the terms, don't sign/buy the phone. Caveat emptor.
Putting aside whether this would be a good or bad policy, it's not how the law works in any jurisdiction in the U.S. that I'm aware of. The $175 cancellation fee is a liquidated damages clause which, since it isn't justified here by a subsidy on the phone, runs a very substantial chance of being deemed an unenforceable penalty clause (this is a matter of common law that will vary state by state, so it's hard to say much in general). It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out.
(As far as contracts of adhesion go, you're quite wrong on that as well - they get less judicial deference almost everywhere, but the specifics of how that works is a hotly contested issue in the law right now - but here that will just be subsumed as one of the several factors in the liquidated damages analysis.)
-S.
Since iPhone will only work on AT&T, why would you want to break the contract, anyway? Unless you were completely unhappy with it, in which case the first 30 days rule applies.
Putting aside whether this would be a good or bad policy, it's not how the law works in any jurisdiction in the U.S. that I'm aware of. The $175 cancellation fee is a liquidated damages clause which, since it isn't justified here by a subsidy on the phone, runs a very substantial chance of being deemed an unenforceable penalty clause (this is a matter of common law that will vary state by state, so it's hard to say much in general). It'll be very interesting to see how this pans out.
(As far as contracts of adhesion go, you're quite wrong on that as well - they get less judicial deference almost everywhere, but the specifics of how that works is a hotly contested issue in the law right now - but here that will just be subsumed as one of the several factors in the liquidated damages analysis.)
-S.
How do you know it's not justified by a subsidy on the phone? For all you know, Apple is charging AT&T $200 on every iPhone. The terms of their deal are not public. Besides, I'm sure it would be easy for AT&T to come up with other losses involved with early termination?the beefing up of infrastructure, visual voicemail, etc.
You want to cancel on them and then try to sue for your $175 back?go for it. You're going to lose.
Sorry to nick-pick, but AT&T is forcing people to sign contracts? People are being forced to buy this phone against their will now? Are they?
There is a choice here. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
Oh, for crying out loud. It's not rocket science. Do I have to spoon-feed you everything before you understand it? Okay, here: "What justification does AT&T have to force you to sign a contract in order to be able to buy an iPhone to begin with?" Comprende?
If you really want to "nick-pick," it's nitpick.