Fake Jordans Early Termination Fees Still Rule Cel

2VENUSr519

Now, before the Senate Commerce Committee is Senate Bill 2825, the Cell Phone Early Termination Fee,Air Jordan 13 Book Review of Films to Go Jay Boyar, Transparency, and Fairness Act. It is the second time since 2007, that legislation has been proposed to reduce ETF’s by regulation. To promote not only promote fairness to consumers, but minimize the anti-competitive effect ETF’s have on the phone industry.
The closest item in Lee Selwyn’s testimony that approaches an ETF-level actual
Lost revenue resulting directly from the consumer breach may also actually be minimal. For his analysis, Mr. Selwyn used data from Sprint’s 10-K SEC filings and first excluded all sources of profit not derived from consumer term contracts. He found over a 6 year period (1999 – 2005), the average monthly revenue per unit, minus the average variable cost to Sprint per unit, yields a net profit margin to Sprint of 70 cents per month. This figure, multiplied by the average time remaining on consumer-voided contracts (13 months, 12 days) yields an average net loss to Sprint of $9.18 for each early terminated contract.
Read on
Legislation in Congress to Regulate Early Termination Fees
Call Quality in America is Still not What it Should Be
One in Six Americans Suffers Bill Shock
Early termination fees have been challenged in numerous class action consumer suits at the state court level as violations of state law. There are no uniform federal statutory laws regulating ETF’s. In response to two of these suits, the Sprint and Verizon cases from California 2008, the FCC opened a public hearing , June 12, 2008, to consider all aspects of the issue.
Pro Consumer Movement and New FCC Agenda May Lead to Lower ETF’s
Testimony Before Congress Indicates ETF's are Illegal
Phone carriers have consistently argued ETF’s are necessary so they can offer phone services at a discount rate to consumers, but many consumers find it hard to accept ETF’s are anything but a penalty that keeps them locked into their contracts. ETF’s enable phone carriers to dominate the market segments they control. Most notably, ETF’s ensure the profitability of exclusive arrangements such as AT&T’s agreement with Apple to market iPhone.
Have you ever wanted to break your cell phone contract for any reason, poor phone service, you needed to move,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], or you merely wanted a new smart phone, or a different plan, but find the early termination fee is outrageous to pay ?
The factual-legal basis of the California decisions against Verizon and Sprint is clearly articulated in testimony by industry experts at the June 2008 hearing.
In “Statement of Lee Selwyn Before the FCC” . Mr. Selwyn offers convincing proof that there is no significant subsidy or rebate in relation to the actual cost of the device. Using data obtained from the US Int. Trade Commission, Mr. Selwyn indicates the total revenue gained at the beginning of a Sprint consumer cell phone contract (including activation fees), subtracted from the average wholesale cost per handset reveals an initial subsidy of only $14.33 per unit.
Pamela Gilbert, consumer advocate, and co-counsel at Cuneo, Gilbert,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], & LaDuca, Washington Counsel in the Sprint and Verizon cases, says ETF’s are illegal because they do not reflect the actual monetary loss incurred by the carrier, and as arbitrary fees prohibited by state law, have no legitimate function but to force consumers to stay in their contracts. Counselor Gilbert’s legal argument is factually articulated by economist Lee Slewyn, expert witness at the California Sprint trial and President of ETI Boston, a telecommunications,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], economics, regulation and public policy consulting firm.