GNG News Guy
06-27-2008, 06:06 PM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/50/5350.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/New-Wireless-ProRated-ETF-Policies-Compared-95638)
Consumer Reports (http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2008/06/t-mobile-announ.html?EXTKEY=I72RSE0) (via the Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/tag/early-termination-fees/?i=5020353&t=graph-which-cellphone-company-has-the-best-early-termination-fee-policy)) has an interesting post that compares the new pro-rated early termination fee (ETF) policies wireless companies have been migrating to. A Consumerist graph (below, right) highlights how T-Mobile's new ETF system doesn't give discounts until very late in your contract. It also explores how AT&T and Verizon's new policies are very similar ($5 is taken off of your ETF for each month under contract), though Verizon offers discounts more quickly that AT&T. Says Consumer Reports:while T-Mobile's announcement is welcome, its pro-rating is in some ways less generous than the schemes for Verizon and AT&T, the other majors who pro-rate their termination fees. T-Mobile's $200 fee, the highest among the three companies, doesn't actually drop at all for the first year-and-a-half of two-year contracts. When it does, it drops to $100 from the nineteenth through twenty-first months.
Note that Sprint doesn't pro-rate ETFs, but they've stated (http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=127149&p=irol-newsArticle_newsroom&ID=1074436) that they will soon. The report notes that T-Mobile's new pro-rated plan does look more appealing for users under a one-year contract, but the Verizon Wireless policy comes out on top.
This shift to a pro-rated ETF system was prompted by Attorneys General and class action lawsuits concerning the misleading marketing of ETFs. Carriers are currently lobbying the FCC to pass wimpy federal guidelines (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/95264) (laws requiring carriers do things they're already doing) that would invalidate the stronger state-level consumer protection laws that prompted these changes in the first place.
Consumer Reports (http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2008/06/t-mobile-announ.html?EXTKEY=I72RSE0) (via the Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/tag/early-termination-fees/?i=5020353&t=graph-which-cellphone-company-has-the-best-early-termination-fee-policy)) has an interesting post that compares the new pro-rated early termination fee (ETF) policies wireless companies have been migrating to. A Consumerist graph (below, right) highlights how T-Mobile's new ETF system doesn't give discounts until very late in your contract. It also explores how AT&T and Verizon's new policies are very similar ($5 is taken off of your ETF for each month under contract), though Verizon offers discounts more quickly that AT&T. Says Consumer Reports:while T-Mobile's announcement is welcome, its pro-rating is in some ways less generous than the schemes for Verizon and AT&T, the other majors who pro-rate their termination fees. T-Mobile's $200 fee, the highest among the three companies, doesn't actually drop at all for the first year-and-a-half of two-year contracts. When it does, it drops to $100 from the nineteenth through twenty-first months.
Note that Sprint doesn't pro-rate ETFs, but they've stated (http://newsreleases.sprint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=127149&p=irol-newsArticle_newsroom&ID=1074436) that they will soon. The report notes that T-Mobile's new pro-rated plan does look more appealing for users under a one-year contract, but the Verizon Wireless policy comes out on top.
This shift to a pro-rated ETF system was prompted by Attorneys General and class action lawsuits concerning the misleading marketing of ETFs. Carriers are currently lobbying the FCC to pass wimpy federal guidelines (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/95264) (laws requiring carriers do things they're already doing) that would invalidate the stronger state-level consumer protection laws that prompted these changes in the first place.