Here's the fee notice:

Administrative Charge
Effective Jan. 1, 2009, the Administrative
Charge will increase to $0.99 per line. For
details on surcharges, please see Sprint Terms
& Conditions or visit sprint.com/taxesandfees

And Matt's story:

I called sprint with the bill (with the exact wording) open, and their taxes and fees site (sprint.com/taxesandfees). First I got a normal CS rep, asked about getting an ETF waiver because of this "materially adverse" change, she said no, but that she would transfer me to an "account specialist" (retentions).

Was transferred to retentions, got a woman who also said no. We debated a little bit, me asking why it wasn't materially adverse, her saying because its a fee, etc etc. Once I realized I was going no where with her I asked to speak to somebody else. Apparently I got to talk to the King of Retentions, or something.

I remember this part the best, because he picks up the phone and says "Hello! I heard you had a question about one of our government mandate fees?" This really set me off. I had been saying the whole time it was their administrative fee and picture message increase. Anyways, we debated, a lot. Basically the only key was to never stop. He kept saying they could change their fees at any time, it even says so in their T&Cs. I pointed out how that was not valid, and how it was the whole point of a contract that both parties agree to the terms as presented, and how could you agree to terms in advance? After about 10 minutes of this I said "is there anybody else I can talk to" and he said "no, I'm the end of the line before you cancel", and then he said "Do you want the number to legal" and I said "yes!".

I was put on hold for about 10 minutes, when he came back he was much much nicer. He said they couldn't ETF free it now because it hadn't affected the account. I told him the reason I called now is because I wasn't to make sure paying the Nov bill is "agreeing" with the change (I'm sure if I called back in Jan there would have been nothing that could have been done). I said ETF free in Jan was reasonable, and asked him to put the note on the account to let me cancel ETF free in January if the account was affected by the change, he obliged.

Called back the next day, and the note was there.

Yes, the account is still not canceled. Yes, that note could mysteriously disappear. But Matt was able to go most of the way towards getting it ready to be cancelled once that new fee starts hitting the account. He just needs to go the next step. He needs to argue with them that it doesn't matter if it hasn't hit the account yet, the terms of the contract have changed. That alone gives him sufficient reason. If they respond by waiving the surcharge, he should insist that the contract has still been changed.

Just because it's in the terms and conditions that they can change the contract doesn't make it so. Ski lodges can make you sign death waivers but if you really do bust your leg up, the lawyers know you still can sue and probably will win. If
contracts could really be changed like this mid-term, then car dealerships could decide 6 months into your lease that you need to start paying a $300/month administrative fee.

Whether or not they obviate the effects of the contract change, the contract was still changed without his consent. If you stab someone, and then put all the blood back in the wound and put a band-aid over it, you've still stabbed them.

Administrative Charge Increasing Jan 1... [Howard Forums] (Photo: your_favorite_mart ian)

PREVIOUSLY: Sprint To Start Discounting ETFs Monthly (Photo: Sam Wilkinson)

Sprint to join rivals in cutting termination fees [AP]
Sprint pro-rated ETF finally gets a date [neowin] (Thanks to Brandon!) (Photo: bryanbope)

From CBS13:

Right away, he got on the phone with DirecTV.

"They told me there was nothing they could do and I had to write a letter and mail it off to the billing disputes," says Brandon.

Brandon wrote two letters to DirecTV and also disputed the charges with his bank. The bank credited him back the charges, but...

"Unfortunately DirecTV still had my account number and once they saw the money go back to me, they then a week later, took back the money again," says Brandon.

He again disputed the charges with his bank and they ruled in his favor. This time, Brandon changed his account number so DirecTV couldn't withdraw the money again.

The company then sent him to collections.

"Very outraged, very furious with the way they are trying to make me go every route possible in order to get my money back when it's their fault," says Brandon.

We contacted DirecTV. They told us Brandon called them again on April 9th to extend his service until the 10th, and that the cancellation fee is valid. We asked them if that made sense. Why would Brandon call to extend his service only to cancel again the next day?

Ultimately, it took the local news team's intervention to get DirecTV to fix their mistake. Boo.

Call Kurtis: Tug Of War Over Cancelled Service [cbs13] (Thanks, R.B.!)
(Photo: scentzilla )

A spokesperson did confirm, however, the monthly members will pay the same rate as contract customers. If you're already a Verizon customer, you can switch to the monthly plan after your current contract is up.

From Bloomberg:

Verizon, which made about half of its $24.1 billion in revenue last quarter from wireless service, agreed in July to resolve a consumer lawsuit over early cancellation fees by paying a $21 million settlement. The agreement covered contracts that had a flat-rate cancellation fee and were issued before Verizon Wireless introduced a declining-fee structure in 2006.

Verizon's termination fees start at $175 and decline $5 for every month a user stays with the contract after 30 days. Customers can cancel for free in the first 30 days, Raney said.

Verizon Offers Monthly Plan With No Termination Fees (Update2) [Bloomberg]

"Verizon Wireless Going Contract-Free?" [Boy Genius Report via IntoMobile]

VerizonETFSettlement [Official Site] (Photo: Ben Vershbow)

Ely used the material from our posts and used it to break his ETF without fee. Now he gathers together all that information into easily-digested video format (he's also blogged it (posts 1, 2, 3).

This video talks about Verizon, but most of the tactics can be applied to every national cellphone carrier. Just lookup the relevant verbiage in your contract and replace it with what Ely quotes.

Video Tutorial: How to Get Out of Your Verizon Contract Without an Early Termination Fee [Crastinate]

He negotiated with the CSR and said he would switch to a pay-as-you-go plan and not switch to MCI if they waived his ETF. She down to sell him a smaller package. He remained silent. She tried the reduced package again. He repeated that he would switch if charged. Then she offered 50% off. He restated his position once more and stayed silent. She tried the smaller plan again. He said no. Then she offered him 75% off. So now he's free of annual contract and can switch to any other provider whenever he feels like.

Not a tactic that will make financial sense for everyone, but it might come in handy for some.

TmoNews says, "It sounds like these plans will be very similar, if not the same, to T-mobile’s current offerings of individual, or family time plans, with or without MyFaves." For new customers, this will mean that, if you buy from Tmobile, you will have to pay full retail price for your new cellphone. Unless there's some caveat against it, it would be smart though to buy your phone off eBay or convert pay-as-you-go Walmart-style phone to the month-to-month plan. There will also be an activation fee. But at least there will be no early termination fee.

Thumbs up to Tmobile on this one, even though it's probably just a placating gesture in advance of the FCC ruling on ETFs. Hopefully the other carriers will follow suit with similar placating gestures.

T-mobile Introduces Month to Month Contracts [TmoNews] (Thanks to Scott!)

"Sprint Loses Early Termination Fee Case, May Pay $73 Million" [CNN Money]
(Photo: Maulleigh)

1. Can't have unlimited messaging bundle on your account within the past 3 months
2. Has to have been charged for text messages during the past 3 months

A materially adverse change of contract nullifies a contract. I don't see how you can enforce restrictions on a null contract.

If you want to cancel Tmobile without ETF, here's how. Read the comments on that story to learn tips from many readers who've successfully used our advice. And remember, victory goes to the tenacious.

(Photo: Getty)

One way to escape your contract is to call up your carrier and argue that they have made a materially adverse change to your service agreement. Most cellphone contracts contain a clause allowing customers to escape their contracts if a materially adverse change is made, usually in the form of a rate increase. Here's an example clause from a Verizon contract:

Your service is subject to our business policies, practices, and procedures, which we can change without notice. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE CAN ALSO CHANGE PRICES AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME BY SENDING YOU WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE BILLING PERIOD IN WHICH THE CHANGES WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE YOUR SERVICE AFTER THAT POINT, YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE CHANGES. IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU, HOWEVER, YOU CAN END THE AFFECTED SERVICE, WITHOUT ANY EARLY TERMINATION FEE, JUST BY CALLING US WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WE SEND NOTICE OF THE CHANGE.

Below are some recent rate increases by the major providers. Some of these might have occurred far enough back that they are outside the window to call and complain, but we've also heard from readers who didn't get any notice, or who got late notice, thus keeping them within the required period to contest the change.
T-Mobile
We posted about this a couple weeks ago, but just to reiterate: T-Mobile is raising its text message rates on August 29th. That's a materially adverse change to your contract. Run while you can.
Verizon
Although Verizon likes to play dumb about what constitutes a materially adverse change to your contract, a Verizon fee increase was the impetus for this article: A reader writes in that he used Verizon's recent Federal Universal Service Charge increase to escape without an ETF. Here is Verizon's increase notification:

The Federal Universal Service Charge (FUSC) is a Verizon Wireless charge that is subject to change each calendar quarter based on contribution rates prescribed by the FCC. On July 1, the FUSC changed to 2.42 percent of assessable wireless charges, other than separately billed interstate and international long distance charges. The FUSC on these charges changed to 11.4 percent.

Sprint Nextel
There are conflicting reports that, as of July 13, Sprint will be eliminating its SERO plan altogether, or making existing customers switch to unlimited data "everything" plans, or just forcing that on new PDA customers. Barring that, a text message increase probably isn't too far away.
Other Techniques
We offered advice on escaping your contract last year when the iPhone first came out. Besides complaining about materially adverse changes, you can sell your contract, complain that service is substandard, move to an area out of your network, join the military, or die.

PREVIOUSLY: 6 Ways to Cancel Any Cellphone So You Can Get an iPhone
"Material Adverse" Clauses in Cell Phone Contracts [United Consumer Action Network]
(Photo: Getty)

Verizon Wireless Suit Settlement Puts Sprint At Risk [Dow Jones]
(Photo: Ben Popken)

As far as the other policies go: AT&T and Verizon have similar pro-rating plans, (for each month that goes by they deduct $5 from the ETF) but Verizon starts discounting earlier than AT&T, according to Consumer Reports.

When you look at 1 year contracts, T-Mobile's plan looks a lot better. Their discounts beat both AT&T and Verizon after 6 months. Also, if you cancel T-Mobile in the final month of either a 2 year or a 1 year contract, you'll have to pay either $50 or your monthly fee — whichever is less.

Something to watch out for: T-Mobile's trial period is only 20 days, while AT&T and Verizon both give you 30 days.

T-Mobile announces pro-rating of termination fees [Consumer Reports]

SMS rates going up! [TmoNews] (Thanks to Arnaldo!)

(Photo: scentzilla)

Days left | fee

180: $200
180-91: $100
90-30: $50
29-1: $50 or monthly rate, whichever is less.

Glad to see another carrier joining in with declining ETFs. It's that much closer to doing away with them entirely. No word yet on whether this will only apply to new customers.

Here's the text of Tmobile's email announcement.

Beginning on June 28, 2008, the ETF for customers who choose a one-year or two-year service agreement with T-Mobile will decline during the course their contract. The ETF decreases from $200 to $100 if customers terminate service with 91 to 180 days remaining on their agreement; and decreases again to $50 with fewer than 91 days remaining. If customers terminate in the last 30 days of their term, the ETF is $50 or their standard monthly charge, whichever is less.

T-Mobile Eases Early Termination Fees [Washington Post]

(Thanks to Spencer!)

(Photo: shlomp-a-plompa)

• ETFs should be relative to the phone's cost; a $5 phone should have a lower fee than a $50
• ETFs should go down month by month
• Contract lengths should be "reasonable" (whatever that means)
• Extended a contract shouldn't refresh the ETF (no shit, they've already recouped the cost of the cellphone)
• People should be able to get their first bill and look it over before the ETF goes into effect

FCC chief lays out plan for cell phone fees [Washington Post]

"The government will never, never accept such penalty amounts," then-Nextel marketing vice president Scott Wiener wrote in an e-mail in January 2004...A spokesman for Sprint-Nextel, John Taylor, said the company determined it could not assess the termination fees in its federal contract because it would have been against the law.

Why do consumers put up with these fees, but the government won't? Why is it illegal to charge the government ETFs, but not us? Perhaps Sprint thought that if they started charging the government ETFs, someone would get wise and question the fees, and anti-ETF legislation would be enacted...

Government relieved of cancelled cellphone fees [USAToday] (Thanks to Jason!)

Some people think the BBB doesn't work. They do, but only if the company cares about keeping a clean record. See when you look up a company in the BBB database it shows you how many complaints have been filed against the company, how many were answered, how many did the consumer report as being satisfactorily resolved, etc. So if you have a valid complaint, file it with the BBB, and the company cares about its BBB record, you have a decent chance of getting a solution. You might not believe it, but it turns out Sprint is one of those companies. Here's Kevin's story of how the BBB got his erroneous text message charges refunded and let him leave contract early without early termination fee...

Kevin writes:

I've filed two complaints with them so far in 2008. Here is the text of the one I filed in January...

"Double charged my debit card and refuses to credit the duplicate charge back to my account.
I called to make and a payment yesterday through Sprint/Nextel's automatic payment attendant. The pre-recorded service told me the payment "cannot be processed at this time, please hold for an operator." So a person gets on the phone and takes my payment manually. Then this morning when I checked my bank account online I saw that two payments had gone through. When I called to request the duplicate payment be reversed they refused. This comes after several battles with their customers service department over services ordered which were incorrectly authorized.

For instance, I have two phone lines and there have been 3 or 4 times now when I've had a service such as text messaging or insurance added to one of the lines. The customer service people have added the service to the wrong phone, thereby incurring extra charges and it takes forever to get a credit. These are small inconveniences and nothing I'd normally report to the BBB. But after refusing to issue a credit I've had enough with them. My contract with them is up in August after 3 years of being a customer. I've explained why I am unhappy with service and they will not let me out of a contract. I've talked with many acquaintances who've had similar issues and I feel it's time for someone to do something about this company. The problems with service began after the merger with Nextel."

After this I was contacted within 48 hours and the dispute was resolved where Sprint/Nextel issued me a credit for a free month of service.

Then in April I went over my text message limit. I beefed up the limit to 1,000 texts per month, but they added it to the 2nd line. This caused another huge bill in May. When I called to tell them they added the text plan to the wrong phone they refused to credit me or fix the problem.

At that point I filed the 2nd complaint with the BBB briefly describing what happened. It basically stated what I just did and less than 24 hours this time a Sprint/Nextel representative called me to resolve the issue...apologizing for the treatment I received and they resolved the issue VERY generously and told me they realize their customer service is lacking and they're "taking steps to rectify the situation." In addition to free unlimited text messaging they've offer to wave the penalty for severing my contract early. That says a lot and the fact that they acknowledged their customer service dept sucks.

To my satisfaction, I was told I can dissolve my contract with them before it's up in August without any additional penalties. I got a follow up email from the BBB today asking if I am satisfied.

Kevin is now a happy Verizon customer. Here's where to go to get started filing a BBB complaint online.

(Photo: mod_complex)

AT&T Launches Pro-Rated ETF System [Broadband Reports]
(Photo: mrbill)

Brett sent us a story perfectly illustrating why Sprint has really crappy customer satisfaction ratings. While the other cellphone service providers scores hover slightly under the national ACSI average of 75, Sprint's are a dismal 56. It must be because of too many situations like the following danse macabre of incompetence:

1. Brett can't get coverage around his house
2. Tech support ineffective in solving this problem
3. Told he could cancel without ETF
4. Cancels, ETF taken out of his checking account anyway
5. Has so far spent four months calling and refaxing documents, still doesn't have his money back.

Possible solution: Call the Sprint Consumerist executive customer service line at 703-433-4401.

In exchange for amnesty from a series of potentially billions of dollars in class action lawsuits over early termination fees (ETFs), the cellphone companies have proposed some namby-pamby ETF reforms to the FCC. Their ideas:

• Pro-rating early termination fees, so the cancellation fee goes down every month
• Customers can cancel without ETF up to 30 days after singing contract, or 10 days after receiving their first bill
• The overall fee would be slightly reduced

Cellphone companies main justification for early termination fees is that they have to recover the costs of selling cellphones at a discounted rate. True, but why then do I get charged an ETF if even if my cellphone was bought off eBay?

A cellphone manufacturer may charge the cellphone company $500+ per phone, but does it have to? Has anyone looked at whether the price reflects the real production cost? I'm not just making an argument here, I really am curious. Whether this model came about by malicious design or fortuity, the result is legal way to prevent consumers from exercising consumer choice and punishing companies for poor service. Early termination fees are the only reason why the entire cellphone service industry gets away with having below average customer satisfaction scores.

Proposal may ease cancellation fees for cell phone users [AP] (Thanks to Tom!)

(Photo: R80o (Mark Strozier))

Joseph would like to cancel his Verizon contract without early termination fee by arguing that the recent monthly administrative fee increase is materially adverse, but unfortunately for Joseph, Verizon's lawyers have filled their customer service reps brains with a bunch of hooey about what materially adverse means. In fact, when Joseph was reading the very clause in the Verizon contract that allows him to what he wants, the call center supervisor laughed at him. According to his account, when he criticized the poor customer service, she started screaming at him. The text of Joe's attempted EECB, inside...

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to inform you of an issue I am having with your customer service department. Today, 5/7/08, I tried to contact customer service around 5 PM. Unfortunately, every time I was transferred to the department I requested, I received the message "We cannot process your call at this time. . ." and then was disconnected.

I finally reached customer retention nearly an hour later. Among my many calls, of note, I spoke with Stephanie (ext. 7476) and Trish (ext. 7129) at the Cranberry, PA call center. When I informed these CSR's that I wanted my ETF waived due to the increase in the monthly administration fee being materially adverse, I was put on hold between 5-10 minutes EACH call, presumably so that the CSR could find a way to reject my request. (Although I want to close my account, I want to port my number to another carrier, so I cannot have my account closed before the number is ported).

Both calls escalated to the floor supervisor (once at my request, the other to "confirm that [she] could complete my request." Both calls were escalated to Danielle (ext. 4075, also at Cranberry, PA). This "Danielle" denied my request to have my ETF waived. During the first call, she was relatively professional, granting my request for an escalation contact number/address. However, when I criticized the poor customer service, she began screaming at me. During the second call, she laughed at me when I read the following clause from the contract:

Our Rights to Make Changes

Your service is subject to our business policies, practices and procedures, which we can change without notice. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE CAN ALSO CHANGE PRICES AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME BY SENDING YOU WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE BILLING PERIOD IN WHICH THE CHANGES WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE YOUR SERVICE AFTER THAT POINT, YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE CHANGES. IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU, HOWEVER, YOU CAN END THE AFFECTED SERVICE, WITHOUT ANY EARLY TERMINATION FEE, JUST BY CALLING US WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WE SEND NOTICE OF THE CHANGE.

She then said that the 15c per month charge wasn't materially adverse. I explained to her that the phrase "material(ly) adverse" has no quantifiable limit; one definition is: "of such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person's decision-making process." In the canon of law, (any) price is considered as having this nature.

I am hoping that one of you fine people may be able to assist me with this issue. My account information is:

Name: Joseph XXXXX
Phone#: XXXXXXXXXX
Account#: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Please contact me to discuss this further. I would greatly welcome an effort to restore my opinion of your company. Thank you for your time in consideration in getting this matter resolved.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Tkocs

If the EECB doesn't work out, Joe, you can also try some of these phone numbers.

Dear Consumerist,

I signed up for DirecTV in September of last year and have, until today, loved the service. Unfortunately, my girlfriend and I are moving to an apartment without a balcony or access to the roof and are prohibited from bringing our dish with us. Consequently, I'm forced to leave DirecTV's best-of-breed HDTV for Comcast's worst-of-breed YouTube-quality mush.

When I first spoke with a representative (ID #410930) about the service and its two year commitment, I was told that if I eventually moved to a place where I was unable to use the service the early termination fee (ETF) would be waived. About two months ago I again called DirecTV and, while making a minor change to my account, verbally confirmed with a service representative (ID #413117) that the ETF would be waived if that happened to be the case.

Yesterday, after double checking with my landlord that there was no chance I could install the dish, I reluctantly called DirecTV to cancel... only to find out that they won't waive the ETF. "Robby" (ID #402875) claimed to be the account supervisor despite being a first line representative and insisted that his own supervisor (ID #U2985) "doesn't get on the phones." He claimed that he could find no record in either of the previous call logs that I been offered a waived ETF. Another call this morning to DirecTV customer service found them in agreement: my ETF would not be waived. And, sure enough, the DirecTV Service Agreement makes no mention of moving to an apartment or area incapable of properly positioning the dish.

However, since I had already been lied to twice by DirecTV representatives I figured that I should call their sales department. So, this morning I called their sales number pretending to order new service and inquired as to whether or not there would be an ETF if I eventually moved to an area without service. Essentially, I replicated my initial sales call with DirecTV from seven months ago, but this time with a recording device.

Sure enough, the sales representative I spoke with repeatedly assured me that the fee would be waived if I were to move to a home that I could not get service at. So, at least DirecTV sales is consistent about giving false information. It should be noted that this representative was the rule, not the exception: all four times I have asked DirecTV sales people about the ETF waiver and all four times I have received the same incorrect response.

When I called retentions back and pointed out that I'd been told this repeatedly and had a recording, I was told that there was nothing that could be done except that a note would be made in my account and a higher up emailed.

If DirecTV's customer service representatives had simply been honest with me I wouldn't really have anything to complain about— I'd just pay my ETF without complaint. But the fact that sales and retention tell customers starkly different things about the service commitment is troubling, to say the least. I would have switched back to DirecTV the moment that I moved to an accommodating home, but why would I choose to do further business with a company whose representatives are apparently coached to lie?

Hopefully your readers won't make the same mistake I made: make sure anything that any DirecTV representative tells you is backed up in writing. Because even if you record them promising something they won't honor it. And if you do post anything about this, please remove my personal information.

Sincerely,

Ian
DirecTV Account #[redacted]

P.S. Neither representative could tell me exactly how much my final bill would be, even after I gave them a firm cancellation date. I was told "around $200", but at this point I have no reason to believe that this is the actual amount I'll be charged.

P.P.S. The ID numbers were given to me over the phone by "Robby".

Also, my service appears to have just been turned off— five days early (termination date was April 29). I confirmed that it was set for the 29th with two representatives. I can't even access my recorded shows on my DVR since they are dependent upon an active service. I'm calling DirecTV again now.

Alicia wants to escape her Verizon contract without paying an early termination fee, but she's having some trouble. She writes:

Just today, I was informed that Verizon is now increasing their monthly administration charge. I have a right to cancel with having the early termination fee waived because of this increase. The Verizon supervisors I spoke to (total of 4 people) refused to follow this clause and would not waive the early termination fee even though Verizon changed the fees. They said they would give me a credit for this increase, so then it would not adversely affect me, so I can't have the ETF waived. I made it clear that I had a right to cancel and have the ETF waived regardless of what credit they would be willing to give me. They said that having the ETF waived is not an option and they can not do that. Am I in the wrong?

Hi Alicia,

You just keep on refusing that fee waiver. The fee increase still has a material adverse effect, even if they give you a credit to cover it. If someone breaks your arm and puts it in a cast for you, they still broke your arm.

"AT&T to pro-rate early termination fee" [Seattle PI]

RELATED
"Carriers Promised Congress They'd Pro-Rate ETFs; Senator Asks Them, 'When?'"

"Carrier ETF plans targeted" [RCRWireless News]
(Photo: Getty)

AT&T Sales Reps Gave Wrong Info On Termination Fees In Test [Smart Money via DSLReports]
(Photo: epicharmus)

Your website has changed my consumerist ways forever. I read "Gotcha' Capitalism" this weekend and decided to take back my rights as a consumer.

1. Our mortgage was paid up in October and I didn't realize that Wells Fargo had the real estate tax payment scheduled for semi-annual. Got the county tax bill with a penalty of $18. Called a county clerk, explained my situation and got the charges removed. Savings: $18

2. Checked my Wachovia account and found a $35 overdraft fee from November. Stopped at the bank regional main branch. Someone please explain to me why, in a 10-12 story Wachovia building, my escalated customer service request needed to be handled off-site by someone in meetings all day. At the end of the day (literally) 2 fees removed. Savings: $70.

3. Called around to price out heating oil costs and the best I could do was $3.34-$3.39/gal. Negotiated with Petro for a 1 yr. contract @ $3.09. I have 2 tanks x 275 gals x 5 deliveries. Savings: $687.50

4. Kids gave me an iphone for Christmas. Ported # from Verizon. ETF on current bill. Followed your script (including reading the legalese several times to the annoyance of the csr.) Waited 10 min. and savings: $175

5. Comcast. No success here. Offered to downgrade to basic cable-phone bundle ($109 with 2 year contract! Does this mean FiOS is getting close to my neighborhood?) Savings: $0

Total savings for week's work: $950.50
Regaining some financial control: Priceless

-Moriconi

(Photo: Kai Hendry)

Verizon Wireless faces class action over ETFs [RCRWirelessNews] (Thanks to Steve!)

See, the whole argument hinges on arguing that the price hike constitutes what is known as a "materially adverse change to contract." Under established contract law, you cannot simply change the terms of a contract in a way that harms the other party. Doing so gives them an opportunity to declare the contract void, and not bound by any of its terms, like a $175 fee for leaving service. A materially adverse change is one where it could be argued that had the change be in effect at the time of signing, the other party might have decided to not sign the contract.

Now, as the change in Verizon text message prices was for the default rate, the rate you pay if you're not in a text message plan, Verizon has been saying that it doesn't adversely affect subscribers in a material way if they're on a text message plan. But Mtman was able to successfully argue that it does. Here's how he pulled off this negotiation coup:

I was currently in a TXT message package, and they claimed that It did not have a materially adverse effect on me. I countered and claimed that my contract was with verizon via any plan, and not just one. When I signed my contract, I knew that a text message would cost me X, but now these terms have changed, and because I can move around in the future, it could have an adverse effect on me moving forward, that the past circumstances have bearing on future financial effects. I argued for about 15 minutes, and then they let my lines go.

Though he writes it kind of confusingly, what Mtman is saying is that it doesn't matter that he is in a text message plan now, he wasn't in a plan at the time of phone purchase, and the cost of the default rate could have been a guiding factor when he made his initial purchase decision.

Perhaps he just got likely and got a weak rep or just wore his down, but with a $175 jail-break fee, the tactic is definitely worth a shot. Not just Verizon, one could apply the logic to any cellphone service that raised default text message rates. Give it a go and report back how it works out.

(Photo: zoomar)

1. You must specifically cite the text message rate change being a material adverse change of contract as the reason for cancellation.
2. You must not pay your bill that reflects the new rates until AFTER requesting cancellation
3. You must refuse any offer of reduced text rates or free text messages to your plan.
4. 4If the rep is poorly trained and wants to hot-potato you to a supervisor rather than transfer you to account services, you must insist that you want to cancel service despite any potential fees so the rep gets you to the group that actually knows the correct procedures.
5. Remain firm, polite, and insistent. You will have to go several rounds with them as they try to wear down your resolve and throw all sorts of tricks at you.

Negotiating out of your cellphone contract can be daunting. Here's some other people's success stories to help get you psyched:

AT&T rate change notice:

Messaging Pay Per Use Rate Change Notification
Effective 3/30/08, AT&T will charge 20¢ for text/instant messages & 30¢ for picture/video messages sent or received on a pay-per-use basis. If you already subscribe to a Messaging Package or Media Bundle, there is no change to your rate. By purchasing a Messaging Package, you can send and receive messages for as little as a 1¢ per message. Sign up and save at att.com/getmedia.

AT&T will increase the price on the Messaging (Text/IM & Picture/Video) Pay Per Use (PPU) features for new and existing customers on March 30, 2008. While the price increase impacts the Pay Per Use customers who tend to be light messaging users, our customers who have purchased messaging packages or MEdia Bundles will not be impacted. All of our customers will continue to be provided our best-in-class products, services, and support. Customers will be notified in advance of the price increase.

Critical Information:
The following pricing change will be effective in the billing systems on March 30, 2008:

Text/Instant Messaging PPU Price:
Picture/Video Messaging PPU Price:

Current price: $0.15/message
New price: $0.20/message

Current price: $0.25/message
New price: $0.30/message

Messaging PPU prices will increase on March 30, 2008. Any message sent or received on or after March 30, 2008 will be charged $.20 for text/instant messages and $.30 for picture/video messages.

Customer Notification:
Existing customers will be notified via a bill message beginning with bill cycles closing on January 16.

Note: Customers will receive invoices beginning the week of January 21.

Relevant contract text:

IF WE INCREASE THE PRICE OF ANY OF THE SERVICES TO WHICH YOU SUBSCRIBE, BEYOND THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN YOUR RATE PLAN BROCHURE, OR IF WE MATERIALLY DECREASE THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH YOUR AIRTIME RATE APPLIES (OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY DECREASE FOR REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE), WE WILL DISCLOSE THE CHANGE AT LEAST ONE BILLING CYCLE IN ADVANCE (EITHER THROUGH A NOTICE WITH YOUR BILL, A TEXT MESSAGE TO YOUR EQUIPMENT, OR OTHERWISE) AND YOU MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PAYING AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE OR RETURNING OR PAYING FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL ITEMS, PROVIDED YOUR NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS DELIVERED TO US WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE FIRST BILL REFLECTING THE CHANGE.

Since Evan's story posted, we've gotten comments and emails from other readers in the same boat. To those folks, we say keep escalating to supervisors or executive customer service (try 1-425-378-4000) and demanding that your consumer rights be respected. I would really like to hear what logic these customer service reps are trying to use to justify still charging you a fee for a nonfunctional service. Just keep a firm grip, that their contract is not legally enforceable if they're not fulfilling their end of the contract, and thus can't legally work you over with any punitive termination fee clause in it.

I am a T-Mobile customer from Miami, FL. I am writing you to report the unconscionable treatment I have received from T-Mobile over the past six months. For the past six months I have received no cellular reception in my area. After repeated calls and technical checks, the T-Mobile technical team issued a report stating that there is no coverage in my home and T-Mobile has no intention of upgrading the service in my area. I was initially told that upgrading my equipment to a new phone may resolve my issue. After a contract renewal and significant expense for the new equipment, my service is no better than it was previously.

I was then told that I was "stuck" with no service in my home under my current rate plan. Furthermore, I was told that my only option was to upgrade my service yet again to a "T-Mobile home hotspot" at a cost of $20.00 per month plus yet another equipment upgrade of at least $150.00. These costs would be in addition to the cost of broadband internet service provided by a third party. Seeing that I did not wish to upgrade yet again, it was suggested in the alternatively that I move to a new home. These callous suggestions are indicative of the general attitude at T-Mobile. I am forced to incur significant expense to use a service which I've already paid for.

Although T-Mobile has acknowledged that it is not able to provide me service without an upgrade, and therefore not delivered the service it is contractually bound to deliver, I am still bound by the early termination fee of $200. This "take-it-or-leave-it" deal is disreputable. T-Mobile lures consumers into contracts which it can not deliver upon and then charges the customer additional expenses to actually receive service which it promises. If the customer decides to move to a competitor which is able to provide service, T-Mobile socks the consumer with an early termination fee. Either way T-Mobile wins. The choice of paying for upgraded service or termination fees is anti-competitive and needs to be addressed.

Sincerely,

Evan G.
T-Mobile Account Number: [redacted]
T-Mobile Number: [redacted]

Get Out of Verizon Wireless ETF [Slickdeals]
(Photo: Getty)

Tracey's husband expected Sprint to show a scintilla of compassion.

"They said his contract wasn't up and to pay the fee or keep it activated," he said.

"He came in and said my father had upgraded his phone, so we can't cancel unless we pay the early termination fee or give the phone to somebody else," Stewart said.

They didn't have someone else, and they said that the suggestion offended them.

Family Stuck Paying For Deceased Father's Cell [WCVB]
RELATED: Sprint Refuses To Cancel Dead Brother's Cellphone