Washington AG Slams T-Mobile Over Deceptive 'No-Contract' Ads 371
zacharye writes "Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson on Thursday ordered UNcarrier T-Mobile to correct 'deceptive advertising that promised consumers no annual contracts while carrying hidden charges for early termination of phone plans.' T-Mobile, which recently did away with standard cell phone service contracts and typical smartphone subsidies, is accused of misleading consumers by advertising no-contract wireless plans despite requiring that customers sign an agreement that makes them responsible for the full cost of their handsets should they cancel service prematurely ..."
Car analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well in this case you'd have to continue paying for the car but it no longer can move.
Re: (Score:3)
The point here is that nobody is claiming like they aren't giving you a contract with regards to the car. An auto loan is clearly a contract and most dealers don't advertise them anyways, they typically advertise the cars and their financing options.
In this case, T-Mobile is advertising no contract plans that aren't actually no contract plans, which is why they're getting sued. I wasn't aware that they were doing this, but if they really were, then the advertisements are clearly misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a subscriber, and I don't see the deception. Somewhat inadequate disclosure, maybe, but I have no service contract. And I always understood that the phone was so much down, so much a month for so many months. And that was EXACTLY how it was explained.
Now, I bought my new phone for $99 down, $51 tax (dead giveway that this is not so simple there!!!), shipping, and $2/month for 24 months. My phone will cost me about $636, tax & shipping included.
And in 2 years, when I 've paid off the phone, or so
Re: (Score:2)
They actually *are* no-contract plans, it's the phone that has a loan (contract). So while you're kinda functionally correct in your statement, legally you're not, which is why this likely will go away.
Personally, I haven't seen them be deceptive about it when you actually go into the store or try to buy a phone online; they're very clearly 1) showing you your separate monthly cost of the phone and 2) showing how much left you o
Re: (Score:2)
There is no fixed term to your service, there is no penalty for terminating the service (you just pay back what you borrowed, no extra $100 "convenience" fee), and there's no automatic renewal. I haven't read all of the fine print, but if they're anything like my own cell phone company (which also has a no contract option), you can pay off the balance owing for the phone at any time, too.
You're being pedantic and deliberately obtuse, when you know full well that they are not offering a term contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally every purchase you make is a contract. But in this context it's pretty clear what they mean by "no-contract": You can use the service without committing yourself to recurring payments.
From their website it seems like they're separating the concepts of financing a new phone and using the service as much as they should need to and they let you pay up front if you want to do that. If you want a phone you have to pay for it. Anyone who thinks this is unfair is clearly delusional from years of absurd mar
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is? Viewing the commercials I didn't see anything that indicated that. I'll have to pay closer attention next time they come on, but I don't recall seeing any fine print that indicated that.
The WA AG is suing because it's a false advertisement, not because the terms of the deal are necessarily unfair, but because they've apparently had ads which were deceptive put on the air.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems the difference is that other major carriers charge the same amount whether you take the subsidised handset contract or not. Their "no contract" rate is the same (or higher) than their contract rate with free handset. T-Mobile separated the two. You have a rate for service, no matter where your handset comes from, or you can choose to buy a subsidised handset on a separate contract, with extra repayments and special provisions for cancellation.
You might wish they offered the handset-subsidy as a zer
Re:Car analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Tiny difference. It's more like the dealer where you have that monthly plan going also has a fuel station and you'd have to use his fuel station for your fuel needs or the rest of the amount you owe is due tomorrow.
Schrödinger's Contract (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
The contract is only if you don't pay for the phone upfront. Obviously if you are pating for it a month at a time they want you to finish paying before you leave.
Right now, you can walk into a T Mobile store, plunk down cash and get a smartphone and not have a contract beyond a month to month agreement; which you can end without fees.
I wonder if it was AT&T or Verizon the complained?
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, you can walk into a T Mobile store, plunk down cash and get a smartphone and not have a contract beyond a month to month agreement; which you can end without fees.
You can do that with just about any carrier. The only real difference is that T-Mobile cuts you a break on your per month price for not taking a subsidized phone. With Verizon, AT&T, or any other carrier you can sign up without a contract, its just that you'll be paying the same price as the guys who took the free/cheap phones.
No you can't (Score:2, Informative)
Try sprint. Even if out of contract and paying month to month, ANY change to your service and they FORCE you into a two year contract. Even if your phone is totally paid for. Terminate early and get an early termination fee.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that this has been the case with all the carriers for quite some time. You could go month to month and not get the included phone. Now you don't get a rate break if you don't do it, but you don't have the early termination fee either.
By advertising them as a no-contract network they were deceiving potential customers and putting themselves at a competitive advantage without actually having to do anything other than claim that they were doing something differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Does "no contracts" mean "You *can* get service without a contract" or does it mean "It is impossible to get stuck in any contract".
It is pretty obvious that they mean the former. The only way to offer the latter is to remove the *option* to pay for your phone over 2 years and force every customer to pay for their phone up front.
This is a better system because it gives customers more options.
Also I'm fairly sure that they explain to people that they are signing a contract to pay for their phone when they
Re: (Score:2)
There are two problems with this whole deal. First is something our law calls "reasonable expectation". Now, I don't know if the US have something similar in place, but if not, at least not acting in the spirit of that law makes you a pretty big asshole. The deal here is that when you enter a contract, you have a "reasonable expectation". When I hire a tiler, I do reasonably expect him that he knows how to do it, that he brings his own tools, that he will cover my floor and/or walls in tiles (and not, say,
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously if you are paying for it a month at a time they want you to finish paying before you leave.
Not. What is "obvious" to me is that if there truly wasn't a contract then canceling service would not impact the loan schedule on the phone. If you got a loan to pay for that phone from your local credit union instead of T-mobile, they wouldn't require immediate payment if you canceled service. That right there is proof that the loan is actually a contract for service.
Meanwhile, if someone is in such financial straits that they have to cancel their phone service then having to immediately pay off the ba
Stupid (Score:2)
But, you have the option of buying a phone off newegg or ebay and activating it on a plan with no contract or termination fee. Why WOULDN'T they charge you for the hardware if you haven't paid it off yet?
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Oh I'm sure that there are no shortage of people that 'didn't realize that' but T-Mobile shouldn't be on the hook for the stupidity of the public.
As a side note, I will probably be switching to T-Mobile this weekend. I am fully aware that if I decide switch to someone else next month, I will need to pay for the phone completely and not over the course of 2 years.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind the idea of an installment plan for a phone. I mind them threatening to make it due NOW if you dare to cancel your contract. People who can't pay the whole sum now (like, say, people who'd buy a phone for a few hundred on an installment plan) are FORCED into staying with them because they cannot afford to get out.
I am shocked (Score:5, Funny)
I can't believe that cute girl would do such a thing.
It is no-contract *service* (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but opting to the "with oil" service and later changing your mind doesn't make your loan due in full the moment you decide to go to a different garage.
No annual cell contract (Score:2)
There is no annual contract for cell phone usage.
There is an annual contract for the cell phone. Or you can pay for your phone on your cell phone with your credit card. Those don't have 'annual fees' (usually) but you still have to pay them off.
What a silly thing to complain about (Score:5, Insightful)
T-Mobile is offering consumers the ability to pay for the phone over time - at the same overall cost as if they paid up front - and my state's AG is complaining that they are requiring you still pay for the phone if you walk away from their phone service.
My tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen. Since a recent past AG (Gregoire) became governor, I imagine this guy has political aspirations as well and is looking for resume padding he can offer up come election season.
Re: (Score:2)
no, they're complaining about the ads (Score:2, Informative)
They're complaining that the advertising claims there is no contract, when in fact there is still a contract about the phone....just not the cell service.
All they have to do is update the advertising to make it clear that the money is still owing on the phone--which is just common sense in any case.
Re:no, they're complaining about the ads (Score:4, Interesting)
The advertising just says there is no annual service contract, and that you can use your existing phone. If they were advertising a new phone for free with no future payments there might be a problem, but they didn't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile, in effect, didn't change anything by starting this "No contract" campaign. Things still work the same. The key difference is after the two year subsidy is paid off, your phone bill goes down. This is in contrast to the other carriers, who keep charging the exact same even after the phone has been paid off.
So really, this whole thing is just a way for T-Mobile to easily communicate that advantage to the customers, because most of them never think about their bill paying for the phone
Re:What a silly thing to complain about (Score:5, Interesting)
Mark my words, AT&T and/or Verizon put this AG up to it. We can't have that pesky competition stuff going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm seriously mistaken here, it seems that the rest of the amount you owe for the phone is due instantly and in full the moment you cancel your contract. Which means that people who cannot afford to pay the whole sum right now (like, say, people who can't simply buy a phone but have to turn to options where you can pay it over time) are locked into their phone service provider contract because they cannot afford to get out of it. Sure, they could cancel it any time without cancellation fee, but at th
I'm missing the deception (Score:2)
I don't see how they are being deceptive. There is no contract for their service. If you want to do financing for a phone through them, there is an agreement for that, but that is something entirely different and not required at all. I can go in there and get cell phone service and not sign a contract. I can even get cell phone coverage and buy a phone from them (outright) without a contract. But if I want to take advantage of their financing for phones, then of course I need to have some type of agreem
I wonder.... (Score:2)
I guess the "no contracts" thing would be true if you could stop service and just paythe phone installment monthly charge, because you're not paying a service contract at all, rather you're buying a phone on time payments, and part and parcel with time payments is if you stop paying the time payments, you owe for the whole purchase price. IANAL, don't try this at home, etc etc
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT!!?!? (Score:2)
You mean to tell me that T-Mobile isn't selling smartphones for the low-low price of a single month of their cheapest plan?!!?!? THAT'S A RIDICULOUS ASSAULT ON MY RIGHTS AND INTERNET PRIVACY AND STUFF!!!
Really? Who cares about this?
It's a political story (Score:2)
One that says much more about Bob Ferguson than it does T-Mobile.
They made me sign a contract recently (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Go prepaid with automatic pay.
the "no contract" is for the phone service... (Score:2)
This isn't deceptive at all (Score:4, Informative)
Handset financing, not service contract (Score:2)
My understanding is that if you just buy phone service there's no early termination fees at all. That "early termination" fee only comes into play if you buy a handset at the same time and elect to pay for the handset in installments. In that case they'll include the installment payment for the handset on your bill each month as a separate charge, and if you terminate service you're responsible for paying off the balance of the contract for the handset. But that's hardly deceptive, I mean when was the last
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not. The advertise no contract; which the provide. If you don't want to pay for the phone up front, you can pay for it over time. Obviously if you leave before you are done paying for it, they want the rest of the money you own them for the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't enforce a termination fee without a contract enforcing it.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't enforce a termination fee without a contract enforcing it.
There is no contract for the phone service.
There is still contract if you take out a loan on a new phone that just covers that loan. If you want to exit the service early, you have to pay off the principle.
Is it 'misleading'? A little bit, yes, because they say its no contract, but if you want to pay for your phone over a 2 year period well then you still need a contract for THAT.
I think this is definitely a good direction for the industry
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, 100%. It's still a positive step forward but "if you get a phone via loan that will require a contract" is really all they have to say to make things less confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)
With a standard cell contract, your recurring charges stay the same indefinitely. You are billed as if your phone is subsidized even if it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
I did a comparison, and I think they're fleecing everyone...(who buys in)
While there is a diffference between them / Verizon for "unllimiited' accounts. (comparing to sharing 8-10GB, or my grandfathered unlimited plan.) and it's about $20 or so,
They're not really 20$ cheaper w/o the phones, as their model prior model was. if they were, that would rock I'd buy in right now.
Re: (Score:2)
(as with their prior pricing model. sorry)
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you're on your first phone contract or have simply never owned a phone out of contract, but I can say for absolute fact that you do not get any special treatment for owning your phone outright. The cost of the plan is a fixed amount, subsidized or not. If you bring your own phone you are only aiding the carrier hedge their bets by paying the same monthly rate as a contracted user but posing zero repayment risk.
That's true with Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. But not T-Mobile. As soon as you pay for the phone, you're monthly bill goes down. Also, if you bring your own device, you get that dropped rate immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that what they charge for the phone is not close to what it actually costs. I can go straight to Google and get a Nexus 4 for $299. T-Mobiles, "full price at checkout" is $408.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4)
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)
I just read through it, and T-Mobile's deal is basically a 0% APR loan with a down payment and fixed $20/month payment, on top of your monthly service charge, for however long it takes to pay off the principal (depends on the price of the phone).
Any competent lender is going to provide you with a contract which spells out what happens when the loan ends, what happens if one or both parties terminate early, etc, and in T-Mobile's case, the loan is contingent on maintaining carrier service, and the remedy is full payment of the balance. Otherwise, people will just quit and get a $600 phone for the price of a $99 down payment.
Similarly, most new auto loans may be contingent on maintaining a service of some sort, like full coverage insurance. I think Washington State's AG has his head firmly implanted betwixt his butt cheeks, since any non-retard should easily tell the difference between the pay up front no-contract, month to month deal, and the other one which includes all kinds of disclosures as to the fact they're agreeing to a loan... But whatever.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't drop the T-Mobile service and just keep paying off the phone in $20 installments? I would have assumed you could... and I guess that must be what the AG is upset about.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure why you think you're correcting me - you said the same thing I did.
Me: "You are billed as if your phone is subsidized even if it is not."
You: "The cost of the plan is a fixed amount, subsidized or not."
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)
It's a loan, not a cell service contract.
You can cancel your service anytime, just pay up the rest of the principal on the 0% interest loan they're giving you.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly: If you bring your own phone, or pay for your device outright, you have no contract.
Prior to T-Mobile's offering of no-contract plans - if you paid for your phone outright, or brought your own phone - you STILL had to sign up for a contract.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)
Prior to T-Mobile's offering of no-contract plans - if you paid for your phone outright, or brought your own phone - you STILL had to sign up for a contract.
That's true, though it isn't the recent no-contract offering that started it. T-Mobile has been doing it for several years now. My plan has been $20/month cheaper than it otherwise would be ever since I brought my N900 to them three years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate to say it, geekoid is right. It's more like a loan. You're responsible for the total cost of the phone, which they let you pay over time, but that's not tied to a service agreement the same way a normal contract plan is. You pay a bit extra every month until the phone is paid-off -- if you terminate service, then the full amount remaining come due.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Interesting)
This.
It is a loan, cancel service and the loan comes due.
What they should do is let you cancel service and still finance out the phone. That way there is no room for anyone to complain.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can terminate your cell phone service at anytime, with no penalty. Also, once you finish paying for the phone, your bill is reduced.
Example, I have a $65/month plan, and I have a S3 that I'm paying off at @20/mo.
Right now I pay $65+$20/mo. Once the phone is fully paid for, I'll only pay $65/mo (+ all tax/etc. of course). If I cancel my service before I finish paying off the phone, I still have to pay off the phone.
No even remotely the same as a standard cell service contract.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. A couple years ago I decided to upgrade my phone (I was already a T-Mobile customer). After looking at the difference between subsidized plans to paying for a phone outright and getting a month-to-month plan, I decided I'd buy the phone. Anyway, when I told the guy what I wanted to do, he said fine, but also, if I wanted to, I could finance the phone at 0% interest for 20 months and have the MTM plan. That was a no brainer so I took that deal instead of laying out the cash.
It was quite obvious the phone and the plan were separate things. And that's what T-Mobile is still doing. It doesn't seem deceptive at all -- rather, in the spirit of "no good deed goes unpunished" -- they're getting criticized for offering a zero or low percentage interest installment plan. If people don't want to be beholden for the remaining balance, they can just put it on a Visa and pay somewhere between 10 and 5billion percent interest. No matter how you pay for the phone, the plan is still the same MTM plan.
Last point, if you buy a phone with decent specs and build quality, it's going to outlast the repayment term. When I bought my last phone, I got an HTC Amaze -- the speed and quality is such that even after a couple years, I have no desire to replace it. It's worth it to spend money on a good phone.
Re: (Score:2)
1) your monthly payment varies based on the cost of your phone
2) it drops after 20 months (the time they let you spread the payments over, appears to be 24 months now)
3) your "penalty" is based on the price left on your phone, not arbitrary
I think if they are not advertising phones at discounted rates it's all clean, you can, and they will even encourage you to if you want low rates, buy a phone outright and not have any penalty. A galaxy S refurb is under $200, they had some even cheaper phones (some littl
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a contract. It is a contract to pay for the phone over the course of 2 years. The thing that T-Mobile has done is separated the service contract from the phone. You can have a monthly service plan (contract free). You can buy a phone from them, or bring your own phone that you purchased elsewhere. You also have the option of receiving a phone and a loan from them if you sign a contract to pay it back over 2 years.
You can cancel your service any time without a termination fee. You are not able to get out of your agreement to pay for the phone they gave you.
This is orders of magnitude better than what other carriers do. They force you to pay for a new phone with a 2 year service plan whether you get one or not. So everyone gets their "free phone" (that they are already obligated to pay for), and they are also stuck with the same service provider for the next 2 years.
At least with T-mobile you can switch to another carrier. You can even sell your phone on ebay to try to recoup some of the costs if you don't want it anymore.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)
You can even sell your phone on ebay to try to recoup some of the costs if you don't want it anymore.
And for the tl;dr set T-Mobile will even buy the phone back [mytradeins.com] and credit that to what you owe.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Informative)
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Interesting)
This is nonsense. Try doing exactly what you said with Verizon. They won't let arbitrary compatible devices on their network. Call them up to activate and they'll tell you to bring the device to a Verizon store so they can "assess it for compatibility" which just means figure out if you bought it from them or not. If not it magically becomes "incompatible".
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have some direct evidence that they're looking for phones they originally sold, or simply looking to make sure they're legal to
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Interesting)
You're missing the point. Take my case: before switching to T-Mobile, I bought five nexus 4 phones at about 300 a pop. T-Mobile let's me put then on their service for $110 a month for all five lines fully unlimited, and no need for a contract. That's dirt cheap. At&t not so much. At&t I bring my nexus phones over, I still pay as if they subsidized it, which is upwards of $250 a month, AND a have to agree to a two year term. This is where T-Mobile wins, and they shine too.
Thus AG who is complaining about T-Mobile is either a moron or a shill. The later wouldn't surprise me because many politicians are known for granting favors to larger communications providers, and I'll bet that if you look into his campaign finances, there's probably a sprint, Verizon, or at&t line item in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Under the standard cell service contract, they continue charging the higher monthly rate even after the contract expires.
On TMobile, once your device is paid off, the monthly fee is reduced by the amount you were paying for the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Your cost per month goes down once the phone is paid off. Alternately, you can buy (or bring) your phone and pay less each month. No other US carrier offers this unless you go prepay.
Re: (Score:3)
Because this is a contract to buy a phone, not cell service.
Same as buying a washing machine at Sears on time payments.
Sears wants their money regardless of whether or not you are using the machine.
If you can't come up with money to buy a real smartphone up front, perhaps you should stick with a $10 Tracfone.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Insightful)
Same as buying a washing machine at Sears on time payments.
Sears wants their money regardless of whether or not you are using the machine.
Sears does not require you to immediately pay off the entire loan on your washing machine if you decide to stop washing clothes with it.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Interesting)
Many consumer product installment payment contracts have similar accelerated payment clauses which can be triggered by loss or damage to the product, changes in borrowers financial status (miss a payment and it all comes due, for example), etc.
This is a product installment payment contract for a phone you are buying. It is not a cell phone service contract.
Re: (Score:3)
Many consumer product installment payment contracts have similar accelerated payment clauses which can be triggered by loss or damage to the product, changes in borrowers financial status (miss a payment and it all comes due, for example), etc.
What does that have to do with canceling an unrelated service? There is no loss or damage to the phone, there is no change in the phone owner's financial status.
This is a product installment payment contract for a phone you are buying. It is not a cell phone service contract.
A contract that has terms which depend on your use of a service is not a service contract? Doubleplusgood!
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes quite a stretch to call phone service, on a phone, as an "unrelated service". Kudos!
But for the record, those 0% "loans" from Sears on appliances now take the form of a one-time interest free charge on a Discover card. Cancel the card, and yes, it most certainly does come due instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is no contract service. The contract is for a subsidized phone. Unlike, say, Verizon, where you might pay $128 for breaking your contract--ever. Didn't get a subsidized phone? LOL cancellation fee.
I suspect T-Mobile is financing your phone, and rolling it into the bill. Haven't looked, as I don't have a contract.
Re: (Score:3)
After reading the article, I see nothing deceptive. They sell you a phone on a monthly payment plan. You can cancel your service with them at any time but you still owe them for the phone that you bought. That's just basic common sense.
Once again a business is being hassled just because their customers are dishonest and/or stupid.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't get is why T-Mobile doesn't let you continue paying off the phone on a month-by-month basis after you cancel service. That's the part that's potentially deceptive. One would naturally expect that "no contract service" means that your loan on the phone is not tied to that nonexistent contract. The fact that your phone loan is tied to service means that, in fact, it is a service contract, no matter how T-Mobile tries to spin it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they're advertising, but that's not what they're delivering. As long as the loan contract is dependent on continuing service, the service is contractually bound, period.
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:5, Interesting)
It costs tMobile money to make no interest loans.
That's not the reason. The reason is simple: if you cancel service there is no longer any reasonable collateral for the loan on the phone. It is not reasonable for them to have to send someone out to your home to repossess a cell phone. It is very simple for them to turn your service off until you pay your loan. That will be enough stick for most people.
If you've already turned your service off, they have no stick to enforce the loan.
As for this being a contract, it is NOT an annual contract, it is not a contract for phone service. It is a LOAN contract, which you can either accept or not when you get service. You don't have to keep the phone service, and there is no early termination fee for cancelling. YOU have agreed to pay off the phone loan if you cancel your phone service, but you don't have to take a loan to start with, and it seems quite logical and common sense that if you get a phone from someone that you have to pay them for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's deceptive because that was not mentioned in the ad. I mean they could advertize the no-contract service (without phone) and it would be true. They could advertize the payment plan for the phone and it would be true. But when you add no-contract service and payment plan for the phone and call the result "no-contract service" that's no longer true.
And this is a big business, not some small company that cannot hire ad designers (where you could say that this was an honest mistake) - a team of specialists
Re: (Score:2)
The deceptive part is where the phone suddenly is due the moment you cancel your "non-contract" with them. It would be ok if they informed the customer explicitly that this is the case. It would be ok if they kept the monthly plan going until the phone is paid.
The deceptive part is where they can force people who cannot afford paying off their phone instantly into staying with them because they can't afford getting out.
Re: (Score:3)
The deceptive part is where the phone suddenly is due the moment you cancel your "non-contract" with them. It would be ok if they informed the customer explicitly that this is the case.
They advertise no contract cell service and that's what you get. When you sign up with them and agree to buy a phone from them, then at that point you learn that if you cancel your service before you finish paying for the phone that you bought from them., you owe them the balance. T-Mobile may not explicitly put that in their ads -- nobody puts every little detail in their ads -- but I would find it hard to believe that they NEVER disclose this at any point when you sign up with them.
The deceptive part is where they can force people who cannot afford paying off their phone instantly into staying with them because they can't afford getting out.
If you "can't afford
Re: (Score:2)
This is like a car service contract where when you decide you want to get your oil changes from someone else, you have to pay off your car loan. That's a substantially nonstandard contract term that requires more than just incidental mention in some terms and conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
They can't afford to pay those 600 now, which would exactly be the case, though, if they went and left TM as their carrier. And if this is not pointed out explicitly, it is reasonable for the customer to assume that his two years, 50 bucks a month contract keeps running.
If you cancel your service with T-Mobile and go to another carrier, why would any sane person think that the "50 bucks a month contract" would keep running? In fact, most people scream bloody murder if they cancel a service and find out that the "contract" they thought they cancelled kept running.
That's indirectly forcing people into staying with them.
That's directly forcing people to pay off a loan that they agreed to pay off for a product they have been provided. Gosh, how awful. Don't want a balloon payment in a loan? Don't take the loan. Surprised by a bal
Re:exactly the same as Blockbuster (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't done this yet, but I did get as far as "checking out" online to see what it was like, and they pretty clearly display the $20 per month phone charge, as well as the initially-owed amount (ie, $99 for an HTC One). Online purchasing also gives you the option of paying for it entirely up front.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's more deceptive than that.
Who buys phones in installments? I mean, let's be honest here, 500 bucks isn't something that's gonna break my bank, it's about the amount I pull out of the ATM 'cause I'm lazy like that and don't want to go there every other day. But there are people where 500 bucks is their monthly budget. I guess we can assume that people who finance a cellphone ain't going to be found among the infamous 1%.
Now what's our not-quite-1% person going to think? Probably "Can't afford 5
Re: (Score:2)
At least I'm getting scanned out of less money than I was at VZW/ATT.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's sort of the point. T-Mobile might not be great, but it's less not great than most of the competitors.
Personally I'm likely to go with somebody like Sprint or Credomobile next time I need a new phone as they seem to be in less of a position to screw me over than the larger carriers. Plus, I found that Sprint coverage around here was by and large pretty reliable compared with Spotty AT&T coverage.
Re: (Score:3)
"(one bar in my apartment, the tower is 300 feet away, clear LOS.)"
Another anecdotal complaint about service at a specific location.
Whatever the reason, don't you get it? Cell service is imperfect.You can find similar stories for E V E R Y carrier in your area. So if this is a problem that compels you to change carriers, you'll be changing to landlines.
Sorry, but such stories bespeak the sheer ignorance of the complaintant. It's not useful. Let it go, or move out of your brokeass apartment and choose to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised in the least. T-Mobile is too busy scamming people out of their money to think about things like security (celebrity phone hacks) or actually getting a good infrastructure available (one bar in my apartment, the tower is 300 feet away, clear LOS.)
But to be fair, that same tower also carries Verizon, and they get the same service level in my apartment.
Security happens in your phone. To depend on the carrier for anything beyond delivering the signal and keeping your registration info private is just naive. As far as infrastructure goes... it's true, in the past T-Mobile has suffered somewhat on the cell tower side but has improved lately. The last noticeable issue I had compared to other carriers was a couple of years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Washington State AG is an idiot and should learn reading AND comprehension.
Bullshit.
You can be "technically" correct, yet absolutely and blatantly misleading (e.g., "unlimited" internet with low download caps, because unlimited refers to hypothetical download speed, not download amount). He is not saying "false advertising", which it is not. He is saying "deceptive advertising", which it is.
Customers are likely to misunderstand the statement, since people often associate "contract" with "pay termination fee" and will quite likely assume no contract means no-termination fee in th