Why those T-Mobsters couldn't just fall into line with the rest of their national US carrier brethren, we don't know, but here's the skinny: yes, T-Mobile's going to prorate its early termination fees just as it promised to do last year, but the discount schedule is a little shady. Not until the last six months of a contract do you start to see any cash come off that $200 charge, when the ETF drops to $100. At three months it drops to $50, and with less than 30 days left on the contract, you pay the lesser of $50 or your remaining bill. In other words, assuming you're on a two-year plan, you don't see any benefit from this little arrangement until it's already three-quarters of the way spent. That's a far cry from the monthly discounts calculated by some of T-Mobile's competitors -- and likely a far cry from what Kevin has in mind, for that matter -- so with any luck this little scheme will fix itself eventually.

[Via Phone Scoop]

Following prior comments that he supported standardization of early termination fees imposed by carriers, FCC head Kevin Martin went into detail last week at a public hearing on exactly what the Fed has in mind. As he's said before, he wants ETFs to be prorated -- which many carriers are now doing anyway -- and would like customers to be able to go over their first bill before deciding whether they want to slide out of their contract penalty-free. He also raises a point that the fee for breaking a contract on an expensive phone should be higher than that on a cheap or free phone; at first glance that seems logical, though we'd imagine that some of those "free on contract" phones actually end up costing more for a carrier to subsidize than handsets in the $50-and-up set. There's no indication yet that the FCC will actually end up wresting control of the nation's ETF policies, but the way Martin's talking, it certainly seems like they want to.

[Via Phone Scoop]

Just a day after hearing that T-Mobile lost its magenta suit against Telia, more bad news on the legal front has been handed down to the carrier. Just this week, the Supreme Court decided to reject T-Mob's appeal in a trifecta of cases "involving the legal remedies available in millions of cellphone contracts." Each case centered around the same issue: "whether state laws that limit the ability of companies to prohibit consumers from banding together to pursue class action lawsuits are preempted by federal law." In layman's terms, T-Mobile had attempted to ban class actions and require its customers to resolve any gripes via arbitration, which clearly didn't pan out so well. Hit the read link to read the rest, Mr. 1L.

[Via PhoneScoop]

We really, really hope you didn't ink a contract with AT&T over the weekend. If so, casually close your browser and attempt to avoid this post forever. Right on cue, AT&T has implemented its consumer-friendly prorated early termination fee, which enables new and renewing subscribers to have their $175 ETF drop by $5 each month they stick with the carrier and pay their bill. Yeah, the burn rate isn't exactly the greatest -- after all, you'll still owe $60 if you cancel with a month remaining -- but it's certainly a move in the right direction.

[Via phonemag]

Most of the major US carriers have put forth efforts recently to improve the early termination fee situation for their customers, but FCC head Kevin Martin wants to take it still one step further by standardizing the contract provisions at the federal level. The wireless industry is in the midst of proposing a standardized ETF policy, too, and while Martin hasn't indicated whether he likes the existing proposal, its terms make sense and closely match what many carriers have already put together: prorate ETFs over the course of the contract and allow customers to back out within 30 days or 10 days after the first bill is received. At issue, though, is an additional provision that steals regulatory capability from individual states, a line item that many consumer groups don't support -- and for good reason, considering that a number of ETF lawsuits are underway at the state level. It sounds like the FCC is still a while off from forming a meaningful opinion on how this should exactly work, so for the time being, the carrier's own terms are still your bible for jumping out early.

[Via RCR Wireless News]

Nearly half a year after AT&T followed the crowd and announced that it too would be transitioning to a prorated ETF, the details have finally emerged. Starting on May 25th (read: don't ink a new AT&T contract on May 24th), new and renewing subscribers who enter into one- or two-year service agreements will "no longer be required to pay a single, flat early termination fee." Rather, the $175 charge will be lowered each month that one stays in contract by $5, which doesn't exactly zero out after 12 / 24 months, but we reckon it's better than being forced to cough up the full $175 with two months left on your deal. Oh, and those eying a month-to-month / prepaid plan will still find what they're looking for -- sort of a win-win, yeah?

MVNO Virgin Mobile is taking a rather unusual approach to advertising its new plan features and pricing structures unveiled today, pointing out that they provide "smarter choices in a tough economy." For monthly plans, those "smarter choices" include unlimited nights and weekends starting at 7pm (well, we suppose weekends start at 12am, but you get what we mean) and unlimited messaging for a reasonable $10 monthly. Prepaid plans, meanwhile, are now offering the capability to "roll forward" up to 5,000 unused minutes when the account is re-upped within 30 days. Minute packs are now available in $20, $30, and $50 increments equaling 200, 400, and 1,000 minutes, respectively, knocking the per-minute price down to 5 cents at the highest level. The new goodies are all available immediately.

[Via Phone Scoop and MobileTechNews]

Simmer down, Verizon subscribers. A trial date has yet to be set, but apparently, an arbitrator has "certified a huge class action against Verizon Wireless" that could cost it nearly $1 billion in refunds of early termination fees. Reportedly, this case marks the "largest class ever certified in arbitration, with approximately 70 million members of the subscriber class." Essentially, the lawsuit is attempting to extract refunds for hordes of VZW customers that were charged with "illegal ETFs," and while a company spokesperson unsurprisingly declined comment, we're hearing that the trial could get going as early as mid-2008. That's two, who's next?

[Image courtesy of Spusa]

So Sprint busted out this really lovey-dovey press release today basically going over all the ways it takes care of its customers -- how you can upgrade your phone at a discounted price if you've stuck with 'em for a while, how they monitor your plan to make sure you're on the best one for your usage, and so on -- but there were a couple gems in there that are new and notable. First off, Sprint has announced here that they're moving to prorated early termination fees, bringing it inline now with all three of the US' other national carriers. Like T-Mobile, it intends to flip the switch on that action in early 2008. Secondly, starting next Monday, customers won't need to re-up their contracts to switch plans (why this was ever a requirement with any carrier simply bewilders us). Finally, the carrier says it plans to announce some "reward programs" next year for subscribers that've stuck with Sprint through thick and thin. No details there, but if they're gonna do up some crazy awesome plans and upgrade discounts (even better ones than it already has, that is), we're all for it.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Yep, sure enough, the prorated ETF craze is sweeping the nation. T-Mobile is the latest national US carrier to announce that customers will see their early termination fees decline over the length of their contracts, an obvious effort to stem a groundswell of hate getting launched in carriers' directions lately regarding contracts, ETF policies, and other miscellany regarded as unfair in consumer advocacy circles. One little snag, though: T-Mobile's just announcing its intention to move to prorated ETFs here; they're still crossing their T's and dotting their I's on the new legalese, it seems, and it's expected to take effect in the first half of next year.

Looks like someone doesn't want their free-on-contract handset too badly! The California Supreme Court has thrown down its seal of approval to proceed with a lawsuit challenging a couple basic principles of carrier subsidies -- locked handsets and early termination fees -- with T-Mobile begin named as the lucky defendant this time around. The carrier had previously tried to get the case thrown out (as all good corporate lawyers should) by pointing out that its contracts require customer disputes to be arbitrated rather than taken to court, but the plaintiff's legal team successfully argued that the claims they were bringing against T-Mobile weren't arbitrable. So help us out here: what does a "win" for the public good constitute in this case, court-compelled unlocks and penalty-free contract terminations or the continued availability of heavily-subsidized handsets? Is the prorated ETF a good compromise?

Remember when a la carte messaging fees started to go up earlier this year and a couple carriers started to test the waters with unlimited texting plans, it ended up sweeping the whole freaking industry in a matter of a few months? Looks like the move to prorated early termination fees could be the next big move, with AT&T following Verizon away from hefty fines for canceling plans mid-contract. The company has announced that ETFs will be lower the further you are into your agreement period to offer subscribers "more flexibility," while folks simply wanting to change their plans -- not their carriers -- will no longer be required to agree to new terms. Any other carriers want to join the bandwagon?

[Via Phone Scoop]

Though you may be used to hearing Alltel boast of its consumer-friendly policy that enables users to change their plan at anytime without requiring a contract extension, now would be a good time to gear up for lots of similar chatter from Verizon. Reportedly, Verizon Wireless will soon allow its users to change up their plans mid-contract without asking them to sign on for any additional time, which should thoroughly excite those customers who've been regretting their plan decision since day two. So go on, Verizon customers, start scoping out which plan best fits your current lifestyle, because the new rule goes into effect on October 7th.

[Thanks, Kiwi616]

We've yet to find an average joe (or jane) who just adores that two-year agreement they signed to receive a single subsidized device on day one, and while Sprint hasn't been one to let folks off the hook early, it is trying a slightly different approach with Xohm. Reportedly, the carrier will be relying on "subscriptions," which will enable customers to save more when paying for larger chunks of time, while not forcing them into anything long-term. On the same token, this also means that you'll likely be paying full price for any hardware. Notably, the outfit's CTO also made clear that Xohm "would not be backed by what the industry calls service-level agreements," so don't count on any kind of minimum bandwidth guarantee. As for pricing, the numbers are apparently still being worked, but it was suggested that the service would "probably be based on tiers."

[Via TechDirt, image courtesy of BroadbandReports]

If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling holds up, that is. Basically, the court found that a clause in AT&T's (Cingular's at the time, actually) customer contract forcing customers to arbitrate instead of sue via class action was uncool -- "unconscionable under California law" was their exact wording, but you get the idea. We guess AT&T was looking to avoid having to make pesky public statements about lawsuits filed against it, and hey, who can blame 'em? Nice try, guys! [Warning: PDF link]

[Via Wired]