AP Examines Just How Ridiculous ISP Contracts Are

from the just-so-you-know dept

We recently learned that customers of Verizon's FiOS service don't get to see the full terms of service they're agreeing to until after it's been installed. But, of course, no one actually reads those kinds of things, because if you did, you'd probably never agree to it. To help you out, the Associated Press took some time to read through various ISP end user license agreements (EULAs) and discovered that ISPs put a ton of ridiculous stuff in the fine print, which is basically to give them many different options to kick you off if they suddenly decide you've become a problem. Or, in some cases, it's because lawyers want to protect the ISPs from ridiculous lawsuits, which leads them to put in clauses warning customers that the ISP (in this case, Verizon) doesn't own the internet, so that people know they can't sue Verizon for something that happens online. Verizon recently removed that clause, apparently realizing that it was a bit extraneous.

Filed Under: contracts, eulas, isps, terms of use
Companies: verizon

Verizon Wireless's Outrage Over Alltel Ad A Bit Misplaced

from the bad-timing-is-all dept

Having just run into its own problems with false advertising, Verizon Wireless is now suing competitor Alltel, claiming false advertising in its commercials. The ads, such as the one here, make fun of Verizon Wireless and other mobile operators for forcing people to extend their contracts whenever they make changes, and claim that one of Alltel's advantage is the lack of such requirements. Verizon Wireless doesn't just claim that this is wrong, its spokesperson states: "Whatever merit this comparison may have to other carriers, in the case of Verizon Wireless, the supposed 'advantage' is pure fiction." "Pure fiction" is a pretty strong claim, and it would be a lot stronger if it hadn't been absolutely true until just a couple months ago. Verizon Wireless did, in fact, force people to extend contracts, and only stopped the practice back in October when Sprint got sued over doing the same thing. And, of course, the Alltel ads began running well before Verizon was pressured into making this change. So, while it's technically accurate that these ads are false advertising now, it seems a bit excessive to describe them as "pure fiction," when they were absolutely true until just a few months ago.

Filed Under: contracts, early termination fees, mobile operators
Companies: alltel, verizon

Sprint Realizes That People Hate Forced Contracts, Early Termination Fees

from the making-it-a-choice dept

It's become quite clear that people absolutely hate the forced two year contracts and early termination fees from mobile operators. It appears that some of the operators are finally getting the message. In discussing how it's going to offer its eventual WiMax offering, Sprint is now saying that there will be no mandatory contracts with early termination fees -- instead, it will be voluntary, based on a sliding price scale. In other words, if you're willing to take a longer contract, it'll be much cheaper. If you don't want a contract, that's fine, but you'll pay more per month. That seems perfectly reasonable and fits with typical pricing systems that lets the customer figure out how much the flexibility is worth to them. It's about time someone started offering this. Hopefully the other operators take the hint and start offering something similar for their regular phone service.

Filed Under: contracts, early termination fees, wireless
Companies: sprint

Faking Death To Get Out Of Mobile Phone Contracts

from the you-think-maybe-there's-a-problem? dept

The introduction of local number portability was supposed to force mobile operators to improve their customer service, since now it would be easier for upset customers to simply jump to a competing carrier. Instead, it seems to have only increased the use of early termination fees that the mobile operators charge if you leave a contract early. To be fair, often these ETFs come into play when the customer has purchased a heavily subsidized mobile phone -- which sounds fair. However, the number of irate mobile users who find themselves facing huge bills just because they want to switch mobile operators suggests that the practice isn't doing much good for the reputations of mobile operators. In fact, it's so bad that some folks are willing to play dead in an effort to fool mobile operators into canceling the contract without charging the ETF -- though, as we've noted in the past, there have been times when even death wouldn't get you out of paying. It would seem to make sense for mobile operators to be a bit more understanding. Verizon Wireless, to its credit, prorates early termination fees, so the closer you are to the end of your contract, the less it costs. It's unclear why the other mobile operators haven't come up with anything similar. Perhaps they really think that locked-in but pissed-off customers are better than happy, loyal customers.

Filed Under: contracts, early termination fees, mobile operators
Companies: verizon wireless

Court Pushes Back A Bit On Unilateral EULA Changes

from the well,-that's-good dept

When we launched the public beta of the Techdirt Insight Community, one of the things we tried to be very careful about was the terms of service. We wanted to avoid a lot of the annoying things you find in many of the terms of service. It took two separate law firms and (not joking) one special two hour meeting explaining that the terms of service needed to actually be for the benefit of the user, rather than positioning us against the user, but eventually things worked out. One of the things the lawyers came back with initially was a clause saying that we could change the terms at any time and it was the users' responsibility to check. That seemed pretty lame. In fact, our product development team had already set up our system so that any changes to the terms alerts the user and will not allow them to login to the service without agreeing to the new terms. I'll admit that our terms still suggest that the user check the terms for changes, but it also lets them know that they'll be alerted to changes as well. It's good that we did this, because as Greg Beck alerts us, a court has ruled that websites can't unilaterally change contracts on customers and claim it's the users' responsibility to check for changes. Eric Goldman gives his take on the case as well. This is something that should be obvious, but apparently wasn't. In an age of EULAs that no one ever reads, it's good to see the courts recognizing that it may be a bit ridiculous to consider them binding -- at least in some specific cases.

Filed Under: contracts, courts, websites