If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
Treos for an end-user cost of $75.

Contracts certainly can be voided in the case of fraud, which is what is
happening in this situation. People badgering the customer service center,
making up sob stories, manufacturing problems until they get every service
credit and discount available.

The relevant section of Sprint's Contract:

>>>>
Our Right To Suspend Or Terminate Services

We can, without notice, suspend or terminate any Service at any time for any
reason, including, but not limited to: (a) late payment; (b) exceeding an
Account Spending Limit (“ASL”); (c) harassing/threatening our employees or
agents; (d) providing false information; (e) interfering with our
operations; (f) using/suspicion of using Services in any manner restricted
by or inconsistent with the Agreement; (g) breaching the Agreement,
including our Policies; (h) providing false, inaccurate, dated or
unverifiable identification or credit information, or becoming insolvent or
bankrupt; (i) modifying a Device from its manufacturer specifications; or
(j) if we believe the action protects our interests, any customer's
interests or our network.
<<<<

If New York's Ms. Bockstein wants to make a stand for the downtrodden
consumer, where is she when Verizon is disconnecting people (and charging
them ETF!) for using their so-called "unlimited" data plan to stream YouTube
videos? Gosh, could it be that Verizon's corporate headquarters is at 140
West St. in Manhatten? Nah. That would just be too transparent, wouldn't it?

"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4697f5c3$0$4710$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> All well and good but they could just drop them at the expiration of the
> contract. A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
> only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination? Regardless
> of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an unbalance in
> the contract that should be rectified.