http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/...ome=1215820321
By Walaika Haskins
CRM Buyer
Part of the ECT News Network
07/11/08 12:23 PM PT
Verizon has settled multiple lawsuits directed at the company with a $21
million payout. The lawsuits focused on Verizon's early termination fees
for wireless users. Other carriers are facing similar lawsuits, and some
have changed their policies.
BuyDomains is the world's leading marketplace for premium domains with over
800,000 domain names for sale. BuyDomains' domain experts have helped
thousands of businesses locate the perfect domain - let us help yours!
Verizon Wireless has agreed to a US$21 million payout to settle lawsuits
alleging that the wireless carriers' early termination fees (ETFs) were too
high and unfair to consumers.
While Verizon has not admitted any wrongdoing in the case, the
multi-million dollar settlement covers not only a California-based class
action lawsuit but a variety of cases pending across the country as well.
The decision comes against the backdrop of the recent Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) hearings held in June, as the government
agency and Congress examine the fees customers must pay when they cancel a
wireless phone contract before it expires. The costs can range from $150 to
more than $200. The decision also comes as Sprint (NYSE: S) awaits a
verdict in a similar case in California.
"Ours covers all the similar lawsuits nationally, not just in California.
We wanted to put this behind us. Sprint is defending their current ETF
practices, while we changed our ETF policy two years ago. So this is
irrelevant to today and doesn't have anything to do with the way we handle
ETFs today," Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless spokesperson, told CRM Buyer.
Depends on How You Look At It
One's stance on ETFs depends on one's worldview, according to Bill Hughes,
an In-Stat analyst.
One viewpoint is that "ETFs are just another tool used by evil companies
that are looking to exploit the naiveté of consumers caught up in a system
that they cannot hope to understand. It is the proper role of the
government to protect these simple rubes," he explained.
Another viewpoint, he said, sees consumers as logical decision-makers that,
while influenced by merchandising techniques such as those provided by
wireless operators, are perfectly capable of entering into contracts, and
only sub-optimal results can come from governmental interference in
abrogating valid commercial contracts for political reasons.
In reality, however, most people seem to fall somewhere in between the two,
though the first worldview makes for good press, he told CRM Buyer.
"It is currently an issue relating to the sub-prime mortgage situation in
addition to ETFs," Hughes pointed out.
While Hughes acknowledged trending more toward the latter view, FCC
Chairman Kevin Martin -- who has affirmed his belief in the fees -- seems
to fall more toward the middle. During the hearings in June, the FCC head
voiced his concern that ETFs are not being used by wireless operators to
offset costs, "but as a means of locking consumers into a service
provider."
The wireless operators contend, however, that the fees help make up for the
subsidies the companies offer customers when they purchase a mobile handset
with a standard two-year contract. For example, AT&T (NYSE: T) charges new
subscribers with a two-year contract as little as $199 for the new 3G
iPhone. Meanwhile, subscribers who refuse to be tied to AT&T for 24 months
can purchase the same handset for $599.
"The way some [state] government[s] have addressed the merchandising
technique of subsidies is to ban them altogether as being anti-competitive.
California was one of the governments that had this position. In the early
1990s, wireless operators did not offer subsidies in California," Hughes
explained.
Most carriers, including Verizon, have altered their ETF policies and
implemented the practice of prorating the fees based on the length of time
remaining on the contract.
"All in all, $21 million to get out of a lawsuit is not that much of a
ticket to pay. Perhaps the answer is that all wireless operators will stop
having subsidies in California. Still another possibility is that the
outcome of the FCC ruling on ETFs could make the California laws moot,"
Hughes concluded, though he said the latter outcome was doubtful.