Verizon Charged Marine's Widow an Early Termination Fee 489
In a decision that was reversed as soon as someone with half a brain in their PR department learned about it, Verizon charged a widow a $350 early termination fee. After the death of her marine husband, Michaela Brummund decided to move back to her home town to be with her family. Verizon doesn't offer any coverage in the small town so Michaela tried to cancel her contract, only to be hit with an early termination fee. From the article: "'I called them to cancel. I told them the situation with my husband. I even said I would provide a death certificate,' Michaela said."
Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is actually very courteous by corporate (and especially telecom) standards.
If you check their contract they probably have the right to repossess your corpse's organs to cover early termination fees in case of your death.*
*Only half kidding.
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, lots of people die every day for lots of reasons, some people jerk off with a belt around their neck and go too far. Other people try to have sex with a barnyard animal and get kicked in the head. Yet others get into a car wreck because they are sexting an underage boy and die in a fire.
But *this* woman's husband died serving our country, while getting paid less than a garbage man in most large cities.Whether you agree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, our military has a long and honorable history of protecting us (and much of the rest of the world), and when a soldier dies in combat, a certain reverence (or at least decorum) is in order. What Verizon did was just tacky, and I am glad they reversed course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't really matter HOW you die, it's just grim against the family/friends of that family to impose fees like that.
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say he's an E-2. According to the 2010 Military Pay Table located here [dfas.mil] he'd be making 1622.10 a month before the bonuses. His BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) as an E-2 with a dependent is 619.50. Add to that his family separation allowance of $250 (since I assume he was away from his wife). According to the pay table, his hazard pay (assuming he wasn't on an air crew or in a submarine or something like that) is $150. The BAQ allowance would vary based on where he lives assuming his wife lived off base when he deployed. But that would essentially just cover housing costs. So he makes a grand total of approximately 2641.6 a month to defend our country, assuming he's an E-2 with typical years in service for an E-2. That sounds like a lot, but then let's look at the parent's claim that he makes less than a typical garbage man in a large city. Searched at random for a large city's sanitation work site, found this [nyc.gov] for New York. They start off making 31,200 a year. Assuming they get paid bi-monthly, that's 1300.00 every paycheck, or 2600 a month, right off the bat, and can increase to as much as slightly over 67,000. So right off the bat, a garbage man makes, without accounting for any benefits, just slightly less than an E-2 who is married, in a combat zone, and lives on base. As the increases for the sanitation workers is periodic, and judging the fact that within 5.5 years they are making near or at their cap (a cap that enlisted won't reach for some time even with benefits), I'd say that his claim is valid (and rather sad).
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the person who was discussing that they make a lot of money or that they get a check for their life insurance. Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income? Yes Verizon has their loss now that the poor guy isn't going to be using the phone monthly and they can't collect that fee. I am sorry for that but when someone dies in any respect you w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income?
From a VA fact sheet, dated 2004, the VA pays the surviving spouse $967 month plus $241 per each child until that person turns 57 or remarries. It's probably more than that now.
http://dva.state.wi.us/Webforms/Data_Factsheets/survivor_benefits.pdf [state.wi.us]
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Informative)
E-3, Lance Corporal, according to insignia in picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_rank_insignia#Enlisted [wikipedia.org]
$83/mo more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Basic theory of national defence: fight your wars on someone else's soil. Otherwise you'll be fighting them on your soil.
Except that these were countries that we had no quarrel with and no reason to go to war with. If we didn't attack them, they would not have attacked us. Those wars were fought over politicians personal agendas, just like the current one.
Also, fun fact - did you know that without explicit Congressional approval, it is unconstitutional for the US to have a standing military in a time of peace? Kind of explains why ever since WWII the government has always had some bogus excuse for a perpetual war or "polic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would also argue that a garbage man does more to serve 'our country' than participate in a war of aggression.
Soldiers are putting their lives on the line. Garbage men do not.
I could understand comparing soldiers to firemen or policemen (though even then it would be interesting to look at the stats for how risky each is... somehow, I suspect firemen are most likely to get hurt).
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
heya,
And you sir, must be an Anonynous Coward...oh wait...you are...
Look, you may or may not have had respect for the last Administration. But this guy decided to leave his family, go over there, and serve his country. He was fighting the Taliban, the same folks who harboured Osama, who err, let's see, bombed the World Trade Centre? I'm Australian, but last time I checked, that incident killed quite a few of you folk.
Look, I know it's hip and trendy for us to sit here comfortably in our offices, and our homes, with air-conditioning, decent food, and nice suits, whilst people on the other side of the world are risking their lives, but seriously mate, get some class...
I think the coward label is most apt here.
Also, corporate apologist? What the heck has that got to do with anything? *sigh* You American left-wing nutjobs really amuse me. You try to see a conspiracy in everything. Is Verizon in cohorts with the Taliban? Or are they in cohorts with Haliburton? Or I don't know, is somebody in cohorts with someobdy else? And where did the Republican tag come from?
And military bootlicker, please...He was just a kid who went over there to defend his country? It's all very well and good to talk down the military while you're sitting comfortably, in your anonymity there, but I'd like you to go up to a war-widom and say that to her face. She'd probably break you into little pieces and make you weep like a little boy....now that'd be a sight..
Cheers,
Victor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Look, you may or may not have had respect for the last Administration. But this guy decided to leave his family, go over
> there, and serve his country. He was fighting the Taliban, the same folks who harboured Osama, who err, let's see,
> bombed the World Trade Centre? I'm Australian, but last time I checked, that incident killed quite a few of you folk.
How about if I don't have respect for this administration, now. Or the one before the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that...
T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ehh, I can see both sides.
On the one hand, hey, that was the contract.
On the other, your husband just died. You have to deal with the arrangements, family, cancelling everything else he had, all on top of grieving. That's when Verizon basically says, I don't care about your loss, we want the ETF and here is your bill.
That being said, I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it. Then again, from a business perspective, I'd probably just ask for a fax of a death certificate and
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is as it should be, in my strong opinion. Contracts are contracts, but the law supercedes contractual terms. Law exists to protect the rights of citizens, and military service personnel are certainly very worthy of this type of protection. If there is not legal protection for something like a cell phone service contract, there should be. And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh for fucks sake, chill. It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision. Not exactly an executive decision.
But when the executive decision came down, Verizon ended up making it right, which is how things are supposed to work, right? And they are "assholes" for that?
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a major failure in the way the company is structured then.
If you don't have a system that allows people with insight and power to make decisions that affect your customers without the latter going to the media and crying foul, you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
If "low paid drones" don't feel empowered enough to use their head on a very obvious issue, that's a management problem. And the blame for that is correctly placed at the top of the organizational pyramid. I stand by my remarks
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But how can you personify and hyperbolize the actions of corporations when you look at it so realistically? That doesn't make for a good news story.
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Funny)
This low level decision appears to be the norm. We ran into it when my mother-in-law passed. We solved the problem by submitting a forward phone and address of her final resting place. Her old apartment address is no longer valid. I think they soon got the message that she moved and is not replying to letters and can't take a phone call. They are welcome to drop in and visit.
droid vs droid (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for fucks sake, chill. It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision. Not exactly an executive decision.
You can bet your life it was an executive decision to staff the call center with low-paid droids incapable of acting on moral discretion. This is the business model they choose to create, where 99% of their interaction with the public is through low-paid droids incapable of moral discretion.
On this model, getting publicly burned in effigy once every six months is a normal cost of business. The phone companies have taken it upon themselves to function as the bulwark of enculturated infantilism (few cost-up-
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Insightful)
"It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision."
You're absolutely right. But what is happening to us as a species when these drones are so concerned with "following the rules" that they can't show some human compassion? I am really sick and tired of drones who can't/won't help, even on a basic, simple request, because the rulebook says 'no'.
Having worked customer (dis)service, it generally comes down to:
I'm sorry, but given the options most customer service representatives can choose from, they will undoubtedly go with the "cover your ass" approach to insulate themselves being detrimentally effected by poor decision-making. Was it right to charge an ETF to a grieving widow? No. But in business contracts are king. You signed it, deal with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"It was some low paid drone in a call center who made the original decision."
You're absolutely right. But what is happening to us as a species when these drones are so concerned with "following the rules" that they can't show some human compassion? I am really sick and tired of drones who can't/won't help, even on a basic, simple request, because the rulebook says 'no'.
Having worked customer (dis)service, it generally comes down to:
I'm sorry, but given the options most customer service representatives can choose from, they will undoubtedly go with the "cover your ass" approach to insulate themselves being detrimentally effected by poor decision-making. Was it right to charge an ETF to a grieving widow? No. But in business contracts are king. You signed it, deal with it.
Obviously, you have never worked in customer service or if you have, you didn't last very long because you're too stupid for the job.
Let me show you how it's done:
Option C: Escalation. Call your manager over and ask him/her what to do. If they say bill the widow, you say, "Although I'm not qualified to make that decision, I don't agree with the decision you have made here. Since the decision is yours, either you tell her yourself of tell me, i writing or email, exactly what it is you want me to tell thi
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt the "drone" would even have the ability to waive the fee. I am certain they don't give that authority to anyone taking calls, and I seriously doubt even their managers have that authority themselves.
So unless the "drone" was willing to pay the $350 out of his/her own pocket it just wouldn't happen.
Unfortunately, to the modern day corporation, customer support is a problem to be disposed of as cheaply as possible. That means encouraging the people working the phones to get the customer to go way as quickly and cheaply as possible. If they allow people at the call center (almost always outsourced) to give refunds and waive fees, increases costs. Much more profitable to have the call center give people the run around until they give up. And tell the call center that is someone from the media calls to direct those to a people who do have extra authority.
Here's a tip: if you want to get awesome support for so piece of technology, when you call, say "I'm writing a review for ." They'll bend over backwards for you. If you aren't in the media no corporation will give a shit about your problem. Your problem isn't their problem. Their problem is to get rid of you.
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Insightful)
And Verizon should be shamed for this asinine handling of the situation. Not only was he actively serving and quite busy... but he fucking died for Christ's sake. Assholes
Devil's advocate time.
Michaela Brummund canceled Michaela Brummund's cell phone contract with Verizon because Michaela Brummund decided to move somewhere Verizon didn't service.
So why is it unreasonable to assess an ETF? Oh. Because of why she decided to move. Her husband is dead.
So if someone's spouse dies and they decide to up and move, contractual obligation cease? Oh. It's because of why her husband was dead.
So if my wife dies of cancer and I decide to become a hermit and live in a cave, I should pay an ETF but if she dies employed by the military I shouldn't? What if she's a school-bus driver and dies in an accident after decades of serving children? Because one death is inherently more important than another. No. I'm sorry, it's not.
I'm glad that Verizon cut her a break. That's great. But there's nothing inherently right in doing so. It's just a PR gesture.
Monopolists' contracts of adhesion (Score:3, Informative)
I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it.
Do you also believe in antitrust law and public utility regulation? Some goods and services considered essential for the expected standard of living in the United States are available only from monopolies[1] and cartels that impose questionably-conscionable contracts of adhesion on their customers. So I don't know how one would live in the United States without signing such a contract, except perhaps by joining the Amish.
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it.
A big part of the problem is that Verizon is allowed to unilaterally change the terms of the contract, but the consumer is not. In fact, it was such a change to the contract that led to this incident:
"Effective April the 26th, 2010 Early Termination Fees are no longer waived if a consumer moves out of our digital calling area coverage map. This means for customers whom have lost jobs and must relocate, people with immigration status and are liable to leave, or anyone who may otherwise relocate, is now subject to the ETF of $175 or $350, depending on device. " Source [nytimes.com]
Interestingly, there is an official exception for deployed military personnel, but (apparently) not for soldiers killed in action.
Of course, one could argue "don't sign a contract that allows Verizon to change the terms" but every consumer contract these days contains such a clause, so what do you do?
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Informative)
The contract was signed by the woman, not her husband. Not that I'm drawing judgment one way or the other, just saying that the person under contract did not die.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations, You have successfully completed de facto school of business.
Re:Simple really... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're allowed to choose how much coverage you get. As of a few years ago, it went from a minimum of roughly 250k up to somewhere near a million, with correspondingly expensive premiums.
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Informative)
No where near the experience I had with T-Mobile (Score:5, Insightful)
I had my sister on my T-Mobile account and she had purchased a new Android phone through the T-Mobile store. She died last year and it took me a few months to get around to calling T-Mobile to terminate the contract on her phone.
The T-Mobile customer service representative was very understanding and sympathetic and waived any disconnect penalties or outstanding balance on the phone purchase. She had even offered to see if she could backdate the service termination a few months. I told her that was not necessary as it was my own reticence to close the account (you know, the finality of death and wrapping up the details of someone's life).
Over the years little experiences like that with T-Mobile have made me a very loyal customer. It seems that someone still remembers how to treat their customers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since we're sharing anecdotes, here's my T-Mobile experience.
Had a 2 year contract but was planning to move out of the country. I talked with a rep at one of their stores and was told if they don't offer service in the new country I can cancel service without an early termination fee, also I need proof of address in the new country. No problem, the rep also offers to suspend service for up to 6 months while I make my initial move, get proof of address and come back for final paperwork. Sweet, so no charg
Re:Simple really... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.
And why does the fact that her husband died mean that she shouldn't have to pay for her cellphone bill? I'd understand if it was HIS phone that she was deactivating (they aren't allowed to charge an ETF for cancelling the service of someone who's dead), but it was HER phone she was cancelling because she chose to move to a place where she wouldn't get service.
Her husband dying is completely irrelevant to the issue with Verizon charging her an ETF as was stated in her contract. The issue here is a woman decided of her own volition to move to a place where she wouldn't get service with Verizon and as such, she canceled her contract early. Instead of paying the ETF as she should, she uses a sob story about how her husband died (which had no impact on the phone bill, since we're only talking about canceling HER phone) and as such, she shouldn't be expected to pay her bills and fulfill her legal obligations.
I accidentally broke my phone and decided to change carriers when I got a new one - I paid the ETF without complaint. Paying an ETF on a broken phone is much more ridiculous than paying an ETF because you decide to move where you know you won't get service.
I know, I'll get modded down because people want to say "But her husband died!" - yes, he did, and that sucks for her big time. I'd hate to have something like that happen to me. However, it doesn't change the fact that she still has to pay her bills and uphold her end of the contract.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the company responded saying, " Verizon Wireless has long supported our troops.... Our thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Brummund and her family."
Huh. So Verizon, as a company, now has a public opinion, not only on supporting our troops, but on the effectiveness of prayer?
Am I being overly sensitive, or is that just a bit odd?
That's not odd to me at all. Companies have professed opnions about god knows what for ages. What is worrying to me is they seem to think the company has a personal relationship with god/jesus/the-holy-ghost-too? and presumably an immortal soul. If true, this might just turn me to a life of virtue; I am not spending eternity with SCO!
Let your wallet speak. (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow the leader... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why its bad to give zero authority to the peons at the bottom of your organization. In an effort to restrict decisions to higher-ups and make low-level decisions 95% predictable, you get bit in the ass with bad PR that can cost millions in damages, only because the first two or three people closest to the customer aren't allowed to make braindead obvious decisions.
You can almost always tell a corporate culture by calling their customer support.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those with no decision power CAN escalate it up the food chain to someone that does.
Re:Follow the leader... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they can. And after they've done that a few times, they can be invited to seek out exciting new opportunities as a Hygiene Technician (Fryer Specialist) at Burger King.
What does being a widow have to do with anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I'm sure Verizon should have been more flexible here, but not because she was a widow. Because the early termination fee is unfair in this circumstance. Do others get to be treated unfairly because they haven't had a bereavement?
Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah man, this is America. Pay up.
No, no, I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom, and the loss of his income changed your lifestyle. Hell, I don't care if you're homeless and struggling to make ends meet. I don't give a shit if the taxes you or your parents paid in 10 years ago helped fund the infrastructure that enabled me to make this money in the first place.
This is America. I am a corporation with infinite rights. You're just a speck on my quarterly report.
Pay up.
Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin (Score:4, Interesting)
Does she also get away without paying her credit card bills? Perhaps she bought something for her husband. Will Visa refund that one since she no longer needs it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There shouldn't be an ETF. If you finance your phone through the phone company, that should be a separate line-item on your bill, and you should only have to pay off the balance to get out of the contract.
Phone companies are dipping into the paypal level of scumminess here: they're playing the "unregulated bank" game so they can charge usury interest (and continue to charge premiums even *after* the balance is 100% paid off!)
In a better world? Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.
We have literally got to the point in this country where even the immediate families of dead soldiers are treated like shit if they haven't got money. Visa and Verizon are raking in record profits, and the could afford to forgive debts to dead soldiers if they wanted to. But it's far more important to bonus their board of directors for continuing to shit on the population at large.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.
Yes, but why should we expect Verizon to be responsible for providing benefits to veterans if we can't get our own fucking government to do the right thing? You think that Verizon should somehow grow the conscience that the Senate doesn't have?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then check the SLGI, the life insurance plan for the military. You are told when you enlist to check the box, you're told before you deploy to check the box, you're told repeatedly throughout your military career to "check the fuck
Re:In a better world? Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
"Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives?"
Widows and widowers are eligible (chicks get killed too):
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/casualty/blgratuity.htm [about.com]
There is also SGLI, which all but utter idiots retain (it's opt-out).
http://www.insurance.va.gov/sglisite/sgli/sgli.htm [va.gov]
Easier to read fact sheet:
http://www.navymutual.org/ServicemembersGroupLifeInsuranceSGLI.asp [navymutual.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the OP's point was aside from the PR damage why should being a war widow get you out of a contract for free? The ability to break contracts due to "exceptional circumstances" should be enshrined in law*, and not just happen due to the court of public opinion. Because we all know if Verizon couldn't provide the service for some reason or decided the customer wasn't worth the fee they would drop them like a rock and the customer would have no legal recourse.
* Also it should be illegal to only offer "free
Re:What does being a widow have to do with anythin (Score:4, Interesting)
That is correct. The thing is, this behavior is encoded in a corporation's DNA. Corporations only understand money. They are organisms designed to extract money from their environment and give it to their owners. That's it.
Any expectation for a corporation to have a "moral code" comparable to human morals is unrealistic and naive.
Yes, by law, corporations are "persons."
Invincible, inhuman "persons," with no morals, no feelings, no compassion, programmed to extract money at any cost.
Sometimes I wonder if corporations can be viewed as parasitic life using humans to create suffering and transform it into an abstraction (the idea of value represented by the agreement of money).
The tendency to convert all natural resources, human lives and creativity into abstract numbers stored in computers leads humanity towards a future where we will have only money left on a toxic dead planet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your imagery here is certainly interesting and somewhat entertaining, but IMHO, the idea that a 'corporation' is necessarily and naturally devoid of humanity and moral code is absolutely bullshit.
A society is composed of a collection of individuals who may or may not be working towards a common goal (typically they are, such as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"). This collection of individuals always has some composite set of morals, even if they are few and mild. The stronger the moral compass o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, verizon should be more reasonable in general, especially when the contract is being cancelled because they provide no coverage where it's needed.
The fact that they would be such bastards even to the widow of a veteran just demonstrates the extent of their inhumanity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know when my grandmother died, we had just helped her renew her AT&T contract a month before. I called AT&T from her phone and requested to cancel the service and asked how much the ETF would be. The girl on the phone acted surprised I'd even asked. She essentially told me that they would never charge an ETF for a line for someone that had passed away, mostly because they didn't want to cause any more hardship on the family. I'm sure thats crap and its just that they can't really hold a deceased p
Early termination (Score:5, Funny)
Death is a form of early termination. Doesn't death let you out of any contracts you are in by law?
Re:Early termination (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't death let you out of any contracts you are in by law?
Yes, but that doesn't mean your estate is off the hook. If you have any assets in your name when you die, those assets must be applied to any outstanding debts. That is what probate is all about. The reminder goes to your heirs.
Re:Early termination (Score:5, Informative)
Free Marketroid Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
"She should have predicted this when she signed up for Verizon"
--
BMO
The evil of early termination fees (Score:4, Informative)
Early termination fees are simply part of the way service providers effectively finance equipment purchases at above market prices and at exorbitant rates of interest, while hiding that fact from the user as much as possible.
Re:The evil of early termination fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Early termination fees are simply part of the way service providers effectively finance equipment purchases at above market prices and at exorbitant rates of interest, while hiding that fact from the user as much as possible.
Someone made an observation last week that I thought was especially telling (wish I could credit the source). I'm basically paraphrasing here ..
I get through the 2 year contract which pays for the phone. So how come my rates don't go down in the third year if I keep the same phone?
I'm with Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)
It's that she decided to up and move and canceled the contract because where she decided to move didn't have service. That, is her fault only.
Re:I'm with Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)
Would be a more appropriate, albeit less sensational headline.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Early Termination Fee (Score:4, Interesting)
The Early Termination fee is two things. One, it's a way for the company to recoup their costs of you running off with a smart phone that retails for $500+. Two, it's a way for them to ensure that none of their sheep go running off to other pastures as soon as they look a little greener. They've pretty much figured out that two years is the optimal length for a contract. Long enough to where you'll have their income coming in for a while and can make plans around that, but short enough to where you'll splurge for the most expensive phone every two years (with new two year contract, of course!) because you've had two years to save up for it.
I think a reboot of the cell phone industry really needs to happen here in the United States. I can go to Walmart right now and buy a prepaid phone for $20 or so with lots of features. Or I can go buy the same one at a cell phone store that's linked ONLY to one provider and costs $100. Free with two year plan, though..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I get a smart phone (iPhone or an Android phone) that's prepaid in the US? I don't think that's currently possible. There's a lot about our cellphone industry that needs to change, from text message rates and the absurd markup on wireless data plans, to predatory contracts and schemes to hide their price gouging on handsets. Unfortunately, they have the money, which means we'll never get sane regulation of this industry which has proven that it is incapable of acting fairly and honestly. Just another ex
is there a list somewhere? (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel sorry for her loss. However, I'm a bit unclear about the reasoning behind this. For which fees, financial obligations, and loans is it unpatriotic to ask for repayment?
Waiving such fees is a nice thing to do; it expresses gratitude for the sacrifices that our military makes.
However, I start feeling uncomfortable when members of the military start talking about it as if it were an entitlement or obligation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel the need to be a dick about this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe only those who died serving the public - firefighters, police, military, etc? What about private "military contractors"? They kinda do the same thing (you know, defend Freedom, Justice, and the American Way), just for more money.
Maybe only those who were married to someone who's nice?
I'm fine with it either way, really, I just need to know what the rules are.
military clauses in contracts (Score:5, Informative)
As a general rule, most contracts have a military clause that extends to the spouse/family of the military member. The reason this clause exists is to protect them should they be required to move without notice, relocate to another area, or lose their spouse. This applies, to homes, cars, and many other things.
It's a good policy, and Verizon screwed up by choosing to ignore it. If Verizon stuck to their guns, she could easily have gone to family advocacy department in the USMC and they would have helped correct Verizon.
If nothing else, it highlights how we little people get treated by corporations in America every day.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It wouldn't apply in this case, but the military has the legal authority to order G.I.s not to patronize any "Off Limits" business, Reasons for that order are at military (usually Base Commander) discretion.
Example:
http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_bffa90b2-2d53-11df-b2ce-001cc4c03286.html [fortcampbellcourier.com]
Wrong Verizon, Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Verizon, Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, this is America! (Score:3, Interesting)
Giving your life for your country doesn't excuse your financial contractual responsibilities.
Unless you're a corporation, then you can cancel your end at any time with no penalty.
God, I love this country! :sarcasm,off //anger, that's still simmering.
So ? (Score:3, Insightful)
She lost her husband, who was a marine, and probably served his country in some respect during one of their pointless overseas "conquests" (if you can call soldiers dying and spending trillions of dollars for 10 years without achieving fuck all a "conquest"). Yes, very sad.
But just because her husband died does not magically make her debts and responsibilities go away.
How can you blame the service provider for sending a demand letter at a possibly "stressful" time for her ? What should they do during the billing cycle ? Hold every damn bill until they've verified no immediate relative has recently died ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But the person involved in this case _didn't_ die. She's alive and well. She wants to move because her husband died. Her husband didn't have a Verizon contract, she did.
Oddly, when I moved overseas, I was able to cancel my contract with no fee because VZW didn't provide service where I was going. Had they provided service, I would have had to pay. I expected to pay though, and when the rep told me I didn't I was pleasantly surprised. Granted, I believe the $350 in her case was the subsidized cost of her phone, so VZW might be losing money here, depending on how long she had the contract/phone. My cheapie had been long since paid off, and I only had a few months remaining.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except in this case Verizon sporadically decided to change the commitment [nytimes.com], after the contract was already in place, in other words, the ETF fee used to not be charged under such circumstances but they revised the contract through (informal) policy change:
Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. (Score:5, Interesting)
>unilateral contract change, effectively a contract of adhesion
A customer cannot unilaterally change the contract with Verizon.
What gives Verizon the right to play Calvinball with contract law?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow...
There are two issues here. First, very few customers actually move out of a service area today
So.. because the policy is now costing them less, they need get rid of it?
Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't see how parent post is a troll. Fact is, she got $100,000 from the US government for *exactly this reason* - so that she doesn't have to worry about money hassles on top of the grief and upheaval.
If she's angry and wants to lash out at Verizon for daring to send her a bill then that's perfectly understandable, but the parent's point stands: War-widows, although deserving of sympathy and respect, are not above having to pay their bills.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called compassion.
Since Corporations are now considered 'persons' under the law, perhaps we should expect them to show certain levels of humanity that most of us would display.
Communist!
Or at least socialist.
Anti-capitalist for sure...
I mean, expecting anything else than 100% self-interest is just stupid, or you're suggesting we (gasp) hinder free enterprise!
(If the sacrasm was too high, here's the breakdown: I sincerely believe the parents sentiments are diametrically opposed to, and cannot exist alongside, an absolutely free enterprise-model of society, in the veins of the American ideal as it is often touted. I also believe parent is right).
Re:Just because you've suffered some bad luck.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing about compassion is that it's given freely, not demanded as a right nor extorted under threat of bad publicity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like Louis C.K said in his "Being Broke" monologue about the rich guys listening to it: "Well, yeah, you are financially irresponsible and you have to pay the price, I don't frankly... see why you are angry about it. The bank has the right to accrue a fee, clearly..."
Re:Oh no, my green paper! (Score:4, Insightful)
So he died. Get over it.
Congratulations! That's about the most insensitive thing you could say to a grieving widow. From TFA:
Michaela's father, a veteran himself, is outraged. "It's not about the money. I don't care about the money. It's the principle. The man was overseas fighting for our country and lost his life doing so," said Kevin Gause. "It's heartless what Verizon is doing."
Re:Oh no, my green paper! (Score:4, Interesting)
So how long after a spouse dies is the surviving spouse exempt from service fees for their own services?
I feel sorry about her loss, and I believe that this isn't about the money. Also, I know that when a death is involved, most companies are going to make exceptions to rules. But the (tragic) death is only tangentially related here.
The reason that she is canceling is NOT because her husband died. It is because she is moving. That part is a choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how long after a spouse dies is the surviving spouse exempt from service fees for their own services?
I realize that's a rhetorical question, but let's see...
"The remote detonated IED, one of those went off, and he took full force," explained Michaela surrounded by pictures of her husband and flowers, still fresh, from his recent funeral. "He died on the chopper on the way to the field hospital."
I'm going to say, longer than that.
I suppose it's technically possible that this is being spun, since she's not specifically talking about the termination fee here, and it doesn't say how long ago he died. Then again...
The reason that she is canceling is NOT because her husband died. It is because she is moving. That part is a choice.
She is moving because her husband died. Sure, she could choose to stay, but it's not unreasonable.
But all of this is beside the point. I'm not saying that Verizon should have to do anything...
I know that when a death is involved, most companies are going to make exceptions to rules.
I realize it would be an exception. I might e
Re:She doesn't have to pay... because she's magic! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes, due to the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/sscra/l/blsscra4.htm [about.com]
Re:The fee should stand (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)