# AT&T raising their early termination fee



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

According to the Wall Street Journal, AT&T will nearly double the early termination fee going from $175 to $325. Would only apply to new contracts and starts June 1. 

It was only a matter of time since Verizon did it a while back. I think this is another clue that AT&T is losing (not loosing) their iPhone exclusive.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

That sucks. And to be clear, that is on smartphones, and covers contract renewals as well as new subscribers. On other phones, they are lowering it by $25. Any word on how much it will go down per month?


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Well, this virtually guarantees that I will leave AT&T when my contract is up. And I suspect I will not be alone.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Ira Lacher said:


> Well, this virtually guarantees that I will leave AT&T when my contract is up. And I suspect I will not be alone.


Why? If you stay a loyal customer, the amount of the cancellation fee is moot. Not like you'd ever be charged it, right?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I guess I really don't get the hubbub about early termination fees.

You know going in that if you don't last the agreed upon term, you are subject to a fee... but if you do abide by the terms, then you never pay the fee.

Also, they aren't raising it on existing contracts (which would be sneaky and illegal)... but rather on new contracts after June 1st.

Seems like a non-issue unless you were planning on breaking the contract... and if you plan on breaking the contract, why sign at all?


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Good points Stewart.

This doesn't concern me at all.. not only because it doesn't apply to me.. but also because I'm not going anywhere. Voice & data at the same time has become a huge part of my usage, and I'm not giving that up. It's too bad Verizon people don't know what they're missing. You'd use it a whole lot more than you think if you had it. 

You do have to admit though... this is very interesting timing. You have to wonder if Verizon is about to get ahold of the iPhone.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't have a problem with it at the front of the contract, but I don't think you should still have a $100 etf at the 23rd month. If the etf goes down by $10 a month, you end up at $95.

Course at one point, you paid the same etf at month 2 and 23.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Translation: It's gonna cost more to jump to Droid :lol:


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ira Lacher said:


> Well, this virtually guarantees that I will leave AT&T when my contract is up. And I suspect I will not be alone.


Verizon and Sprint already had the higher ETF on smartphons, ATT is bring up the back of the pack again. Think the tier 3 and 4 level providers are the only ones that still do not have the higher ETF


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

No big deal. I've been with them for 8 years and have never known what the ETF was or cared. I need a phone and ATT works well for me so the odds of me cancelling early are slim to none.

Apparently the higher ETFs are only for the IPhone and they actually lowered the ETF for standard phones.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I've been with them since it was Bellsouth wireless... then re-branded to Cingular... and then re-absorbed by the "new" AT&T.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

The same people that complain about ETF's would go nuts if they had no ETF's, but had to pay $500-800 for a smartphone. Which you can do.

I bought my daughter a Pantech Impact for her birthday. Cost with 2-year renewal: $25. Cost with no contract extension: $250. So even with a $175 ETF, it would still be cheaper than the full cost of the phone.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I just hope they bring some decent Android phones into the mix here soon.....I keep trying to look at the iPhone, but the Google Mail support sucks, and that is a larger priority than the phone I use.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Grentz said:


> I keep trying to look at the iPhone, but the Google Mail support sucks, and that is a larger priority than the phone I use.


You mean gmail? I have it on my phone with no issues. Now the mail viewer sucks, but that is supposedly getting an overhall with 4.0.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> You mean gmail? I have it on my phone with no issues. Now the mail viewer sucks, but that is supposedly getting an overhall with 4.0.


I use google apps, but yes essentially gmail.

I have messed around with it on my iPod Touch. IMAP works ok, and allows you to use labels by using folders, but no push. Google Sync works ok, and allows push, but there is no way to trash items (trash archives), and label support is only folders again. There also is the webapp which displays really nicely, but no push and it is slow at times.

No threading, no proper label support, no proper push support unless you want to lose the trash, all make it a kludge. It really is not the iPhone's fault or Google's fault. The iPhone works great as a normal email client, and Google has a different approach that does not interpolate to IMAP well (the labels system). I know its love or hate with the way Google does mail, but I quite like it after using it for many years and just using their webmail client all the time. The main use for a new phone for me is email/calendar so it is important it works properly with Google. At this point android seems like the only one that does.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

txtommy said:


> No big deal. I've been with them for 8 years and have never known what the ETF was or cared. I need a phone and ATT works well for me so the odds of me cancelling early are slim to none.
> 
> Apparently the higher ETFs are only for the IPhone and they actually lowered the ETF for standard phones.


It's for any smartphone, not just the iPhone.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm bailing for the EVO. Out before the increase. My iPhone has just become so boring and the new model doesn't seem to be bringing much more innovation. Sprint has a 30 day FULL refund policy so I will still have time to hear what Apple has to offer but I expect nothing more than what has leaked.

I really think the main reason for the increase it to slow down the big resale market for the iPhone on eBay and Craigslist when they first get released. AT&T is losing a lot of revenue from that.

Besides, like charging for airline baggage, once one company gets away with it the others aren't far behind.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

My only problem with the ETF is that I use my phone alot. Two years is too long for the same phone. I do get the break at 18 months, but even that seems too long.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I've never understood why people are up in arms about ETF/ECF's. Not for the reasons mentioned above but really the only reason I would cancel most services is if they really did something that I considered to be over the line or if I needed to save money. Most of the time I could suspend the service and pay the same amount of the bill and have the ECF paid off within a month or two. Cell is a little different now because with 3 smart phones you're around a grand, but all that really does is make me not buy smart phones for my kids and takes the $20 data plan they would gain away. It's really just going to force family's to evaluate the phones they get for their kids. Adults won't skimp but now I won't buy new smart phones for the kids when they're up for an upgrade. This means I will essentially save $60 a month. I have Verizon so this is nothing new as they did it before but I did send them a letter letting them know they're going to lose over $1,000 dollars in 2 years because they chose to give a penalty that I probably won't even have to worry about. I think our cell phone industry is going to be in a rude awakening in a few years when tablet pc's become more popular and data plans are out there. It's only a matter of time before google voice or skype can get to be mainstream. They're already announcing text messaging only plans and you don't buy a smart phone to text only.


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

MikeW said:


> My only problem with the ETF is that I use my phone alot. Two years is too long for the same phone. I do get the break at 18 months, but even that seems too long.


This isn't a 'use your phone too much' charge. Using and upgrading your phone before your 2 year discount has nothing to do with an ETF... as long as you stay in the ATT system.

Now, if within 18 months you're switching to Verizon - then Sprint - then back to ATT...yeah, this'll suck big time for you.

Other than that this has no bearing on phone upgrades. It is a TERMINATION fee for their services, not a raised fee on upgrading your phone...


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

I can not wait to dump AT$T when our contract is up. Their 3G coverage is laughable. Buh bye AT$T hello Verizon!


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

ncxcstud said:


> ......... It is a TERMINATION fee for their services, not a raised fee on upgrading your phone...


Then why (like Verizon) does it only apply to smartphones and not equally across all types of phones?

It's no coincidence both Verizon and AT&T announced these increases shortly before a "high visibility" phone was to be released. They don't like the fact a person is buying 2,3 or 4 or more iPhones for $300 each on a $10/month add-a-line, then canceling the line after 31 days then selling the phone on eBay for $1000 to some guy on another carrier or to an existing customer and not requiring a new contract. They lose the subsidy and they lose the monthly line and data fees. They figure the higher ETF will reduce (certainly not stop) that churn. Verizon so much as came out and said that when they raised their fee just before the Incredible was released.

Also, a person is more likely to cancel and go elsewhere for a newer/better phone for a $100 ETF after a year rather than a $200 one.

They should go back to the old way. Full price for phones and no contract. Doing that would force to actually try to provide good service if they want to keep you. The iPhone would probably end up around $400-500 (like the original unsubsidized one did) or less and actually use "quality service" as a way to keep down their churn.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Then why (like Verizon) does it only apply to smartphones and not equally across all types of phones?


Because Verizon and ATT lose money when they sell you a discounted smartphone which then ends up on ebay after the contract is cancelled. Even with the higher ETF they barely break even but on the cheaper dumb phones they can break even with the lower ETF. This is all about discouraging the resale for profit of their subsidized phones.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

braven said:


> I can not wait to dump AT$T when our contract is up. Their 3G coverage is laughable. Buh bye AT$T hello Verizon!


not quite sure what you expect to gain - same etf of smart phones, same required data plan for smart phones.

We have plans with all the tier 1/2 providers, we issue phones depending on the end users location - ALL providers have coverage problems in areas.

Other intreresting thing - our call center has 2 people dedicated to tracking "dropped calls" that can be proven as one and not just a end users claiming they where dropped when they got tired of waiting in the service queue. Outr primary coverage area is the midwestern section of the US, on a average week the number of verifiable drops are due to cell phones, the drop rate for verizon and sprint cell numbers is 3 times what the drop rate for a tt cell number is, when you go down to the tier3 and lower providers the drop rate goes from 3 times to 10 times the amount. Interesting set of numbers - and this is on a average of 9000 calls per week


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

braven said:


> I can not wait to dump AT$T when our contract is up. Their 3G coverage is laughable. Buh bye AT$T hello Verizon!


The problem I have with that idea is that there have been several times when I've been in a coverage area with NO Verizon service but AT&T has at least EDGE.

Verizon might have more 3G coverage but, at least in our area, AT&T is king because there are several spots where AT&T has EDGE and Verizon is nowhere to be found.

Some service is better than nothing.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

TBlazer07 said:


> Then why (like Verizon) does it only apply to smartphones and not equally across all types of phones?
> 
> It's no coincidence both Verizon and AT&T announced these increases shortly before a "high visibility" phone was to be released. They don't like the fact a person is buying 2,3 or 4 or more iPhones for $300 each on a $10/month add-a-line, then canceling the line after 31 days then selling the phone on eBay for $1000 to some guy on another carrier or to an existing customer and not requiring a new contract. They lose the subsidy and they lose the monthly line and data fees. They figure the higher ETF will reduce (certainly not stop) that churn. Verizon so much as came out and said that when they raised their fee just before the Incredible was released.
> 
> ...


would never work - 99 percent of the people would NOT pay full price for a phone. Iphone price would be a lot more the 400-500 that you claim - current price is 600-700, really doubt that anyone would fork over that kind of money up front - especially in today's economy.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Grentz said:


> No threading, no proper label support, no proper push support unless you want to lose the trash, all make it a kludge. It really is not the iPhone's fault or Google's fault. The iPhone works great as a normal email client,


Ok, I with you now. And you're right. It does none of that. I have two things about the iPhone I would change and #1 would be fix the email client. I use it mainly to keep up and try to get back to my desktop to send any important emails. The other would be to fix the SMS client. If I sent a message to 2 people, it basically sends to each one as an individual, so you can't have a group discussion.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> The problem I have with that idea is that there have been several times when I've been in a coverage area with NO Verizon service but AT&T has at least EDGE.


AT&T's coverage, and 3G coverage, where I live is great. But we visited some friends in AZ last summer and their AT&T coverage was horrible. They live just 15 minutes north of downtown Phoenix.

So alot of times it depends on where you live. My AT&T is the successor to the old Cellular One, which was the original cellular carrier in my area, so they had the most towers to begin with. Verizon has been cobled together of the old Alltel and a couple of other local providers and have decent coverage, but not anywhere near what AT&T has.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

wingrider01 said:


> would never work - 99 percent of the people would NOT pay full price for a phone. Iphone price would be a lot more the 400-500 that you claim - current price is 600-700, really doubt that anyone would fork over that kind of money up front - especially in today's economy.


 No, but 70% would. Besides, Apple fans ... you gotta be kidding. They'd pay $100 for an empty box. Besides, if the Nexus 1 with no advertising and no retail outlets and no carrier behind them and little knowledge it even exists could sell sell as many as they did for $530 you can be sure an iPhone would as well with Apple & AT&T's advertising power. iPhones probably cost $39 to manufacture with the slave labor they use in China.


----------



## Tibs (Jul 6, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> would never work - 99 percent of the people would NOT pay full price for a phone. Iphone price would be a lot more the 400-500 that you claim - current price is 600-700, really doubt that anyone would fork over that kind of money up front - especially in today's economy.


1 million overrated ipads sold would disagree with the economy statement. I have the means but no desire to buy one. I've played with one for a bit, don't like it. After using it I see it as a device that replaces nothing - but costs at least $500 and selling rather well so there are people who can afford it and will buy it.

In my opinion, a phone that does more than a heavy tablet is worth more, and the droid, nexus one, iphones would all sell good if there were no fees. Not as well as they do now but they would sell.

We have people who buy an iphone on contract, turn around sell it on ebay, then buy a nexus one off contract and break even, because they stay with AT&T. ETF is not going to affect that practice.

DirecTV did fine when we all had to buy our hardware up front. They did much better when they went to contract pricing. I suspect the same thing applies to the cell phone industry.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> AT&T's coverage, and 3G coverage, where I live is great. But we visited some friends in AZ last summer and their AT&T coverage was horrible. They live just 15 minutes north of downtown Phoenix.
> 
> So alot of times it depends on where you live. My AT&T is the successor to the old Cellular One, which was the original cellular carrier in my area, so they had the most towers to begin with. Verizon has been cobled together of the old Alltel and a couple of other local providers and have decent coverage, but not anywhere near what AT&T has.


It definitely depends on your area. That is why I find the Cell Carrier wars so funny.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> AT&T's coverage, and 3G coverage, where I live is great. But we visited some friends in AZ last summer and their AT&T coverage was horrible. They live just 15 minutes north of downtown Phoenix.
> 
> So alot of times it depends on where you live. My AT&T is the successor to the old Cellular One, which was the original cellular carrier in my area, so they had the most towers to begin with. Verizon has been cobled together of the old Alltel and a couple of other local providers and have decent coverage, but not anywhere near what AT&T has.


In our area, Verizon has the best coverage. My "kids" all have AT&T. They can't use their iPhones or other AT&T phones at our house. The oldest can't get a usable signal at his home or his work down in Marin County across the Golden Gate bridge from San Francisco. At our other granddaughters home in Marin, there is not usable AT&T signal. Verizon has both voice and 3G saturation at all these locations.

When I bought a 3G MiFi 2200 from Verizon to use with our iPads they all told me how expensive monthly service was compared to the AT&T 3G iPad. I said, yeah, and we could not be able to use it here and not be able to use it when we visit either granddaughter. That's a heck of a bargain.:sure:

Of course, both Verizon and AT&T are an order of magnitude better than Sprint, the choice of Amazon for the Kindle. I pointed this out to Amazon the moment they announced their choice and noting that since you couldn't get a Kindle without the 3G hardware for less money they just chose to abandon one regular Amazon customer who would have bought two.:nono:

Hence, we now have two iPads with the free Kindle App without having paid a dime for useless built-in hardware.

I've never really understood this approach of building the service into the hardware. It would be like HP or Dell only offering computers that worked with Comcast as your ISP. Sure, with a cell phone, but when the cell phone function became only one function among many built into the device?


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Then why (like Verizon) does it only apply to smartphones and not equally across all types of phones?
> 
> It's no coincidence both Verizon and AT&T announced these increases shortly before a "high visibility" phone was to be released. They don't like the fact a person is buying 2,3 or 4 or more iPhones for $300 each on a $10/month add-a-line, then canceling the line after 31 days then selling the phone on eBay for $1000 to some guy on another carrier or to an existing customer and not requiring a new contract. They lose the subsidy and they lose the monthly line and data fees. They figure the higher ETF will reduce (certainly not stop) that churn. Verizon so much as came out and said that when they raised their fee just before the Incredible was released.
> 
> ...


I still answered Mike's question I believe, this is NOT going to be a way for ATT to discourage upgrading your phone (within their service). It is to discourage people from buying their phones at a reduced cost and selling it on eBay and such.

This isn't going to stop people from getting an iPhone 4.0 for 299.99...then having that for a year, then upgrading to a new Android phone for like 499.99 because you didn't wait the 'prerequisite 18 months to get the reduced cost at 299.99.

ATT, I'm pretty sure, isn't telling everyone, that if you want to upgrade your phone before your 2-year contract is up you have to pay an additional 300+ dollars to the cost of the phone....

From what Mike said, I took it that he thought he would be 'punished' even more for wanting to upgrade his phone through ATT, which if I'm not mistaken is NOT the case...

And it applies pretty much only to smart phones because those are the most popular phones on the market and what everyone clamors for. That just makes sense.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> not quite sure what you expect to gain - same etf of smart phones, same required data plan for smart phones.
> 
> We have plans with all the tier 1/2 providers, we issue phones depending on the end users location - ALL providers have coverage problems in areas.
> 
> Other intreresting thing - our call center has 2 people dedicated to tracking "dropped calls" that can be proven as one and not just a end users claiming they where dropped when they got tired of waiting in the service queue. Outr primary coverage area is the midwestern section of the US, on a average week the number of verifiable drops are due to cell phones, the drop rate for verizon and sprint cell numbers is 3 times what the drop rate for a tt cell number is, when you go down to the tier3 and lower providers the drop rate goes from 3 times to 10 times the amount. Interesting set of numbers - and this is on a average of 9000 calls per week


I expect to gain a smart phone that I can actually use in my home town. AT$T's crappy Edge network just doesn't cut it. My Verizon friends enjoy 3G in our area. Said it once and I'll say it again. Mmmmmm buh bye AT$T... hello Verizon!


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

Chris Blount said:


> The problem I have with that idea is that there have been several times when I've been in a coverage area with NO Verizon service but AT&T has at least EDGE.
> 
> Verizon might have more 3G coverage but, at least in our area, AT&T is king because there are several spots where AT&T has EDGE and Verizon is nowhere to be found.
> 
> Some service is better than nothing.


Everyone's mileage will vary. AT$T's 3G coverage is terrible where I live. Verizon's 3G service is stellar here.


----------



## CoriBright (May 30, 2002)

braven said:


> Everyone's mileage will vary. AT$T's 3G coverage is terrible where I live. Verizon's 3G service is stellar here.


We're in that big white blob in Southern Nevada for Verizon here in Pahrump. *Both* hubby and I are out of contract and have been with AT&T for 15 years (yes, we've done the carousel ride to Cingular and back again too)....... We have 3G with AT&T even right out here, just zero coverage at the top of the pass (the SR-160 into Vegas at 5,000ft+) which is no bother as when you've gone up you have to come down and service resumes.

So we're in a quandry as hubby's ancient Motorola V551 is about to give up the ghost. I have an unlocked LG Incite. It sucks.

Do we:

Go to AT&T this week and try to negotiate 2 x discounted iPhone 3GS 16gb (even refurbed) for less than $149 each or so...

Wait for iPhone HD (or whatever it's going to be called)

Jump to Sprint

Jump to T-Mobile

Jump to Verizon for the Droid Incredible and keep fingers crossed that eventually they will cover us.

Comments & suggestions welcome!


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I don;t really have a huge problem with the ETF or even this increase. I do think it should straight line down to $0 in month 23 instead of being $100 still and they really should give you a cheaper rate off contract or if you have your own phone with no subsidy.

I also don't really love the fact that instead of improving service to keep customers, ATT is trying to lock people in more, but I know the ETF is much more than that also as pointed out.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

CoriBright said:


> We're in that big white blob in Southern Nevada for Verizon here in Pahrump. *Both* hubby and I are out of contract and have been with AT&T for 15 years (yes, we've done the carousel ride to Cingular and back again too)....... We have 3G with AT&T even right out here, just zero coverage at the top of the pass (the SR-160 into Vegas at 5,000ft+) which is no bother as when you've gone up you have to come down and service resumes.
> 
> So we're in a quandry as hubby's ancient Motorola V551 is about to give up the ghost. I have an unlocked LG Incite. It sucks.
> 
> ...


I hear Wal-Mart is selling 16gb 3gs's for $100.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

braven said:


> I expect to gain a smart phone that I can actually use in my home town. AT$T's crappy Edge network just doesn't cut it. My Verizon friends enjoy 3G in our area. Said it once and I'll say it again. Mmmmmm buh bye AT$T... hello Verizon!


which eer has the best coverage for what you need, this is exactly the reason I carry cell phones from each of the tier 1/2 providers that we have accounts with so I have the best chance of reception for calls no matter were I travel.

Gets expensive for smart phones + mandatory data plans, but still a small price to pay to make sur I am contact with my business.


----------

