SmartPhones Data Plan Mandate Class Action Lawsuit? (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint)

[CA]

As CA said, there's still a contract, it's just a month to month contract. The terms and conditions are a part of the contract. Everyone on AT&T has one whether they have a long term commitment or not.

Let me make an illustration here. If I'm not in a contract, do I have to pay?

[veriztd]

As CA said, there's still a contract, it's just a month to month contract. The terms and conditions are a part of the contract. Everyone on AT&T has one whether they have a long term commitment or not.

Not everyone has to have a contract. Month to month service (when no existing contract exists) means that a customer can cancel service at anytime without penalty. There is no contract in that instance. Neither At&t or the customer has any specific commitment to the other party. Don't read anything more into it.

For example, any customer can activate service without a contract if they either provide a compatible device or purchases a phone from At&t at full price. Hence, they are still bound by the T&C without having a contract.

Why do you think that At&t can require an iPhone data plan w/ an iPhone for any customer who doesn't already have the feature? I will give you a hint, it has nothing to do with a contract but the T&C instead, which is a completely different document.

If you feel I am incorrect, please show me the evidence that shows otherwise.

[CA]

Not everyone has to have a contract. Month to month service (when no existing contract exists) means that a customer can cancel service at anytime without penalty. There is no contract in that instance. Neither At&t or the customer has any specific commitment to the other party. Don't read anything more into it.

For example, any customer can activate service without a contract if they either provide a compatible device or purchases a phone from At&t at full price. Hence, they are still bound by the T&C without having a contract.

Why do you think that At&t can require an iPhone data plan w/ an iPhone for any customer who doesn't already have the feature? I will give you a hint, it has nothing to do with a contract but the T&C instead, which is a completely different document.

If you feel I am incorrect, please show me the evidence that shows otherwise.

Are you saying I can walk into an ATT store, buy a SIM, walk out without signing anything, and start talking to my uncle?

[veriztd]

Are you saying I can walk into an ATT store, buy a SIM, walk out without signing anything, and start talking to my uncle?

CA,

You would have to sign an acceptance of the T&C and would be held to them without signing a contract. Of course you don't have to sign a contract in your example.

The phone IMEI/SIM would still need to be entered in the billing system and activated either way.

[CA]

CA,

You would have to sign an acceptance of the T&C and would be held to them without signing a contract. Of course you don't have to sign a contract in your example.

The phone IMEI/SIM would still need to be entered in the billing system and activated either way.

Why would I need to pay ATT if I was only required to sign the T&Cs?

[veriztd]

Why would I need to pay ATT if I was only required to sign the T&Cs?

CA,

The requirement to pay your monthly bill is part of the T&C, not the contract. If it were part of the contract you wouldn't have to pay your bill once the contract is fulfilled.

I am done with this thread. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary and at this point you are just being ridiculous.

Have a good evening.

[CA]

The requirement to pay your monthly bill is part of the T&C

The T&C plus the requirement to pay gives rise to consideration, and that makes what you sign a contract. A carrier may not educate it's agents about this, but saying it isn't is like hiding in a closet.

Now, excuse me, my pants are on fire!

[jet1000]

I will give you a hint, it has nothing to do with a contract but the T&C instead, which is a completely different document.

If you feel I am incorrect, please show me the evidence that shows otherwise.

The evidence is that the contract and the T&C are not a completely different document as you stated. That is false. There is one agreement called the Wireless Customer Agreement. Shown here:

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...ent&print=true

By the definition of the word contract from dictionary.com the Wireless Customer Agreement is a contract:

con·tract
–noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

This contract covers all customers whether they have a 2 year commitment or they are month to month. All AT&T customers are under contract.

[farnlc]

Get a clue, I'm not talking about subsidized smartphones, I'm talking about an iPhone bought internationally and being used on AT&T without a data plan being impossible. Using a (unsubsidized, aka full price purchased) smartphone like a dumbphone doesn't cost AT&T anything extra. Yes they are paying Billions, but they are also making billions more...

And speaking of voice minutes, they are irrelevant, the carriers realize this. The days of overcharging for voice is long gone.

VMUSA is a joke as a provider in terms of coverage/speed/reliability, I've used them before for a data stick.

Do you even read the posts for content before you respond? I was simply showing you examples of "True Competition" that you say is lacking. Oh, and I did mention that regardless of the price you paid for your phone, AT&T does carry a cost to operate a data network and will gladly pass that charge on to you. A right they have as an operator in a free market!

[silentjudge]

Do you even read the posts for content before you respond? I was simply showing you examples of "True Competition" that you say is lacking. Oh, and I did mention that regardless of the price you paid for your phone, AT&T does carry a cost to operate a data network and will gladly pass that charge on to you. A right they have as an operator in a free market!

Yes I did read you trying to spin the realities.

I'm talking about using a smartphone without data (no data plan, no data used, period) and your talking about how smartphone users use so much data and therefore they should pay more. Yes, if you use the data network, you should have to pay to use it, and if you don't want to use the data network, then you shouldn't.

What AT&T should do instead is when you get a subsidized smartphone, your account is required to have a data plan for the duration of the contract. Rather than blanket anyone using a smartphone to have to get a data plan.

[aw614]

Y
What AT&T should do instead is when you get a subsidized smartphone, your account is required to have a data plan for the duration of the contract. Rather than blanket anyone using a smartphone to have to get a data plan.

That just makes too much sense, but something att wouldnt even do.

[CellHabit]

What AT&T should do instead is when you get a subsidized smartphone, your account is required to have a data plan for the duration of the contract.

... and this makes perfect sense. If the carriers had this policy, there would probably be far fewer complaints.

[veriztd]

... and this makes perfect sense. If the carriers had this policy, there would probably be far fewer complaints.

And smaller profits, not gonna happen.

[CellHabit]

And smaller profits, not gonna happen.

Agreed. There is no financial incentive to implement such a policy.

[farnlc]

... and this makes perfect sense. If the carriers had this policy, there would probably be far fewer complaints.

There would be far fewer complaints if phones and service were free....I'm not going to spend 200K on a Pizza Hut franchise just for someone to come in buy a soda and decide that my pizza is too expensive so you bring in a Tombstone that you made at home. The point was already made that there is no profit in voice services so what good are you as a customer if you're only buying a soda...or in the case here voice services?