It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marine Widow Battles Verizon Over $350 Termination Fee

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Marine Widow Battles Verizon Over $350 Termination Fee


www.huffingtonpost.com

Michaela Brummund's husband, a marine, was killed in Afghanistan by an IED.

Following his death, the young widow decided to move home to Copperopolis, a small California town with a population of just over 2,000, in order to be closer to her family and grieve.

Verizon, however, does not offer cell phone service in the town. Brummund called the phone company to cancel her service, and they hit her with a $350 early termination fee for ending her contract before expired--despite Brummund "being a widow and Verizon not living up to its contractual obligations to provide actual cellphone c
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
cbs13.com




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
How very sad for this woman to have to go through this. It just seems that we have entered an age where even the people who work for large corporations are incapable of compassion and fairness. Should she have to pay this fee?


Brummund told CBS13 Verizon customer service informed her "nothing could be done" about the charge. Verizon came under fire earlier this year for its refusal to disactivate a dead man's account, saying a death certificate was not enough to cancel his service. In another instance, a Verizon representative allegedly threatened to blow up a man's house over a $308 bill.


www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Recently Sprint/Nextel settled a lawsuit over their early termination fees, apparently Verizon settled recently too.

I'm not sure of all the specifics, but heres some information.

Sprint ETF Settlement

Verizon Pays $21 Million to Settle Termination Fee Lawsuit



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DancedWithWolves
 


I don't want to be a screwge here... and not that I think she's a bad person. I just personally don't think having someone die voids you of your own phone contract.

If it were her husbands contract, then I would be completely with her. But I'm not going either way on this.

Sprint's a corporation, and at no time should you expect compassion from a corporate business.

That said, I hate cell companies contract fees. There's no real reason for them, other than to hold clients, and be guaranteed their full money whether they provide service or not.

Capitalism and Beaurocrazy at it's finest.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I wish I could say unbelievable but unfortunately it seems like the norm. It truly is sad that an exception cannot be made considering the circumstances. I'd say it's just another reason for me to not to like Verizon but the name of the company really doesn't matter as you could insert any other corporations name in there. Yes, a contract is a contract and rules are rules but they're also meant to be broken sometimes. This is one of those times. I hate to lump all of humanity into one group but what the heck is wrong with people?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I get along with my tracfone service just fine and all way wondered why anyone would want to go with a long term contract service.

If i want to drop my service i just don't pay for anymore time.
or if i want to go to another provider in my area i can even take my phone number.
www.fcc.gov...

Long term contracts are a scam. few have extra services that are needed to justify the extra money or the contract.
And if you are working where you have to move on a regular bases they make the companies a lot of money.

One target of these long term contracts is military personal.
They know these people may get transferred at any time and not have service at the new duty post.

And i many cases the company service maps are inaccurate.
I had one the company claimed covered the town i lived in but to connect to a tower i had to drive a 1/2 mile to get a connection.

With anything you have to weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of getting a contract service or a non contract service.

For most the non contract service will be best.

If it were her husbands contract and not hers i would just not pay and disappear.
Many times when someone dies companies will try to collect from other member of the family when they have few legal rights to.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


In the past it was acceptable for corporations to be cold, sterile and inhuman. Today, it is expected that corporations with be compassionate towards their paying customers. It's just a good business model.

For example, Verizon may get $350 out of this technicality. At the same time, I personally will never buy a Verizon product or service if they choose to follow through with this decision. I am sure many others feel the same way.

With that being said, I am sure that everything will be worked out and the termination fee will be waved. Actually, most cell phone companies will let you cancel your contract if you move to an area they don't cover regardless of the situation. I know for a fact that when soldiers get orders to go overseas they can cancel contracts such as this. If Verizon chooses to follow through with this I am sure something will be changed to cover situations like this as well.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


"being a widow and Verizon not living up to its contractual obligations to provide actual cellphone coverage," as the Consumerist notes.


They couldn't service the area she moved to although they were obligated to do so...

Why should she pay for a service she cant receive???



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
This whole story is fallacious. What does the war in Afghanistan have to do with phone service?

Why, exactly, does she expect to be relieved from the contract she signed?

Is it:

A) Her husband was a Marine
B) Her husband died/she is a widow
C) Her husband died in a war
D) She is moving

Should she go to Wal-Mart and demand free groceries too? How about the insurance company? Does she expect free room and board too?

America is becoming more and more of a bunch of self-important panty waist losers.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. It doesn't matter to the story that her husband died in the war; what matters, at its most basic logic, is that they are unable to provide the service, thus they should not be able to extort money out of her for their failings.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I promise you that the story is blown out of proportion. I know for a fact that if you prove that you live in an area that does not provide service anymore, your ETF will be waived. She may have to follow through and prove her new residence, which many people tend not to follow up with and then cry foul.

And the person who said they were going to bomb a house was not a Verizon rep, but someone working for a collections agency. This thread is full of crap.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The new nine most terrifying words in the English language you'll hear, when you call customer service... "I'm from the company and I'm here to help."

As this woman found out, sometimes it is this way. All too often these days. Cell phone, insurance, medical.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


I am not attacking your post, just informing you of how these things work.

Often time soldiers get married and get stationed at a military installation away from their hometowns. So, the married couple moves to the military installation and they can stay on base or off. When a solider gets deployed the spouse will either stay at the base and maintain the home or travel back to their hometown. In this case the spouse most likely stayed at or close to the military installation.

Here is where things get tricky so I am going to be vague on the details. When a soldier dies while deployed the spouse only has so much time to live on the military base (I think it's a few months or something like that). Sadly, because they have no reason to be at the base anymore many will return to where they previously lived. That's the explanation for the move.

I should have further explained in my earlier post why I think Verizon should show compassion.

Like I said before, I am sure things will be cleared up and Verizon will wave the fee.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Styki]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 





This whole story is fallacious. What does the war in Afghanistan have to do with phone service?

Why, exactly, does she expect to be relieved from the contract she signed?

Is it:

A) Her husband was a Marine
B) Her husband died/she is a widow
C) Her husband died in a war
D) She is moving

Should she go to Wal-Mart and demand free groceries too? How about the insurance company? Does she expect free room and board too?

America is becoming more and more of a bunch of self-important panty waist losers.



I agree that A), B), and C) have nothing to do with anything in this story except to crank up the human interest/sympathy angle. But moving out of the service area should be a reasonable circumstance for leniency.

However if, as most phone contracts in Australia do, the contract includes the cost of a phone, then it is perfectly reasonable that she should have to pay the remaining cost of the phone.

If you buy a car on a 4 year contract and then a year later you move to Japan where you can't use the car, you still have to settle that loan, you can't just walk away from it. The dealer isn't going to take it back and the bank just wants its money. If you sell it for less than you owe, then you take a loss. And being a war widow has nothing to do with it.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Yet one more reason to hate Verizon.
Pre-Paid cellular is the only way to go.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
wheres the conspiracy here?
2nd line.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Not advocating the contract at all.

I just know the the contracts come with lubrication for a reason.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Miraj]

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Miraj]

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Miraj]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Styki
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


I am not attacking your post, just informing you of how these things work.

Often time soldiers get married and get stationed at a military installation away from their hometowns. So, the married couple moves to the military installation and they can stay on base or off. When a solider gets deployed the spouse will either stay at the base and maintain the home or travel back to their hometown. In this case the spouse most likely stayed at or close to the military installation.

Here is where things get tricky so I am going to be vague on the details. When a soldier dies while deployed the spouse only has so much time to live on the military base (I think it's a few months or something like that). Sadly, because they have no reason to be at the base anymore many will return to where they previously lived. That's the explanation for the move.

I should have further explained in my earlier post why I think Verizon should show compassion.

Like I said before, I am sure things will be cleared up and Verizon will wave the fee.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Styki]


I was active duty for 4 years, so I know how the military works, at least from a 4 year perspective.

The article said nothing about where they lived in regards to on/off base housing. Regardless of that, the surviving spouse can receive BAH for up to a year, depending on the circumstances, again something that wasn't mentioned in the article.

Should Verizon "Show compassion" ? In a perfect world they should... but this isn't a perfect world. Should they "show compassion" to policemen, firefighters and school teachers too?

They should just show compassion to everyone and keep the early termination fee, but waive it for everyone. It will make them look compassionate and everyone will love them more vs. if they just got rid of the fee altogether and never mentioned it.


In the end, it is just ridiculous reporting.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Fact that she moves to an area where the company has no service is something a contract can be terminated on without any fees.

The fact that she thinks her husband dying is a reason for that most likely only means she never actually READ her contract and the EULA.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
And by the way, the town she moved to in California, Verizon Wireless's website claims the town has service. I know it's not always correct, but in that case, she would have to have a tech come out and prove there is no service, which Verizon will do.

This girl probably made one phone call, got upset because she thought they would just end it with no hassle, then called a newspaper reporter.

And another thing that doesn't make sense is this ... her termination fee of $350? That is either the beginning ETF for a smartphone or two ETF's for regular phones. But the ETF drops $10 a month for smartphones and $5 a month for regular phones. So if she owes $350, it sounds like she's within the first 30 days. And if she cancels within the first 30 days, she would have to return the equipment or be charged the termination fee.

Yeah, this story is sensational and does not hold much water.




top topics



 
3

log in

join