Sprint ETF to rise to $350, matching rivals

Sprint ETF to rise to $350, matching rivals

Summary: Sprint is raising its ETF to $350 to match its rivals in making it difficult for customers to break those pesky two-year contracts.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Telcos, Banking
7

Sprint is quick to point out its smartphone data plans are still unlimited, unlike its rivals that have all gone to tiered models. It has also been slow to match its rivals by raising its early termination fee (ETF), but a leaked document indicates that is being rectified by Sprint. The internal document shows that Sprint will raise the ETF to $350 on September 9 for "advanced" devices, which includes smartphones, notebooks, netbooks, and tablets.

AT&T and Verizon have already raised their ETFs to $325 and $350 respectively, and Sprint joining the club means it is harder than ever for customers in the U. S. to get out of those pesky two-year contracts. T-Mobile is the only major carrier in the U. S. that hasn't raised its ETF, but if it becomes part of the AT&T dynasty that is a moot point.

I recently cancelled my Overdrive hotspot contract with Sprint, and I was hit by the big $200 ETF. That was hard enough to swallow but I am glad I got out when I did given this change.

Image credit: SprintFeed

Topics: Telcos, Banking

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

7 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Tethering

    find a torrent and download continuously until you are a nuisance to the carrier and they deactivate your account. If it is not stated that this activity is banned in your contract, this will void the contract.
    Your Non Advocate
    • RE: Sprint ETF to rise to $350, matching rivals

      @facebook@... I love this comment!
      Ashtonian
    • RE: Sprint ETF to rise to $350, matching rivals

      @facebook@...
      +1000.
      Ram U
  • RE: Sprint ETF to rise to $350, matching rivals

    Extortion, PURE EXTORTION, when are AMERICANS going to follow suit to the European laws, and understand ANY contract IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void the very moment it is presented? I was BORN an American citizen, Moved to europe 30 plus years ago, and THERE, such charges would simply be laughed at,,, no one would purchase from such a company an the organization would be bankrupt within a fiscal quarter. THESE fees represent PURE EXTORTION forcing the AVERAGE user to be locked in a coffin just as surely as if they were cemented there. Where do you see a PAY Phone these days? landlines are almost NON -Existent.. so with cell service a virtual requirement of life for safety, ( how can yo "CALL 911" or get a newspaper or READ a book these days? No it is all "go to our web site if you want to read the NEWS , broadcast TV is ONLY for editorializing and sensationalist broadcasting!").. So when a middle income person has to pay upwards of 15 to 20% of their monthly income for a phone, 5 times as much for a termination fee, JUST because their phone service MANDATORY to LIVE in the USA, and it is WIDELY known as the VERY WORST in the world ( AT&T),, where IS freedom of choice " in the USA, it is a fallacy. does not exist!!! Eliminate T-Mobile and you have ONE place to get a GSM phone ONE ONLY, ALL phones in Erupoe are GSM, Try to come to the USA for work, and have to deal with AT&T? no way! we'll close up ALL facilities in the USA, NOT PAY ANY termination fee and NEVER again do business in a country that extorts it's on citizens LEGALLY as sponsored by their OWN government!
    LyonsAireCEO
  • Since you signed a contract...

    your early termination fee wouldn't have gone up - it would have stayed at $200.
    Beat a Dead Horse
  • Consumers are conned over EFT

    Your US reader who states this is Extortion is on the right track - can't your Government control these phone companies" predatory behaviors? Here, in Australia we face another dilemma, phone companies that steal your money if you don't buy more credit - but they are "allowed" to steal your money by hokey pokey snake oil salesmen tactics. I feel a bit like Akmed the Terrorist - I want to take that Verizon alias Telstra B*****ad with me!
    ngukurr2
  • Well, let's be realistic ....

    First off, land-lines are not yet "almost non-existent". Given the state of cellular service in the USA today? Land-lines outperform cellular by FAR with respect to reliability and call quality. Sure, a lot of people are switching to VoIP phones if they have reliable broadband Internet to run them over, but I imagine at least 50% of American businesses still use old-fashioned land-lines. (I know the entire sales office where I work does.... There's simply no substitute for the reliability of a 100+ year old technology that only needs a couple of copper wires to function.)

    Second, nobody forces Americans to sign these contracts for cellphone usage. I believe all of the major carriers offer pre-paid, no contract required cellular packages as alternatives -- and you can also do the same with "2nd. tier" carriers like Cricket Wireless or MetroPCS or Virgin Mobile.

    The *real* reason people keep accepting these 2 year long contracts is the lure of getting an expensive smartphone for little or no cost, up front. The pre-paid packages generally only give you older, more basic or less desirable handsets with them. That's coupled with the complication of both GSM and CDMA technologies used simultaneously in the USA. Sometimes, you have a phone you'd like to use on a different carrier but can't because it's for the wrong physical technology, or uses a frequency range that the other carrier doesn't support. (Cricket Wireless is known for that... They're CDMA but they require a "tri-band" compatible CDMA phone to use an alternate frequency that none of the major CDMA carriers support. So again, you're essentially locked into buying one of the phones they'll sell you, instead of bringing your own favorite model.)

    In short, I'm not defending the carriers with these expensive contracts ... but I'm also realistic enough to know the U.S. government will never declare them "unconstitutional" or anything like that. They're legitimate contracts with all the details spelled out in advance, and nobody is coerced into signing them under duress.
    kingtj