Exactly. "You mean I can't just pay for a month of service, then cancel and not pay off the phone?"I thought it was silly. I mean what kind of person thinks you can get away with only paying for part of the device's cost? You don't stop making payments on your car and expect to keep it. It's going to get repossessed.
The problem is the total cost of the phone is due on your last bill, rather then having the option to continue the monthly payments for the phone and stopping the service.
Exactly. "You mean I can't just pay for a month of service, then cancel and not pay off the phone?"
This is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. I wonder who put the Attorney General up to this, AT&T or Verizon?
While T-Mobile should have made the terms of their service more transparent from the get-go, one can’t help but look at the politics of the Washington State decision. It just so happens that the state Attorney General, Bob Ferguson has received campaign funding from both AT&T and Verizon. It doesn’t hurt that Ferguson will want to seek re-election one day and might want to draw on the coffers of AT&T and Verizon again in his attempt to seek reelection. I’m not suggesting this was a pure political move done at the behest of AT&T, but there’s plenty of room to suspect that Ferguson may have had an agenda in his quest to slap T-Mobile on the wrist.
Ha, of course. I was half joking when I typed that but I'm not at all surprised to see that they're both involved.