Collection Deleted, now what? HELP

[Anonymous]

And of course, I should mention that the "standard practice" statement was after several hours on the phone dealing with account reviews and such madness.  I had actually called to upgrade, but reconsidered because I had moved and my phone didn't work well in my new area.  Later after I still got a termination bill, the representative told me to appeal to the "coverage team" which would have meant I was under contract but wanted permission to cancel because the phone didn't work in this area.  I refused to follow that route being pigheaded and feeling I was right and right was on my side.  In retrospect, I should have just made the appeal and let it be done.  You live and learn. 

[Anonymous]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

---

I know what the code says and it does not say anything about a cell phone.  The code was written many years ago and has not been updated to include them.  I would not try to use that as a defense.  People get sued every day for cell phone bills that are beyond 2 years old.

I used to believe it did cover cell phones.  But after a lot of research, I have changed my mind.

The debt is for early termination fees not for actual charges.

Can you provide a court case that shows otherwise?

If the OP wants to try to use that as a defense, it is up to them.

---

Let me restate it for you.  This particular statute is covered under the chapter of US Code for wire and radio communications.  Now admittedly I am not an electrical engineer, but I do believe a cellular phone is a radio communication that ties into landline telephones.  The code does not NEED to be updated to include it.  Should Congress not want it in there, then Congress needs to change the law to EXCLUDE them.

Don't believe me?  I watched closely five years ago when the IRS got royally smacked in circuit court after circuit court regarding the telephone excise tax being imposed on bundled service and every court hearing the case looked at the law and looked at the service and said the tax didn't apply and this was on a tax almost a century old.  

Now as to your argument that it doesn't cover early termination fees, well, why on Earth wouldn't it?  Early termination fees are lawful charges.  Nobody disputes that.  I see no reason whatsoever why they wouldn't be covered.

[Anonymous]

---

@llecs wrote:

There's certainly debate amongst us on the Telecommunications Act. My take is that the law, with that language, was written decades before a cell phone was even invented. IMO, it isn't included and I've seen several instances of debtors being sued past the 2 yrs using "written" as the basis for the SOL. Now I don't know if this Act was used as a defense.

---

I ran into a case online before posting on this here where this SOL was successfully used in a New York collections suit.  Admittedly it wasn't a cell phone, but the state acknowledged the SOL and tossed the suit.  I myself mentioned it to a CA on my terminated cell phone and they seemed to agree they didn't have much negotiation standing.

[mauve]

Sprint sucks, which is why I switched when I finished serving my sentence with them.  Perhaps they automatically renewed me and that's why they sent me to collections for an amount that sure looks like an early termination.  So glad to be done with them.

[guiness56]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@guiness56 wrote:

---

I know what the code says and it does not say anything about a cell phone.  The code was written many years ago and has not been updated to include them.  I would not try to use that as a defense.  People get sued every day for cell phone bills that are beyond 2 years old.

I used to believe it did cover cell phones.  But after a lot of research, I have changed my mind.

The debt is for early termination fees not for actual charges.

Can you provide a court case that shows otherwise?

If the OP wants to try to use that as a defense, it is up to them.

---

Let me restate it for you.  This particular statute is covered under the chapter of US Code for wire and radio communications.  Now admittedly I am not an electrical engineer, but I do believe a cellular phone is a radio communication that ties into landline telephones.  The code does not NEED to be updated to include it.  Should Congress not want it in there, then Congress needs to change the law to EXCLUDE them.

Don't believe me?  I watched closely five years ago when the IRS got royally smacked in circuit court after circuit court regarding the telephone excise tax being imposed on bundled service and every court hearing the case looked at the law and looked at the service and said the tax didn't apply and this was on a tax almost a century old.  

Now as to your argument that it doesn't cover early termination fees, well, why on Earth wouldn't it?  Early termination fees are lawful charges.  Nobody disputes that.  I see no reason whatsoever why they wouldn't be covered.

 There is really no need to get snooty. 

   You have your opinion and I have mine.  I stand by my post.  It is not a matter of believing you or not. 

   As for the fees not being included, they are not  charges for the use of service.  That is what the code covers. 

   Cell phones do not use landlines.

[Anonymous]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

   As for the fees not being included, they are not  charges for the use of service.  That is what the code covers.  That is not what the code SAYS. Section 415(a): "All actions at law by carriers for recovery of their lawful charges.......for you to be correct the charge cannot be lawful.  Clearly it is.

   Cell phones do not use landlines.  They are still by definition radio communications.  Refer back to Chapter 5 of U.S.C. 47, titled "Wire or Radio Communication" .  There is nothing I could find in the definitions that limits this subchapter or chapter to telephone and not radio.  I'll also point out to you that cell networks ARE connected to the telephone system (obviously) so the subscriber is not paying for airtime on the radio frequency, he is paying for radio access to the telephony network.  It's the two way nature of the system which differs it from the old 2 meter ham radio I once in a while would use from my car to access a base station's landline function before cell phones became mainstream.

Any way you look at it, the definition fits until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise.

---

[guiness56]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@guiness56 wrote:

   As for the fees not being included, they are not  charges for the use of service.  That is what the code covers.  That is not what the code SAYS. Section 415(a): "All actions at law by carriers for recovery of their lawful charges.......for you to be correct the charge cannot be lawful.  Clearly it is.

   Cell phones do not use landlines.  They are still by definition radio communications.  Refer back to Chapter 5 of U.S.C. 47, titled "Wire or Radio Communication" .  There is nothing I could find in the definitions that limits this subchapter or chapter to telephone and not radio.  I'll also point out to you that cell networks ARE connected to the telephone system (obviously) so the subscriber is not paying for airtime on the radio frequency, he is paying for radio access to the telephony network.  It's the two way nature of the system which differs it from the old 2 meter ham radio I once in a while would use from my car to access a base station's landline function before cell phones became mainstream.

Any way you look at it, the definition fits until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise.

---

---

I thought you weren't an engineer.

At any rate, I disagree with you.  I have seen no cases to prove otherwise.  I am aware of what is contained in the code.  I have read it many times.

Early termination fees are NOT fees for service, such as long distance charges, usage charges etc.

It is a fee the company charges for terminating their services and thereby DO NOT fall under lawful charges. 

I stand by what I say.  Show me a case where anyone has ever used this for a cell phone and won.

[Anonymous]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

I thought you weren't an engineer.

At any rate, I disagree with you.  I have seen no cases to prove otherwise.  I am aware of what is contained in the code.  I have read it many times.

Early termination fees are NOT fees for service, such as long distance charges, usage charges etc.

It is a fee the company charges for terminating their services and thereby DO NOT fall under lawful charges. 

I stand by what I say.  Show me a case where anyone has ever used this for a cell phone and won.

---

We will have to agree to disagree.  I see nothing in the code that specifies what charges are.  Since termination fees are contractual they must be lawful in the absence of anything that disallows.  Further, that nobody has used it and won is not indicative of anything when nobody has used it.....