Is it Legal for Verizon to to boot you off Unlimited?

[McSlappy]

Verizon, or any wireless carrier, can make any changes to your contract at any time they wish. However, if they fail to notify you of the change BEFORE said change happens, then you should have the option to terminate your contract without ETF. However, if they do give you notice that they are making changes, then you really can't do anything without paying the ETF.

I'm exaggerating just to make a point. But if you buy a data plan and get locked in at $30 a month for 2 years, I don't think they could after a couple months in give you notice in advance, and say that same service is now going to cost you $600 a month and sorry your are locked in to your previous contract date for the next 18 months.

 

[dmmarck]

Thanks but I am well versed in this area. Materiality is just as subjective of a standard as reasonable doubt is. Or obscenity for that matter. As with all of these standards, it is highly fact dependent.

The poster whom I was responding to was making it out to be cut and dry what is a material contract change and what is not . It is far from cut and dry.

And in none of what you have cited is there a case on point. If you think I am wrong, then cite to it.

In everything I cited there is a case in point. Go look at them first before saying there isn't; these are materials used in practice, not just some random "let me Google this and win an internet argument" type thing. Hell, if he tells me the state I can go and find cases myself on Lexis and Westlaw that will give him the applicable standard.

Everything is fact dependent; that does not remove or change the standards used. Also, reasonableness is an objective standard in the legal world. Not a subjective one. You may believe it to be subjective, and there are arguments to support that, particularly nowadays, but at its root is the need for an objective standard by which to judge human conduct.

 

[yosteve]

I use about 200gigs a month so if they kick anyone off I'll be one of the first lol. And you will hear me raise hell. This month I'm gonna see if I can hit 1Tb go go gadget Netflix.

You're the reason were all getting booted!

 

[GNex Girl]

I was more looking at the referred to stipulations that were imposed by the FCC referred to in the linked article. If in bidding for the new 700Mhz space that they built they're LTE network in is there possibly a clause in there that would prevent them from their new limiting plans? I don't know all the legal mumbo jumbo or the FCC particulars. Was hoping someone that does understand all this stuff may have some insight on it.

For example they didn't want you to be able to move your data sim between devices and had to back down about it because of the agreement they made for the 700Mhz spectrum.

Your point is flying over the heads of those posting here.

 

[GNex Girl]

In everything I cited there is a case in point.

Huh? I said case ON point. That phrase has a specific meaning in the law. And nothing you have written cites to a case ON point.

 

[7stringer]

Huh? I said case ON point. That phrase has a specific meaning in the law. And nothing you have written cites to a case ON point.

Feels like someone's trying to unnecessarily flex their (assumed?) law degree muscle :rollseyes:

 

[dmmarck]

Your point is flying over the heads of those posting here.

1. FCC law is highly complex, and new regulations only increase that complexity. Without having the regulation in hand it is likely that none of us are qualified to give a definitive answer.
2. The point itself has actually been addressed, at least indirectly; the contract will, most likely take care of any discrepancy that the FCC law bring. Further, most regulations, when enacted, are prospective. So current contracts will be unaffected, while future contracts will have to be compliant. What compliance means I have no idea because I'm a tax attorney, not an FCC/tech attorney. Hopefully someone with that expertise chimes in.

Huh? I said case ON point. That phrase has a specific meaning in the law. And nothing you have written cites to a case ON point.

Please don't lecture me on the law or our legal system. Thank you.

 

[Ry]

I was more looking at the referred to stipulations that were imposed by the FCC referred to in the linked article. If in bidding for the new 700Mhz space that they built they're LTE network in is there possibly a clause in there that would prevent them from their new limiting plans? I don't know all the legal mumbo jumbo or the FCC particulars. Was hoping someone that does understand all this stuff may have some insight on it.

For example they didn't want you to be able to move your data sim between devices and had to back down about it because of the agreement they made for the 700Mhz spectrum.

Here's the thing - tiered data already exists for both the Verizon and AT&T 4G LTE networks.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[ScandaLeX]

pics or it never Happend....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums

I guess we need pics of your birth also.

Hahaaaahahahaaa!!!! That's was hilarious!!!!!

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[GNex Girl]

1. FCC law is highly complex, and new regulations only increase that complexity. Without having the regulation in hand it is likely that none of us are qualified to give a definitive answer.
2. The point itself has actually been addressed, at least indirectly; the contract will, most likely take care of any discrepancy that the FCC law bring. Further, most regulations, when enacted, are prospective. So current contracts will be unaffected, while future contracts will have to be compliant. What compliance means I have no idea because I'm a tax attorney, not an FCC/tech attorney. Hopefully someone with that expertise chimes in.

Please don't lecture me on the law or our legal system. Thank you.

Please don't lecture me on the law or our legal system. You still have yet to cite a case ON point with regards to materiality in the context in which the issue was raised.

 

[GNex Girl]

Feels like someone's trying to unnecessarily flex their (assumed?) law degree muscle :rollseyes:

Case on point has a specific meaning in the law. Lots of talk going on here, but no case on point.

 

[3rdpig]

Lawyer fight! Lawyer fight!

I've got the beer and the popcorn, maybe we'll get lucky and they'll both lose!

 

[hehubado]

View attachment 28042

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums

 

[dmmarck]

Please don't lecture me on the law or our legal system. You still have yet to cite a case ON point with regards to materiality.

When you dismiss authoritative works, treatises, laws, legal regimes, and general reasoning it's hard not to. My apologies if that offended you, I merely wish for a constructive debate. I based my opinion on your statement about reasonable doubt, in addition to not conveying an understanding of how contract law and regulatory law conflict and interact. For example, by claiming that "reasonable doubt" is subjective it shows to me that you have (1) a misconception at the core level of what reasonableness means and is defined in both a state-by-state and aggregate standard level, (2) a fault in logic when one person, not necessarily accustomed to thinking by analogy, needs to do so but cannot so they use blunt, stark black/white terms, (3) a miscomprehension of how different standards work within the framework of both a state-specific and national system of jurisprudence, and (4) a person clinging to so futile a point just to win that they forgo any constructive, actual argument they may have.

I love arguing, I love debate. But both parties must enter the debate with the same rules or else it all falls apart. Hence I said "read this stuff before dismissing it."

Give me a state and I'll have applicable case law in seconds (but because this is a billable service, I will not be doing it past Google and free databases; sorry, professional standards are applicable here).

Finding cases "on" point, meaning 100% the same facts and standards, is almost impossible if you take it by the strictest of definitions. That's not how legal argument, reasoning, or deduction works. You find applicable law, where the facts are similar, and you apply that to your facts, usually through analogy. Maybe the facts are truly "on point," and maybe they're close enough. But to insist that you need a case "on point" or else my argument is invalid...well...that's just unnecessary, wrong, and contravenes how our legal system works.

Hence I asked you not to lecture me on it.

 

[GNex Girl]

Lawyer fight! Lawyer fight!

I've got the beer and the popcorn, maybe we'll get lucky and they'll both lose!

In the law it doesn't matter if you win or lose, only that you get paid, lol! jk, but a little bit not.

 

[GNex Girl]

When you dismiss authoritative works, treatises, laws, legal regimes, and general reasoning it's hard not to. My apologies if that offended you, I merely wish for a constructive debate. I based my opinion on your statement about reasonable doubt, in addition to not conveying an understanding of how contract law and regulatory law conflict and interact. For example, by claiming that "reasonable doubt" is subjective it shows to me that you have (1) a misconception at the core level of what reasonableness means and is defined in both a state-by-state and aggregate standard level, (2) a fault in logic when one person, not necessarily accustomed to thinking by analogy, needs to do so but cannot so they use blunt, stark black/white terms, (3) a miscomprehension of how different standards work within the framework of both a state-specific and national system of jurisprudence, and (4) a person clinging to so futile a point just to win that they forgo any constructive, actual argument they may have.

I love arguing, I love debate. But both parties must enter the debate with the same rules or else it all fall's apart. Hence I said "read this stuff before dismissing it."

Give me a state and I'll have applicable case law in seconds (but because this is a billable service, I will not be doing it past Google and free databases; sorry, professional standards are applicable here).

Finding cases "on" point, meaning 100% the same facts and standards, is almost impossible if you take it by the strictest of definitions. That's now how legal argument, reasoning, or deduction works. You find applicable law, where the facts are similar, and you apply that to your facts, usually through analogy. Maybe the facts are truly "on point," and maybe they're close enough. But to insist that you need a case "on point" or else my argument is invalid...well...that's just unnecessary, wrong, and contravenes how our legal system works.

Hence I asked you not to lecture me on it.

Don't spend time writing such long posts because no one is reading them.

 

[2defmouze]

Don't spend time writing such long posts because no one is reading them.

LMAO seriously this is your response??

Why not ask him to limit his words to those with 2 syllables or less, or to generally keep it to a 3rd grade reading level....

 

[qbnkelt]

Don't spend time writing such long posts because no one is reading them.

He is very informative, thorough, insightful....unlike others.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Android Central Forums

 

[atlas9171]

Don't spend time writing such long posts because no one is reading them.

I read it, apparently not only did you lose the argument but you didn't get paid either.

 

[sicario666]

It's 100% legal if it's a new contract. If they change your current contract, then depending on modification clauses, materiality of the term, and other factors it may or may not be "legal."

Keep in mind, using the terms "legal" and "illegal" results in something of a misnomer; if VZW changes a material term and it "violates" the contract, that is not illegal. The result of that action is VZW breaching the contract, which gives you a variety of legal options--suing for the expectation, suing for reliance, etc. etc.

You're hired!

Dropped from LiquidNexus1.4 via Tapatalk2