Canceling a Additional Line with Verizon

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Hi All...

I have a main cell phone with Verizon that I have a 2 year contract
on. Around April of 2004, I added a second line off of that plan which
shares the minutes. I do not get as much use out of the second phone
as I thought I would, so I am wondering if I will need to pay a
cancelation fee to remove the second "shared minutes" phone, but still
keep the contract with the main phone. Does this make sense?
Basically, I'll be staying with Verizon on my main phone, but want to
take the other phone off of the shared minutes. Will I need to pay a
cancelation fee to do this? Hopefully that makes it more clear.

Thanks in advance for all of the help!

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

jameson_ray@comcast.net (Jameson) wrote in
news:52a2ddbd.0411060704.4fb20d40@posting.google.com:

> Hi All...
>
> I have a main cell phone with Verizon that I have a 2 year
contract
> on. Around April of 2004, I added a second line off of that plan
which
> shares the minutes. I do not get as much use out of the second
phone
> as I thought I would, so I am wondering if I will need to pay a
> cancelation fee to remove the second "shared minutes" phone, but
still
> keep the contract with the main phone. Does this make sense?
> Basically, I'll be staying with Verizon on my main phone, but
want to
> take the other phone off of the shared minutes. Will I need to
pay a
> cancelation fee to do this? Hopefully that makes it more clear.
>
> Thanks in advance for all of the help!

You could actually have helped yourself. If you read the paperwork
you signed, and then if you read the documents Verizon sent you,
you'd know that the answer is that you have a contract with each
phone that is subject to an early termination fee.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

xman@xman.com wrote:
> think they know everything and almost seem to like to hear that people
> didn't stand in the store for 2 hours to read the entire contract including
> the small print.

I get tired of the bullshit from people who *don't* want to read the contract
and then complain when they're held to it. Anything given in writing will take
precedence over anything told verbally to you, and that's not just a Verizon
issue, that's the law. The law always has and always will given more weight to
WRITTEN contracts. Knowing what's in your contract is just common sense.

> Usually if some one that does that they are exceptionally
> cheap and frugal.

Oh really? I read my cellular contracts and we spend around $100 per month with
our cellular carrier.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Not to mention that after the sale Verizon sends you a very clear
and concise letter, for each line, telling you about the
termination fee and giving you time to notify them if there is any
mistake. (The original poster will probably say he never got it --
usual response. It's funny how only the people who want to cancel
early happened not to get the letter.) The more these idiots are
made to pay termination fes, the more money Verizon will have to
maintain its network for its customers who CAN read... :-)

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:cmkgas$hht$1@ratbert.glorb.com:

> xman@xman.com wrote:
>> think they know everything and almost seem to like to hear that
>> people didn't stand in the store for 2 hours to read the entire
>> contract including the small print.
>
> I get tired of the bullshit from people who *don't* want to read
the
> contract and then complain when they're held to it. Anything
given in
> writing will take precedence over anything told verbally to you,
and
> that's not just a Verizon issue, that's the law. The law always
has
> and always will given more weight to WRITTEN contracts. Knowing
what's
> in your contract is just common sense.
>
>> Usually if some one that does that they are exceptionally
>> cheap and frugal.
>
> Oh really? I read my cellular contracts and we spend around $100
per
> month with our cellular carrier.
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

poof wrote:

> I get tired of the bullshit from people that post the same exact post
> word for word more than once!

Sorry. My news server didn't respond the first time and I didn't think the post
had gone through.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Michael Kincaid" <kz7yy3z02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:2004110719285916807%kz7yy3z02@sneakemailcom...
> On 2004-11-06 07:04:33 -0800, jameson_ray@comcast.net (Jameson) said:
>
> > I have a main cell phone with Verizon that I have a 2 year contract
> > on. Around April of 2004, I added a second line off of that plan which
> > shares the minutes.
>
> am I correct in recalling that the term commitment is only required if
> subsidized equipment was purchased, not merely for adding the second
> line itself?
>

Unless the price plan or feature was a promotional one that specifically
calls for a contract.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
>>> am I correct in recalling that the term commitment is only required
>>> if subsidized equipment was purchased, not merely for adding the
>>> second line itself?
>>
>> Unless the price plan or feature was a promotional one that
>> specifically calls for a contract.
>
> No, that applies to plan CHANGES. New lines of service always require
> contracts.

Yes. For clarity:
You must commit to an initial contract for a new line.
After the initial contract term you can go month-to-month.
In order to add any new promotions thereafter you must again
commit to a contract. (so you can change plans any time up or
down but if you want any promotions with the new plan you must
commit to a contract).

So if you already had the second line and you simply wanted to
add it to the family share then you may (the promo thing) have
been able to add it without commiting to a new contract.

The family share is not really a "plan" by itself. Each line in a
family share is sort of treated as a separate plan. For example
I, my wife, and my daughter's lines are in a family share but all
three have different contract end dates. Only the primary line
qualifies for the NE2 because the secondary lines are seen as
$20 plans that don't meet the ~$40 minimum.

So I believe you can move an existing line into a family share
without any additional commitment. I don't think this applies
to the OP though.

Adding a *new* line requires a contract.
Adding a line to a family share does not.

(or am I totally wrong?)
-Quick

-Quick

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

At that point when you get that letter...you are already in a binded
contract so it doesn't make a difference at that point anyway. That's
probably the most important piece of information that Verizon will send you.
It has your starting date, contract details and other misc information.

"Mitchell Regenbogen" <mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959A5D811D07Cmregpanixcom@166.84.1.69...
> Not to mention that after the sale Verizon sends you a very clear
> and concise letter, for each line, telling you about the
> termination fee and giving you time to notify them if there is any
> mistake. (The original poster will probably say he never got it --
> usual response. It's funny how only the people who want to cancel
> early happened not to get the letter.) The more these idiots are
> made to pay termination fes, the more money Verizon will have to
> maintain its network for its customers who CAN read... :-)
>
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
> news:cmkgas$hht$1@ratbert.glorb.com:
>
> > xman@xman.com wrote:
> >> think they know everything and almost seem to like to hear that
> >> people didn't stand in the store for 2 hours to read the entire
> >> contract including the small print.
> >
> > I get tired of the bullshit from people who *don't* want to read
> the
> > contract and then complain when they're held to it. Anything
> given in
> > writing will take precedence over anything told verbally to you,
> and
> > that's not just a Verizon issue, that's the law. The law always
> has
> > and always will given more weight to WRITTEN contracts. Knowing
> what's
> > in your contract is just common sense.
> >
> >> Usually if some one that does that they are exceptionally
> >> cheap and frugal.
> >
> > Oh really? I read my cellular contracts and we spend around $100
> per
> > month with our cellular carrier.
> >
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

xman@xman.com wrote:
> I guess it's all perspective. Since my time is worth more then what
> it would take to stand there and read a contract then I guess not
> reading it and signing it would be my particular option. With all
> that said, it's still only a stupid cellular contract. If there was a
> list of what contracts to read in life this for me would be at the
> very bottom. For others though, it's not the same case. I have
> friends that have plenty of money and cheap as hell and would
> actually stand there and read the entire contract before signing it.
> I don't knock it, but being that it's just a friggin cell phone
> contract come on now. People have taken me the wrong way and really
> need to relax.

Yes, and I suspect that you also would *not* make a big deal
about paying the ETF (possibly the case with the OP too) or
be looking for some less than honest way out of it. It's those
people everybody is replying to.

-Quick

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

xman@xman.com wrote:
> Well, about the restaurant thing...if the price is in the ballpark area of
> what you'd expect it to be, I wouldn't imagine myself looking at it at all.

But you're looking at it from the wrong perspective - people don't read
contracts because they're cheap, they read the contracts they sign because they
want to know what they're agreeing to. They're protecting themselves.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

True, but it's a reason not to be surprised six months later when
you try to cancel.

<xman@xman.com> wrote in news:yMUjd.9383$b51.6010
@fe32.usenetserver.com:

> At that point when you get that letter...you are already in a
binded
> contract so it doesn't make a difference at that point anyway.
That's
> probably the most important piece of information that Verizon
will
> send you. It has your starting date, contract details and other
misc
> information.
>
> "Mitchell Regenbogen" <mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns959A5D811D07Cmregpanixcom@166.84.1.69...
>> Not to mention that after the sale Verizon sends you a very
clear
>> and concise letter, for each line, telling you about the
>> termination fee and giving you time to notify them if there is
any
>> mistake. (The original poster will probably say he never got it
--
>> usual response. It's funny how only the people who want to
cancel
>> early happened not to get the letter.) The more these idiots
are
>> made to pay termination fes, the more money Verizon will have to
>> maintain its network for its customers who CAN read... :-)
>>
>> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
>> news:cmkgas$hht$1@ratbert.glorb.com:
>>
>> > xman@xman.com wrote:
>> >> think they know everything and almost seem to like to hear
that
>> >> people didn't stand in the store for 2 hours to read the
entire
>> >> contract including the small print.
>> >
>> > I get tired of the bullshit from people who *don't* want to
read
>> the
>> > contract and then complain when they're held to it. Anything
>> given in
>> > writing will take precedence over anything told verbally to
you,
>> and
>> > that's not just a Verizon issue, that's the law. The law
always
>> has
>> > and always will given more weight to WRITTEN contracts.
Knowing
>> what's
>> > in your contract is just common sense.
>> >
>> >> Usually if some one that does that they are exceptionally
>> >> cheap and frugal.
>> >
>> > Oh really? I read my cellular contracts and we spend around
$100
>> per
>> > month with our cellular carrier.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick wrote:

> It's not a technical problem. The second line simply goes to an
> individual plan. It could be a problem for you since the monthly
> charge for that account would go from $20 to whatever plan
> you move it to... but then you were paying for the primary line
> anyway so your total would drop by at least $20+.

If you have a FamilyShare plan for, say, 800 minutes, and drop the primarily
line, you should just drop the $20 per month and be paying whatever you'd
normally pay on a single line for 800 minutes.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Like I said...it's still just a cellular contract.

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1099965120.995451@sj-nntpcache-3...
> xman@xman.com wrote:
> > I guess it's all perspective. Since my time is worth more then what
> > it would take to stand there and read a contract then I guess not
> > reading it and signing it would be my particular option. With all
> > that said, it's still only a stupid cellular contract. If there was a
> > list of what contracts to read in life this for me would be at the
> > very bottom. For others though, it's not the same case. I have
> > friends that have plenty of money and cheap as hell and would
> > actually stand there and read the entire contract before signing it.
> > I don't knock it, but being that it's just a friggin cell phone
> > contract come on now. People have taken me the wrong way and really
> > need to relax.
>
> Yes, and I suspect that you also would *not* make a big deal
> about paying the ETF (possibly the case with the OP too) or
> be looking for some less than honest way out of it. It's those
> people everybody is replying to.
>
> -Quick
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Yea, I guess...but like I said...it's just a cellular contract. I understood
the basics and was pretty aware of what I was getting....so I really didn't
need to read the contract anyway. Actually, everyone basically knows there's
an termination fee....so what else do I need to know from that contract?
Anyway, it's not important to me since as I said before again, my time is
worth more then to waste it on reading a cellular contract. A life insurance
contract or some thing more important would justify, not a cellular service.
But we're all different. Some have that time to take as long as they want to
read whatever, I don't.

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:cmp8ef$662$4@ratbert.glorb.com...
> xman@xman.com wrote:
> > Well, about the restaurant thing...if the price is in the ballpark area
of
> > what you'd expect it to be, I wouldn't imagine myself looking at it at
all.
>
> But you're looking at it from the wrong perspective - people don't read
> contracts because they're cheap, they read the contracts they sign because
they
> want to know what they're agreeing to. They're protecting themselves.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

<xman@xman.com> wrote in message
news:3Wfkd.14130$eL4.5013@fe35.usenetserver.com...
---snip---snip---snip---
> Anyway, it's not important to me since as I said before again, my time is
> worth more then to waste it on reading a cellular contract.
---snip---snip---snip---

If your time is so valuable, why are you wasting it by repeatedly stating
it's as waste of time to read a contract. Hell man, you could have read
three contracts in the time you've "wasted" here!

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I have to repeat it, since everyone keeps responding with the same thing.
I'm not sure why I even respond to some of the sarcastic people that don't
contribute anything.

"Joe Kaffe" <kaffejoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Iskd.4$_B5.1@lakeread05...
>
> <xman@xman.com> wrote in message
> news:3Wfkd.14130$eL4.5013@fe35.usenetserver.com...
> ---snip---snip---snip---
> > Anyway, it's not important to me since as I said before again, my time
is
> > worth more then to waste it on reading a cellular contract.
> ---snip---snip---snip---
>
> If your time is so valuable, why are you wasting it by repeatedly stating
> it's as waste of time to read a contract. Hell man, you could have read
> three contracts in the time you've "wasted" here!
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in
news:ek4dp0p60h3u0q34frdbs3tjkm8ve0ma64@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:09:29 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Regenbogen
> <mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Not to mention that after the sale Verizon sends you a very clear
>>and concise letter, for each line, telling you about the
>>termination fee and giving you time to notify them if there is
any
>>mistake. (The original poster will probably say he never got it
--
>>usual response. It's funny how only the people who want to
cancel
>>early happened not to get the letter.)
>
> Just today, I got two letters in my mailbox that were not
addressed to
> me: one is for the former owner of my house; the other is for my
> next-door neighbor.
>
> I'm not sure who is more incompetent: the USPS, or VZW's billing
> department. That race is just too close to call.
>
> Of course, if challenged in court, VZW could never prove that you
> received the letter. But the violation fee is low enough that
most
> people would spend more money fighting it in court, so the fact
that
> the contract is unenforceable (*) doesn't matter. A brilliant
move on
> Verizon's part; they probably make more money from violation
fees,
> which are pure profit, than they do from their regular customers.
>
> (*) You need a "meeting of the minds" to have a valid contract.
>

So your underlying premise is that a termination fee is
unreasonable? I don't quite get this welfare mentality these days.
You expect a company to sell you a $200+ wireless phone for $20-50
and then let you cancel the service a month later with no
consequence? I think its time for a little growing up.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in
news:CiKld.59843$EZ.46164@okepread07:

> "Mitchell Regenbogen" <mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95A0CC9ACB206mregpanixcom@24.168.128.86...
>> Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in
>> news:ek4dp0p60h3u0q34frdbs3tjkm8ve0ma64@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:09:29 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Regenbogen
>>> <mreg@panix.spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not to mention that after the sale Verizon sends you a very
clear
>>>>and concise letter, for each line, telling you about the
>>>>termination fee and giving you time to notify them if there is
>> any
>>>>mistake. (The original poster will probably say he never got
it
>> --
>>>>usual response. It's funny how only the people who want to
>> cancel
>>>>early happened not to get the letter.)
>>>
>>> Just today, I got two letters in my mailbox that were not
>> addressed to
>>> me: one is for the former owner of my house; the other is for
my
>>> next-door neighbor.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure who is more incompetent: the USPS, or VZW's
billing
>>> department. That race is just too close to call.
>>>
>>> Of course, if challenged in court, VZW could never prove that
you
>>> received the letter. But the violation fee is low enough that
>> most
>>> people would spend more money fighting it in court, so the fact
>> that
>>> the contract is unenforceable (*) doesn't matter. A brilliant
>> move on
>>> Verizon's part; they probably make more money from violation
>> fees,
>>> which are pure profit, than they do from their regular
customers.
>>>
>>> (*) You need a "meeting of the minds" to have a valid contract.
>>>
>>
>> So your underlying premise is that a termination fee is
>> unreasonable? I don't quite get this welfare mentality these
days.
>> You expect a company to sell you a $200+ wireless phone for $20-
50
>> and then let you cancel the service a month later with no
>> consequence? I think its time for a little growing up.
>
> The OP had his contract extended without his knowledge.
> He terminated service after the original contract would have
expired -
> but - one month before the extended contract expired - result -
he got
> charged the $175 early termination fee. Had he realized there
was a
> contract extension he could have paid for another month and
avoided
> the termination fee!

The part I don't buy is that the contract was extended without his
knowledge. He very well knew it, didn't care, and then he wanted
to get out of it. You can spot these people a mile away.