Anyone been FORCED to pay termination fee?

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

Are there any posters or lurkers out there that have been FORCED to pay a
termination fee on their silly "contract"? I'm not talking about being
scared into it by idle threats from some company hack. I'm talking about
anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the termination fee,
or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks) it's
tagged.

Let's hear from any of you to this thread that has actually been FORCED to
pay the fee.....or positively knows someone else who has been FORCED to pay
the fees.

--
Larry

Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;
63 answers Last reply
More about anyone forced termination
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967A64CE08D75w4csc@63.223.7.253...
    > Are there any posters or lurkers out there that have been FORCED to
    > pay a
    > termination fee on their silly "contract"? I'm not talking about
    > being
    > scared into it by idle threats from some company hack. I'm talking
    > about
    > anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the
    > termination fee,
    > or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks)
    > it's
    > tagged.
    >
    > Let's hear from any of you to this thread that has actually been
    > FORCED to
    > pay the fee.....or positively knows someone else who has been FORCED
    > to pay
    > the fees.
    >
    > --
    > Larry
    >
    > Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;

    Let the fun begin.....

    Years ago when I switch from Cellular One to then NYNEX the folks at
    Cellular One (Now Cingular) sent my account to a collection agency.
    The agency called me at home and sent a letter asking why I will not
    pay etc. I first answered with a copy of every single invoice I had
    from Cellular One that showed the bills were never correct, the
    postings were late even when paying at the local office, the numerous
    folks I had spoken to at the time to resolve the issues and what never
    or did happen. I then called the lady at the collection agency and
    explained it as I had written it and I told her that if the collection
    agency posted anything to my report I would take both Cellular One and
    them to court.

    She after receiving and looking at the documents called back to say
    that she believed I had a valid point of not paying and told her
    client that. it never appeared in my credit profile and it has never
    harmed me from getting service any where else. Now the hoot. I was not
    on a contract since I was then a month to month since I started with
    them as the 403 customer (Your cell number at the time showed your
    rank in the phone number) no contracts as you have today. I have
    noticed that if you take the company to Small Claims Court they are
    more than willing to work it out before the judge gets involved. Taken
    auto dealers and the like to the court and have not lost yet. Words of
    advice "save all the contracts and updated documents they send and
    read them carefully" many times the ETF can be waived.

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

    Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to the credit bureaus
    as delinquent on your obligations, that usually gets the customer's
    attention faster & gets the fee paid much faster.

    Fred

    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967A64CE08D75w4csc@63.223.7.253...
    > Are there any posters or lurkers out there that have been FORCED to pay a
    > termination fee on their silly "contract"? I'm not talking about being
    > scared into it by idle threats from some company hack. I'm talking about
    > anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the termination
    fee,
    > or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks) it's
    > tagged.
    >
    > Let's hear from any of you to this thread that has actually been FORCED to
    > pay the fee.....or positively knows someone else who has been FORCED to
    pay
    > the fees.
    >
    > --
    > Larry
    >
    > Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02:

    > Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to the credit
    > bureaus as delinquent on your obligations, that usually gets the
    > customer's attention faster & gets the fee paid much faster.
    >
    > Fred
    >

    But, as I stated in my question, I'm looking for anyone who has been FORCED
    to pay....not someone paying because of fear, their usual tactic. To date,
    I've found NOONE!

    Anyone been FORCED to pay? Let's hear your story!!

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02...
    > Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to the credit
    bureaus
    > as delinquent on your obligations, that usually gets the customer's
    > attention faster & gets the fee paid much faster.
    >
    >

    But then the fee would not get paid because its already on your report and
    the damage is done. There is no way in hell they will remove it even if you
    do pay. Been there, done that.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    RM wrote:
    > "Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02...
    >> Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to
    >> the credit bureaus as delinquent on your obligations,
    >> that usually gets the customer's attention faster & gets
    >> the fee paid much faster.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > But then the fee would not get paid because its already
    > on your report and the damage is done. There is no way in
    > hell they will remove it even if you do pay. Been there,
    > done that.

    But a 30 day deliquent is less negative points than a
    90 day deliquent which is less than a 120 day deliquent?

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

    It will not show as delinquent but as a collections which arent dated past
    the initial entry. You might get a couple points for it being paid but not
    many. A termination fee is a onetime assessment not a revolving monthly
    charge so i dont think it could show as delinquent with day counts.

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1119240129.99197@sj-nntpcache-3...
    > RM wrote:
    > > "Fred" <agunat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > news:tYjte.768$up5.169@lakeread02...
    > >> Generally it is easier for the provider to report you to
    > >> the credit bureaus as delinquent on your obligations,
    > >> that usually gets the customer's attention faster & gets
    > >> the fee paid much faster.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > But then the fee would not get paid because its already
    > > on your report and the damage is done. There is no way in
    > > hell they will remove it even if you do pay. Been there,
    > > done that.
    >
    > But a 30 day deliquent is less negative points than a
    > 90 day deliquent which is less than a 120 day deliquent?
    >
    > -Quick
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "RM" <rm@blah.blah> wrote in
    news:5sqte.32060$yp5.29121@fe03.news.easynews.com:

    > Been there, done that.

    So, the only thing they "did" to you is attach to your credit report?

    That won't stop you from getting a loan/credit card/etc., by the way.

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > "RM" <rm@blah.blah> wrote in
    > news:5sqte.32060$yp5.29121@fe03.news.easynews.com:
    >
    >> Been there, done that.
    >
    > So, the only thing they "did" to you is attach to your
    > credit report?
    >
    > That won't stop you from getting a loan/credit card/etc.,
    > by the way.

    It can effect the rate you're offered though. It's like getting
    auto insurance with a DWI and a few chargeable accidents
    on your recent DMV record.

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

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:53:47 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
    wrote:

    >Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;

    Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
    to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
    pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
    your question.

    Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:

    > Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
    > to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
    > pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
    > your question.
    >
    > Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
    >

    Is there an answer to my question in there somewhere....or just the usual
    attacks to prevent them from finding out the truth?...(c;

    By the way, I was a Verizon customer...before that a GTE customer...before
    that a Cellular One customer...before that the 6th cellular customer in
    Charleston, SC on Cellular One of Charleston...before that a Dialpage IMTS
    customer...before that a Bell$outh IMTS customer. I have never broken a
    contract with anyone, including Verizon Wireless. There are lots of
    previous Verizon customers reading, posting and lurking on this PUBLIC
    newsgroup. If you don't want to read our posts and comments, I suggest you
    go to some company sanitized love group off Usenet the company hacks can
    content control. Then, you won't have to read anything bad about Verizon's
    business practices...the lies, false ads, false coverage maps, etc.
    Everything will be just peachy! But, don't try to censor the usenet group.
    It isn't going to happen which is why we are all here, including you.

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:

    > Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
    > to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
    > pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
    > your question.
    >
    > Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
    >

    Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was also asking Verizon
    customers who had broken their contracts with other carriers, any other
    carriers, if they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.

    More obviously, today, the answer is no.....

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    > news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
    >
    >> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again,
    >> the only fun to be seen in this thread is why someone
    >> who *left* VZW and *had* to pay their ETF would still be
    >> hanging around in the VZW group to answer your question.
    >>
    >> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors'
    >> groups.
    >>
    >
    > Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was
    > also asking Verizon customers who had broken their
    > contracts with other carriers, any other carriers, if
    > they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.
    >
    > More obviously, today, the answer is no.....

    I'm still wrestling with what you mean by "FORCED"?
    I get the impression that having your account sent to a
    collection agency doesn't qualify? Are you looking for
    someone that VZW went through a court action to be
    paid? What are the chances of that? Bringing legal
    action against individuals for $175 would not be a real
    smart move by a multi million dollar company. It would
    really piss off the courts and wouldn't be worth the negative
    PR giving fodder to the likes of you.

    I would think their goal would be to simply shove it to
    a collection agency while making sure they marked your
    credit. They recover some small percentage and remove
    the individual from becoming a repeat customer in the
    near future.

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

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:53:35 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
    wrote:

    >The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    >news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
    >
    >> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
    >> to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
    >> pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
    >> your question.
    >>
    >> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
    >>
    >
    >Is there an answer to my question in there somewhere....or just the usual
    >attacks to prevent them from finding out the truth?...(c;

    No, Larry. No one is attacking you. And I can't recall ever doing it
    myself. My suggestion was merely that you might get a more of a
    response by posting it where ex-VZW customers are likely to hang out.

    >By the way, I was a Verizon customer...before that a GTE customer...before
    >that a Cellular One customer...before that the 6th cellular customer in
    >Charleston, SC on Cellular One of Charleston...before that a Dialpage IMTS
    >customer...before that a Bell$outh IMTS customer.

    Yeah, yeah. Larry, we know. And I just passed my 10 year mark with
    them dating all the way back to the BAM/BANM days. And I had a phone
    on a GTE MN corporate account briefly in the early 90's after having
    800Mhz trunked service (with telephone patch) for a few years before
    that. We've both been around the block a few times. What's your
    point?

    >I have never broken a
    >contract with anyone, including Verizon Wireless. There are lots of
    >previous Verizon customers reading, posting and lurking on this PUBLIC
    >newsgroup. If you don't want to read our posts and comments, I suggest you
    >go to some company sanitized love group off Usenet the company hacks can
    >content control. Then, you won't have to read anything bad about Verizon's
    >business practices...the lies, false ads, false coverage maps, etc.
    >Everything will be just peachy! But, don't try to censor the usenet group.
    >It isn't going to happen which is why we are all here, including you.

    Hey Larry, I'll give you $100 if you can point out where I've tried to
    censor you in this thread. If anything, I've suggested a route where
    you might get more answers to your question by posting it in
    *additional* forums. Is that your definition of "censorship", Larry?
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    >
    > No, Larry. No one is attacking you. And I can't recall
    > ever doing it myself. My suggestion was merely that you
    > might get a more of a response by posting it where ex-VZW
    > customers are likely to hang out.

    > Hey Larry, I'll give you $100 if you can point out where
    > I've tried to censor you in this thread. If anything,
    > I've suggested a route where you might get more answers
    > to your question by posting it in *additional* forums.
    > Is that your definition of "censorship", Larry?

    Larry's tin foil hat is leaking. He will figure it out in a bit and
    adjust it. When he does he will read a bit less into the
    suggestions but we'll probably hear the story on removing
    the chairs from the waiting room again... -;)

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

    I guess if someone canceled one of their additional lines early, but
    kept their primary line.

    The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:53:47 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread....(c;
    >
    >
    > Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
    > to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
    > pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
    > your question.
    >
    > Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:37:03 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
    <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > I guess if someone canceled one of their additional lines early, but
    >kept their primary line.

    A rare exception indeed. And I'm sure that wouldn't fit Larry's
    confined scope of questioning, anyways. By definition, those people
    willingly paid the ETF to avoid having their remaining service
    affected, or in contractual terms, they did so to "remain a customer
    in good standing". Those obviously aren't the people he's looking
    for. He wants the people who took them on and lost in specific ways.

    >I'm talking about
    >anyone who has been prosecuted in court for NOT paying the termination fee,
    >or has had their credit report tagged and knows (not just thinks) it's
    >tagged.

    So only true ex-VZW customers will count for much in what he's looking
    for.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:54:57 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
    wrote:

    >The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    >news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
    >
    >> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again, the only fun
    >> to be seen in this thread is why someone who *left* VZW and *had* to
    >> pay their ETF would still be hanging around in the VZW group to answer
    >> your question.
    >>
    >> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors' groups.
    >>
    >
    >Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was also asking Verizon
    >customers who had broken their contracts with other carriers, any other
    >carriers, if they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.
    >

    The response basically remains the same. Why stop with just ONE
    provider's group? Limiting the scope of the audience in such a way
    brings an inherent bias into any results. Why not bless the entire
    alt.cellular.* hierarchy with you poll?

    Share the love, Larry;-)

    (And I'd still like to see your results when you compile them.)
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1119290195.648523@sj-nntpcache-3:

    > It can effect the rate you're offered though. It's like getting
    > auto insurance with a DWI and a few chargeable accidents
    > on your recent DMV record.
    >
    > -Quick
    >
    >

    Personally, I think America could stand a very hard dose of poor credit
    ratings. Debt is killing the young generation brainwashed by fast and easy
    credit.

    The rate is properly called "usury". We used to string them up for what
    they are doing, now, back before 1900. Today, we've made it fashionable.

    But, as you have noticed, not one single soul has said anything about being
    FORCED to pay the termination fee to any company....in hot pursuit. It's
    more companyspeak bullshit. Huge corporations don't worry about a few
    hundred bucks....especially as huge as VZW. They don't even know you
    exist. You're just a bacterium on an elephant's ass. He can't see you.
    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:

    >>It can effect the rate you're offered though. It's like getting
    >>auto insurance with a DWI and a few chargeable accidents
    >>on your recent DMV record.
    >
    > Personally, I think America could stand a very hard dose of poor credit
    > ratings. Debt is killing the young generation brainwashed by fast and easy
    > credit.

    As someone who let credit get the best of him coming out of high school, I
    would just like to wholeheartedly agree with you. Someone who manages money
    the way I used to shouldn't have credit cards with $2,000 credit limits on
    them, but I did.

    > The rate is properly called "usury". We used to string them up for what
    > they are doing, now, back before 1900. Today, we've made it fashionable.

    I agree here too.

    However, there are plenty of people who have good credit whose FICO score
    would suffer pretty badly from having a collection or even a 90-day
    delinquency on their account, and I still say that your insistence that they
    just let it ride is foolish and irresponsible, even though you're not wrong
    about the way credit is (mis)used these days.

    > But, as you have noticed, not one single soul has said anything about being
    > FORCED to pay the termination fee to any company....in hot pursuit.

    Even if they sue and win, that's not a guarantee that you'll pay. But why go
    through the hassle in the first place?

    > more companyspeak bullshit. Huge corporations don't worry about a few
    > hundred bucks....especially as huge as VZW. They don't even know you
    > exist. You're just a bacterium on an elephant's ass. He can't see you.

    True.

    --
    JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
    temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

    "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
  20. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Steve Sobol wrote:
    >
    > However, there are plenty of people who have good credit
    > whose FICO score would suffer pretty badly from having a
    > collection or even a 90-day delinquency on their account,
    > and I still say that your insistence that they just let
    > it ride is foolish and irresponsible, even though you're
    > not wrong about the way credit is (mis)used these days.

    Yea, I'm pretty particular about maintaining my FICO
    score (~830). It gets me a good number of special offers,
    rates and services. I suppose if you were retired and
    you're pretty much done with any financial changes it
    might not matter much.

    Larry again:
    >> But, as you have noticed, not one single soul has said
    >> anything about being FORCED to pay the termination fee
    >> to any company....in hot pursuit.
    >
    >> more companyspeak bullshit. Huge corporations don't
    >> worry about a few hundred bucks....especially as huge as
    >> VZW. They don't even know you exist. You're just a
    >> bacterium on an elephant's ass. He can't see you.

    Ahhh, I was just getting ready to ask about the agenda...
    You're promoting a "just don't pay it" movement? Real
    good Larry. Same thing for your federal taxes too right?

    (my imagination is fired up now) Maybe it's a plan to "help"
    the youth and money-management-challenged in this
    country by ruining their credit and forcing them to deal
    in cash up front? -- for their own good?

    I am interested in hearing more though.

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

    The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    news:ikgeb1tda3n2issbeiljusashi86i0tvvq@4ax.com:

    > My suggestion was merely that you might get a more of a
    > response by posting it where ex-VZW customers are likely to hang out.
    >

    As I pointed out, this is about all cellular companies, not just VZW. This
    is the most active newsgroup. Hell, we hardly have anyone post to Alltel.

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1119291809.102227@sj-nntpcache-3:

    > Are you looking for
    > someone that VZW went through a court action to be
    > paid? What are the chances of that? Bringing legal
    > action against individuals for $175 would not be a real
    > smart move by a multi million dollar company. It would
    > really piss off the courts and wouldn't be worth the negative
    > PR giving fodder to the likes of you.
    >

    Precisely the point. But, the scare tactic seems to work quite well,
    especially with the young and useless. It's the same companyspeak cable
    companies use pointing out you're going to be prosecuted for stealing CNN.
    The big elephant has no idea the bacterium customer even exists...or could
    care less.

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    news:qkheb151prpbqjr57b54ktkjabu5evd70l@4ax.com:

    > So only true ex-VZW customers will count for much in what he's looking
    > for.
    >
    >

    Not so. Many VZW customers here are FORMER customers of the other
    carriers, many of whom tagged them, or attempted to tag them with ETF. So,
    it also pertains to VZW customers "in good standing" who may have been
    hammered by the other carriers on their way over here. I posted it here
    because this is the most active newsgroup and read by a wide variety of
    other cell users.

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Quick wrote:
    > Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > > The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    > > news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
    > >
    > >> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again,
    > >> the only fun to be seen in this thread is why someone
    > >> who *left* VZW and *had* to pay their ETF would still be
    > >> hanging around in the VZW group to answer your question.
    > >>
    > >> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors'
    > >> groups.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was
    > > also asking Verizon customers who had broken their
    > > contracts with other carriers, any other carriers, if
    > > they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.
    > >
    > > More obviously, today, the answer is no.....
    >
    > I'm still wrestling with what you mean by "FORCED"?
    > I get the impression that having your account sent to a
    > collection agency doesn't qualify?

    I've been thinking about what it means to "force" someone to do
    something. It appears there is little if nothing that another can be
    "forced" to do. I think compelled is a better term.

    Even holding a gun to someone's head or putting them in jail may not
    "force" them to do something. Those might be more compelling reasons to
    perform the requested action, than putting a note of collections on
    their credit record.

    An entity could "take" the money by garnishing wages, putting a lean on
    or reposessing some property. I suppose that's as close to forcing a
    payment as anything.

    So it seems, when we make "stupid" or not so stupid agreements in
    contracts and then break them, the other party has varying levels of
    recourse. Verizon has already set a price on what it costs to break a
    contract, $175. That's a compelling reason to keep the agreement for
    some. Then the compelling reason to pay the $175 is the tarnish on
    one's credit record.

    With the value most people put on maintaining the best credit possible,
    that seems like a good reason to pay the ETF. Credit negatives have a
    way of staying around for a long time. Some credit problems are an
    excuse to get charged higher loan/credit rates.

    Now I'm not sure what the real consequences of a collection on a credit
    report are and under what circumstances it might cause getting charged
    more for other credit?

    There's several choices... keep the agreement, pay $175 or have a
    record attached to one's credit report, with unknown negative credit
    consequences for years.
    A good question to ask would be... how did not paying the ETF effect
    one's credit score and did it change subsequent credit/loan/mortages
    rates or other opportunities? Any volunteers?

    But it's nice to know that nobody can force me to pay the ETF:)

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

    Quick wrote:
    > Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > > The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    > > news:9uvdb19ag0dovlr5j5k4a7mv073t68mqg0@4ax.com:
    > >
    > >> Other than seeing you drag out the jet ski story again,
    > >> the only fun to be seen in this thread is why someone
    > >> who *left* VZW and *had* to pay their ETF would still be
    > >> hanging around in the VZW group to answer your question.
    > >>
    > >> Maybe it would be better directed at VZW's competitors'
    > >> groups.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Oh, I forgot. My question wasn't about Verizon. I was
    > > also asking Verizon customers who had broken their
    > > contracts with other carriers, any other carriers, if
    > > they had been FORCED to pay the termination fee.
    > >
    > > More obviously, today, the answer is no.....
    >
    > I'm still wrestling with what you mean by "FORCED"?
    > I get the impression that having your account sent to a
    > collection agency doesn't qualify?

    I've been thinking about what it means to "force" someone to do
    something. It appears there is little if nothing that another can be
    "forced" to do. I think compelled is a better term.

    Even holding a gun to someone's head or putting them in jail may not
    "force" them to do something. Those might be more compelling reasons to
    perform the requested action, than putting a note of collections on
    their credit record.

    An entity could "take" the money by garnishing wages, putting a lean on
    or reposessing some property. I suppose that's as close to forcing a
    payment as anything.

    So it seems, when we make "stupid" or not so stupid agreements in
    contracts and then break them, the other party has varying levels of
    recourse. Verizon has already set a price on what it costs to break a
    contract, $175. That's a compelling reason to keep the agreement for
    some. Then the compelling reason to pay the $175 is the tarnish on
    one's credit record.

    With the value most people put on maintaining the best credit possible,
    that seems like a good reason to pay the ETF. Credit negatives have a
    way of staying around for a long time. Some credit problems are an
    excuse to get charged higher loan/credit rates.

    Now I'm not sure what the real consequences of a collection on a credit
    report are and under what circumstances it might cause getting charged
    more for other credit?

    There's several choices... keep the agreement, pay $175 or have a
    record attached to one's credit report, with unknown negative credit
    consequences for years.
    A good question to ask would be... how did not paying the ETF effect
    one's credit score and did it change subsequent credit/loan/mortages
    rates or other opportunities? Any volunteers?

    But it's nice to know that nobody can force me to pay the ETF:)

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

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:29:15 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
    wrote:

    >The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
    >news:ikgeb1tda3n2issbeiljusashi86i0tvvq@4ax.com:
    >
    >> My suggestion was merely that you might get a more of a
    >> response by posting it where ex-VZW customers are likely to hang out.
    >>
    >
    >As I pointed out, this is about all cellular companies, not just VZW.

    And that said as both an afterthought and amidst your prior comments
    about not caring about how an account in collections would/could
    affect one's credit rating. And I believe that was in response to a
    VZW experience. Please don't make me dredge that thread up again. I
    think I actually took up for you on a point you brought up in it.

    >This
    >is the most active newsgroup. Hell, we hardly have anyone post to Alltel.

    Some people feel they need an invitation to post. Think your poll
    could accomplish that? And why do you save all of your "long
    threaders" for us (when you aren't even a VZW customer anymore), then
    complain because there's no traffic in the group for the company you
    chose? And so why not post it in Sprint's, Cingular's, or Nextel's
    groups? I know there's traffic in those groups. I'm sure you could
    get some long threads going in one of them.

    Until you show some effort to pull your data from more than one
    company's newsgroup, and considering your views as you have previously
    posted, I couldn't consider your "poll" anything more than a slanted
    hit piece against VZW.

    As I previously said, I honestly would like to see a compilation of
    your results when you get them. Just ask a wider audience.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1119311492.373867@sj-nntpcache-5:

    > You're promoting a "just don't pay it" movement?

    Where'd I say that??

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:1119311492.373867@sj-nntpcache-5:
    >
    >> You're promoting a "just don't pay it" movement?
    >
    > Where'd I say that??

    You didn't. You did cut out my question though:

    What is your agenda with this poll??
    You keep making exclaimations to the effect
    of "as I expected". Where are you going with
    this? Care to share?

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

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1119308404.622382@sj-nntpcache-3:

    > Larry's tin foil hat is leaking. He will figure it out in a bit and
    > adjust it. When he does he will read a bit less into the
    > suggestions but we'll probably hear the story on removing
    > the chairs from the waiting room again... -;)
    >
    > -Quick
    >
    >

    Well, it was interesting while it lasted....before the childish attacks
    commenced.

    As the kiddie krappers in the sand box continue to flail away, as usual, it
    is interesting to note that noone posted any story about being FORCED to
    pay an early termination fee....as I suspected.

    Ok, back in the sandbox....gimme the goddamned truck!

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:
    >
    > As the kiddie krappers in the sand box continue to flail
    > away, as usual, it is interesting to note that noone
    > posted any story about being FORCED to pay an early
    > termination fee....as I suspected.

    WHAT!? What's interesting to note?
    What's your point here Larry? Where are you going with
    this? I honestly don't know.

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

    Larry W4CSC wrote:

    > Well, it was interesting while it lasted....before the childish attacks
    > commenced.

    I didn't attack you (your position, perhaps; not you personally), and I
    agreed with some of the points you made in the post to which I replied. Any
    particular reason you didn't answer?

    --
    JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
    temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

    "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
  32. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Steve Sobol wrote:
    > Larry W4CSC wrote:
    >
    >> Well, it was interesting while it lasted....before the childish
    >> attacks commenced.
    >
    >
    > I didn't attack you (your position, perhaps; not you personally), and I
    > agreed with some of the points you made in the post to which I replied.
    > Any particular reason you didn't answer?

    And I just remembered how ridiculous his complaint is anyhow.

    Larry, of course, is the guy who found out I was Jewish, and then proclaimed
    that since I am Jewish, I must be affiliated with one of the big Mideast
    terrorist groups - I think he mentioned Hamas, and I forgot who the other
    one is. Of course, that was ok, but he backed off when I flamed him to a
    crisp in my reply to that post. It's ok for him to be a prick, it's ok for
    him to be a bigoted pig, but Heaven forbid anyone else should say anything
    he finds even remotely offensive.

    So Larry... next time you feel like whining about a personal attack... kiss
    my Jewish ass, hypocrite.

    --
    JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
    temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

    "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
  33. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Steve Sobol wrote:

    > Larry, of course, is the guy who found out I was Jewish, and then
    > proclaimed that since I am Jewish, I must be affiliated with one of the
    > big Mideast terrorist groups - I think he mentioned Hamas, and I forgot
    > who the other one is. Of course, that was ok, but he backed off when I

    Grrr..

    I meant "he felt that was ok".

    > flamed him to a crisp in my reply to that post. It's ok for him to be a
    > prick, it's ok for him to be a bigoted pig, but Heaven forbid anyone
    > else should say anything he finds even remotely offensive.
    >
    > So Larry... next time you feel like whining about a personal attack...
    > kiss my Jewish ass, hypocrite.


    --
    JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
    temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

    "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
  34. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    No it wont. Thats why I dont worry about their silly little fee. I dont know
    about other states but in Texas they cant "force" you to pay it.

    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967B4D7D9F2BAw4csc@63.223.7.253...
    > "RM" <rm@blah.blah> wrote in
    > news:5sqte.32060$yp5.29121@fe03.news.easynews.com:
    >
    > > Been there, done that.
    >
    > So, the only thing they "did" to you is attach to your credit report?
    >
    > That won't stop you from getting a loan/credit card/etc., by the way.
    >
    > --
    > Larry
    >
    > You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    > chalk.
    >
  35. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Just a quick note about your credit score. According to Kiplinger's
    magazine... your score IMPROVES if you have credit cards with large limits
    on them that you do not use. I always thought that you should close a
    credit card if you don't use it - but that's not true. When calculating
    your credit score ONE of the factors is the ratio of unsecured credit limit
    to unsecured credit used. If you have a CC with 10K available and you have
    used 3K of that limit, you get a better score than if you had no CC and no
    CC debt.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    JEB wrote:
    > Just a quick note about your credit score. According to
    > Kiplinger's magazine... your score IMPROVES if you have
    > credit cards with large limits on them that you do not
    > use. I always thought that you should close a credit
    > card if you don't use it - but that's not true. When
    > calculating your credit score ONE of the factors is the
    > ratio of unsecured credit limit to unsecured credit used.
    > If you have a CC with 10K available and you have used 3K
    > of that limit, you get a better score than if you had no
    > CC and no CC debt.

    Yea, but I think if you have 5 of those it goes down due
    to the instantaneous credit you have available. They're
    worried that you will get a loan/credit and then go buy
    a yacht with your credit cards and not be able to cover
    it.

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

    "JEB" <berndt at berndtmd dot com> wrote in message
    news:w-2dnadwGpiVnyXfRVn-vg@speakeasy.net...
    > Jvst a qvick note abovt yovr credit score. According to Kiplinger's
    > magazine... yovr score IMPROVES if yov have credit cards with large limits
    > on them that yov do not vse. I always thovght that yov shovld close a
    > credit card if yov don't vse it - bvt that's not trve. When calcvlating
    > yovr credit score ONE of the factors is the ratio of vnsecvred credit
    > limit to vnsecvred credit vsed. If yov have a CC with 10K available and
    > yov have vsed 3K of that limit, yov get a better score than if yov had no
    > CC and no CC debt.
    >

    Yov are correct. Althovgh some creditors look at this differently than
    others, I have fovnd that somehow I am vp to nearly $20,000 in credit limits
    on variovs cards becavse they are all jelovs of each other and keep raising
    my limits or lowering my rates to try to get all of my balances moved over
    to their card.

    What is insane is that jvst prior to this I only had two credit cards, one
    of which was a discover card that was maxed ovt. Svddenly some merchant
    screwed me over by rvnning the card nvmber that they saved on file withovt
    my permission for a service I had canceled. This pvshed it over the limit,
    which resvlted in all kinds of fees and before I knew it the rates had
    jvmped to 22.74% on my entire balance. Variovs things happened all at the
    same time and the resvlt was a total mess in which I was basically paying
    the internest and wovld never pay the card off.

    I talked to somebody at Discover Card who said he wovld lower the rate to
    16.99% becavse it wasn't my favlt that it was pvshed over the limit.
    However, he never actvally did this and when I tried to hold them to the
    offer they refvsed. So, I transferred the balance to a new accovnt at my
    local credit vnion which only agreed to take it if I sign letters that they
    wovld forward to both of my previovs card companies to have the accovnts
    closed. (They didn't want me to have more available credit than what I had
    already vsed.)

    Well it tvrns ovt they took the balance bvt the other two companies
    completely ignored the letters and left the accovnts open. In fact, discover
    card called me reqvesting that I give them the balance back at a mvch lower
    rate. I refvsed becavse they were svch a hassle, despite it possibly saving
    me money. In talking to them, they begged so hard that they finally agreed
    to take the fvll balance at 0% APR for life vntil it is paid off. That was
    the offer I covldn't refvse. I qvit paying all interest, and 100% of the
    monthly payment goes toward paying down the debt.

    What's absolvtely silly is that shortly after the new credit vnion accovnt
    showed a high balance of a few thovsand and then showed being paid off
    shortly afterwards on my credit report, and I now have a lot more available
    credit than I did before so the porportion of balances to limits is redvced,
    my credit score went way vp. Now everybody is offering me credit and they
    keep trying to ovt do each other. Even Discover Card dovbled my limits and
    wants me to transfer another balance to them, bvt I know better since the 0%
    interest balance wovld be paid off last if I do that.

    I covld charge most of my mortgage balance to my credit cards if I wanted to
    at this point. The whole world is insane.

    Oh, and I refvsed to pay a Nextel early termination fee citing that they had
    not vpheld the terms of their contract. They refvsed to believe me and sent
    me to collections agencies, etc. etc. etc. It never showed vp on my credit
    report and I never paid it.

    Bvt then again... I don't think I ever got my $200 deposit back. So that
    probably explains why. GRRR!!!!


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

    Elector wrote:

    > She after receiving and looking at the documents called back to say
    > that she believed I had a valid point of not paying and told her
    > client that. it never appeared in my credit profile and it has never
    > harmed me from getting service any where else.

    Wow, I'm surprised. That's the first instance I've ever heard of where
    a bill collector has actually admitted to the alleged debtor having a
    valid point. Most simply don't care if your point is valid or not; they
    generally are only interested in harrassing you to the point where you
    give in and pay.


    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1119319824.684487@sj-nntpcache-5:

    > What is your agenda with this poll??

    I'll play with your attempt at a flamewar a little longer....(sigh)
    My agenda is to show that all this fear mongering we've seen in the
    newsgroup about termination fees is pure company bullshit. I know you
    won't like that, you being a company man and all, but as you can see there
    hasn't been any posts, except the usual bullshit posts like yours.

    > You keep making exclaimations to the effect
    > of "as I expected". Where are you going with
    > this? Care to share?
    >

    I didn't expect to find anyone who got FORCED into paying. I haven't read
    the rest of the torrent of flame bullshit posts, yet, but none has shown up
    so far...

    I'm not "going anywhere". I just wanted to see if anyone would post their
    REAL experience. Sorry if, as always, I ruffled your pro-company feathers.

    What's YOUR agenda, attacking everyone who may ask something the company
    might not like? What's your concern?

    --
    Larry

    Your turn....(sigh)
  40. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:
    > "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:1119319824.684487@sj-nntpcache-5:
    >
    >> What is your agenda with this poll??
    >
    > I'll play with your attempt at a flamewar a little
    > longer....(sigh)
    > My agenda is to show that all this fear mongering we've
    > seen in the newsgroup about termination fees is pure
    > company bullshit. I know you won't like that, you being
    > a company man and all, but as you can see there hasn't
    > been any posts, except the usual bullshit posts like
    > yours.
    >
    >> You keep making exclaimations to the effect
    >> of "as I expected". Where are you going with
    >> this? Care to share?
    >>
    >
    > I didn't expect to find anyone who got FORCED into
    > paying. I haven't read the rest of the torrent of flame
    > bullshit posts, yet, but none has shown up so far...
    >
    > I'm not "going anywhere". I just wanted to see if anyone
    > would post their REAL experience. Sorry if, as always, I
    > ruffled your pro-company feathers.
    >
    > What's YOUR agenda, attacking everyone who may ask
    > something the company might not like? What's your
    > concern?

    No. I'm sure VZW couldn't possibly care about you asking
    the question or the results. I can't see how this would be
    specific to VZW anyway? I'm pretty sure that all the carriers
    have ETFs. I know that Cingular does -- I paid it. What you
    HAVEN'T answered yet is... WHAT'S YOUR POINT? You
    seem to be starting off with some bizzare premise that there
    is some abnormal "fear" about not paying the ETF in this group.

    Is it any different in any other group? Do people routinely not
    pay the ETF elsewhere but do so out of fear here?

    What do you suppose most normal people expect to happen
    if they default for some amount around a couple of hundred
    dollars -- for ANYTHING (not just VZW or any wireless service)?

    I'll tell you what my expectation is. Probably end up on my
    credit report and *maybe* with a collection agency....

    "Fear mongering"? Is that what you call "fear mongering"?
    Do you think anyone expects any worse than that to happen?

    I don't suppose it would be as exciting for you to ask
    "What do you think will happen if you don't pay the ETF?"
    I would expect 95% to respond with my answer.

    I am actually suprised/disappointed that this was your
    point. I was expecting something a bit more "interesting".
    Where did you ever get the impression that there was some
    abnormal "fear" of not paying the ETF? I don't see any
    more "fear" of not paying the ETF than people have of
    not paying their credit card bill, or sears bill, or the dinner
    tab at a restaraunt.

    Sure people don't like paying the ETF if they decide to
    break their contract and I'm all for skirting it using any
    honest means. But most people who are not financially
    fixed for the rest of their lives actually care about their
    FICO. And from what I've heard here that is what is
    effected. Not fear, fact.

    It might even surprise you how many people actually
    have some integrity in that they figure they signed a
    contract so they should feel obligated to honor the
    terms of the agreement. They might not like doing it
    but they do it because it's the right thing to do because
    they voluntarily agreed to it.

    So now that it seems that no one has met your definition
    of being "FORCED" to pay the ETF, what is your conclusion?
    What is your recommendation?

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

    "Larry W4CSC" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns967CC6FEFE965w4csc@63.223.7.253...
    > "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:1119319824.684487@sj-nntpcache-5:
    >
    > > What is your agenda with this poll??
    >
    > I'll play with your attempt at a flamewar a little longer....(sigh)
    > My agenda is to show that all this fear mongering we've seen in the
    > newsgroup about termination fees is pure company bullshit. I know you
    > won't like that, you being a company man and all, but as you can see there
    > hasn't been any posts, except the usual bullshit posts like yours.
    >
    > > You keep making exclaimations to the effect
    > > of "as I expected". Where are you going with
    > > this? Care to share?
    > >
    >
    > I didn't expect to find anyone who got FORCED into paying. I haven't read
    > the rest of the torrent of flame bullshit posts, yet, but none has shown
    up
    > so far...
    >
    > I'm not "going anywhere". I just wanted to see if anyone would post their
    > REAL experience. Sorry if, as always, I ruffled your pro-company
    feathers.
    >
    > What's YOUR agenda, attacking everyone who may ask something the company
    > might not like? What's your concern?
    >
    > --
    > Larry
    >
    > Your turn....(sigh)

    So sorry to see you portray yourself as someone incapable of living up to
    his word. Your very lame attempt at being a messaih for the masses really
    shows that your only concern is for yourself and at the expense of others.
    Keep posting that ETF's shouldn't or don't have to be paid. After all, the
    cellcos would never find another way to replace the revenue, and maybe
    spread to the entire customer base as opposed to that small percentage that
    break the contract they signed. They would never severely reduce the phone
    subsidies to reduce the losses, again at the expense of all customers and
    not just those who don't have the integrity to fulfill their obligations.

    Your own thread has provided instances where the cellco has worked with the
    customer and waived the ETF when applicable. You are the worst kind of
    customer a business could have- one that thinks that he always has the
    business by the balls. The problem- you also exhibit a very childlike view
    of the real world. The contract states that an ETF can be applied if the
    customer cancels without cause during the contract period. The fact that
    you don't like it doesn't lessen the legality of that clause, and your
    supposed knowledge of radio technology should also tell you the real meaning
    of 'fit for purpose'. Come up for air and join the rest of the race.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
    news:d982dr$i8f$1@ratbert.glorb.com:

    > So Larry... next time you feel like whining about a personal attack...
    > kiss my Jewish ass, hypocrite.
    >

    Ah.....more attack mode bullshit....

    Has nothing to do with this thread, of course....(c;

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:

    > Ah.....more attack mode bullshit....

    So it's ok for you to attack my religion, but no one can say anything about
    you? Why don't you respond to the point I made?

    > Has nothing to do with this thread, of course....(c;

    No, it doesn't really, other than your complaint that others are attacking you.

    So tell me, why is it ok for you to call me a terrorist when you refuse to
    let others attack you?

    --
    JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
    temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

    "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
  44. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "David L" <davlindi@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:1119322329.757676.31620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

    > An entity could "take" the money by garnishing wages, putting a lean on
    > or reposessing some property. I suppose that's as close to forcing a
    > payment as anything.
    >
    >

    Not in SC and many other states.....doesn't wash.

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in
    news:11bgr73lpklt894@corp.supernews.com:

    > They in turn
    > can go so far as to serve similar papers to your employer - that is, if
    > you are gainfully employed - and then have wages garnished.
    >

    Not in SC and many other states....They have no power over your money,
    here. Only a judge can order it.

    --
    Larry

    You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
    chalk.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:40:09 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
    wrote:

    >> Has nothing to do with this thread, of course....(c;
    >
    >No, it doesn't really, other than your complaint that others are attacking you.

    My $100 offer for Larry to point out where I "censored" him is still
    unclaimed, too.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:34:36 -0400, Larry W4CSC <noone@home.com>
    wrote:

    >"David L" <davlindi@hotmail.com> wrote in
    >news:1119322329.757676.31620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
    >
    >> An entity could "take" the money by garnishing wages, putting a lean on
    >> or reposessing some property. I suppose that's as close to forcing a
    >> payment as anything.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Not in SC and many other states.....doesn't wash.

    Larry, under South Carolina law, a lien may placed against *real*
    property within the state, but collection doesn't happen until
    transfer of the property.

    I just went through this with a friend who bought a house last year in
    Pelzer. The previous owner owed his dentist about $900 from several
    years ago. The dentist got a judgment against the owner and had a
    lien placed against his home. At closing, a check was cut for the
    dentist for the judgment amount, plus statutory interest.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
    news:11bgqqm3vs2go85@corp.supernews.com...
    > Elector wrote:
    >
    >> She after receiving and looking at the documents called back to say that
    >> she believed I had a valid point of not paying and told her client that.
    >> it never appeared in my credit profile and it has never harmed me from
    >> getting service any where else.
    >
    > Wow, I'm surprised. That's the first instance I've ever heard of where a
    > bill collector has actually admitted to the alleged debtor having a valid
    > point. Most simply don't care if your point is valid or not; they
    > generally are only interested in harrassing you to the point where you
    > give in and pay.
    >
    >
    > --
    > E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    > Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

    Collectors as a rule may *harass* you to no end. It is illegal in most if
    not all states. In this case I saved all my invoices and letters I had
    written, names and telephone numbers and date and times of all calls, as
    well as the original sign up "contract" which did not carry over from year
    to year.

    Collectors are prone to send a letter stating if this debt is not valid or
    if you are uncertain of the debt or any portion thereof then they have to
    investigate. They can not report you as delinquent while they do this, nor
    make any reports to a credit bureau. For the record only the "Creditor" can
    make a credit reporting entry. Not a collections agency. In the Fair Debt
    Collections Practices Act it mentions this proviso. You can sue a collector
    out of business for such acts.

    The other way to get the "creditors" attention is to sue them in court. "Do
    Not Agree to any Arbitration Clause" since you do not have the same rights
    as in a court case. If you see the clause write to the creditor and state
    (Return Receipt) that you do not agree to that term. Make sure it is entered
    on your account.

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

    Elector wrote:

    > Collectors are prone to send a letter stating if this debt is not valid or

    Collectors are *required* to send such letters.


    --
    JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
    temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

    "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
Ask a new question

Read More

Verizon Internet Service Providers