If you want to say goodbye to Verizon Wireless, or just want a new phone without waiting for your old contract to expire, Verizon has a deal they really don’t want to give you, but they have to — it’s in their contract.

Verizon Wireless has announced they are unilaterally changing your wireless contract with an increase in the Regulatory Recovery Fee (a bill-padding junk fee) from $0.13 to $0.16 effective July 1st.  That fee opens a 60-day window for customers to exit their contracts because the carrier is imposing a “materially adverse” change without your advance consent.  After 60 days, you effectively give that consent by staying with the company.

“Materially adverse” is simple to understand, even if Verizon customer service representatives feign ignorance and stamp their feet as you demand to leave without paying an early exit fee.  It means Verizon has notified you they are changing the contract — one you signed in good faith for a set price, and they are now unilaterally changing it.  Unless those price changes come about because of a government mandate, Verizon cannot impose them without first granting you a window to cancel your agreement, penalty-free.

For customers unhappy with Verizon, they can freely take their business somewhere else.  For those who intend to stay, they can switch to a prepaid plan or sign a new two year contract and get a new phone at the same price any other new customer would pay, even if only 30 days into an existing contract.

This welcome window may mean a lot to customers looking for an early upgrade -and- keep Verizon’s unlimited smartphone data plan the company plans to discontinue July 7th.

With their “materially adverse” contract clause potentially exposing them to hundreds of dollars in lost cancellation fees they cannot impose, nobody said they would make it easy for you to jump free without some hassle.

When calling Verizon Wireless and requesting the “cancel service” option, expect the representative to pretend they don’t know what you are talking about, claim you still owe a penalty, or even express shock you are trying to escape them over a measly three cent rate increase.  Some may even try and credit three cents for each month remaining on your contract and claim that since you are no longer effectively paying the increased fee, you have no right to complain.

Tell them tough cookies — go and read their own contract:

Can Verizon Wireless Change This Agreement or My Service?

We may change prices or any other term of your Service or this agreement at any time,but we’ll provide notice first, including written notice if you have Postpay Service. If you use your Service after the change takes effect, that means you’re accepting the change. If you’re a Postpay customer and a change to your Plan or this agreement has a material adverse effect on you, you can cancel the line of Service that has been affected within 60 days of receiving the notice with no early termination fee.

Ask them to find the clause in their terms and conditions that says once they announce a rate change, that does not represent a change to your plan.  Then ask where it says in their agreement a subsequent credit frees them from the obligation of allowing you a penalty-free window to exit once a materially adverse change has been announced.  Let them know the only way they could have kept you from exercising your rights under the contract was if they never announced the price change impacting you in the first place.  Expect a long wait on hold.  A very long wait.

To truly escape Verizon Wireless’ contract, you will need to be prepared to say “no” to all of their counteroffers, and they will pelt you with them like an Oklahoma hail storm:

• Reduced price phone upgrade?  No.
• Free service for a month?  No.
• Free accessories?  No.
• Free texting plan?  No.
• A free sample of their data or tethering plan?  No!
• Cancel. Cancel. Cancel!

If they still want to argue, repeat after me:

“Despite your willingness to credit my account, once you are legally obligated, under your contract, to notify me of your intention to change my plan by raising prices that are within your control, you triggered the materially adverse clause, regardless of your subsequent attempt to credit my account.  Cancel the account immediately or I will escalate this to the same Executive Customer Service office that slapped you guys down the last time you tried this.  Once you notify us of a fee increase, the window to exit penalty-free is open, and only I can close it by agreeing to stay after 60 days.”

Videotron has opened a new window of opportunity for wireless users looking for higher usage smartphone data allowances with the introduction of a 6GB for $30 plan the company says is available for a limited time only.

Canadian wireless customers are well used to 6GB data plans — they show up periodically from Bell, Rogers, and Telus, usually coinciding with the launch of another new version of Apple’s iPhone, but Videotron seeks to heat up the competition this summer with a new offer.

Videotron, a popular wireless carrier in Quebec, may be able to inspire counteroffers from other carriers re-launching similarly priced promotions in the days ahead.

Compared to pricing in the United States, this is a reasonably good deal.  AT&T charges $25 for just 2GB per month and Verizon will seek $30 for the same allowance early next month.

Tuesday’s rush hour in South Florida featured a lot fewer commuters talking on their AT&T cell phones while driving.  The reason?  They couldn’t.

A massive AT&T service outage extending from Broward County to the Florida Keys caused wireless chaos for some customers yesterday, many showing up at AT&T stores looking for answers why they could not make or receive calls or launch 3G data sessions with the carrier.

The outage, which began shortly after 6pm, reportedly blocked cell phone calls and data sessions, and was eventually traced to a switch outage in Broward County.  Customers who rely on their AT&T cell phones were annoyed at the loss of service, particularly emergency responders and medical personnel who found their phones useless until around 10pm, when service was eventually restored.

AT&T customers told reporters they were also irritated by the lack of information from the company about the outage; some were even told there were no service problems in the area when they called AT&T for information.

When AT&T realized there was a problem, the company released a statement.

“AT&T technicians quickly worked to resolve the issue, and service is now running normally,” said AT&T spokesperson Kelly Starling. “We apologize for any inconvenience to our customers.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFOR Miami ATT Restores 3G Cell Service After 3 Hour Outage 6-28-11.mp4[/flv]

WBFS/WFOR-TV in Miami took a deeper look into yesterday’s massive cell phone failure for AT&T customers.  (3 minutes)

What do virtually all 70+ Congressional Democrats who signed a letter supporting the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile have in common?  They accepted campaign contributions in the thousands of dollars from AT&T.  Paidcontent.org pieced together who got what, thanks to detailed records from the Center for Responsive Politics.  Is your member of Congress on this list?  Many of these members received $10,000 or more, and now you understand why:

G. K. Butterfield $10,500
Gene Green $10,000
Peter Welch $6,500
Joe Baca $10,250
John Barrow $10,000
Dan Boren $10,000
Robert Brady $9,000
Ben Chandler $7,000
Silvestre Reyes $8,500
William Lacy Clay, Jr. $10,500
Al Green $10,000
Alcee Hastings $10,000
Nick J. Rahall $10,000
James P. Moran $2,500
Gregory W. Meeks $9,500
Albio Sires $9,000
Tim Holden $8,000
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. $11,250
Ed Pastor $10,000
Mike Ross $10,250
Rubén Hinojosa $7,500
Henry Cuellar $10,000
Joseph Crowley $10,000
Eddie Bernice Johnson $9,000
Luis Gutierrez $5,500
Adam Schiff $5,500
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. $3,350
Adam Smith $4,500
Corrine Brown $6,000
Chaka Fattah $8,000
Henry C. Johnson, Jr. $2,000
Michael Michaud $8,500
Loretta Sanchez $11,000
Donna M. Christensen $7,500
Ted Deutch $6,000
Jim Costa $10,500
Betty McCollum $1,000
Ed Perlmutter $5,500
Brad Miller $2,000
Yvette Clarke $7,000
Grace Napolitano $4,000
Steve Cohen $5,000
Ron Kind $7,000
Betty Sutton $4,000
Heath Shuler $10,000
David Scott $11,500
Jared Polis NA
Cedric Richmond NA
Shelley Berkley $7,000
Frederica Wilson NA
Tim Bishop $10,500
Marcia Fudge $9,000
Rosa DeLauro $2,000
Karen Bass NA
Christopher S. Murphy $6,800
Frank Pallone $7,500
Laura Richardson $8,000
Dennis Cardoza $10,000
David Cicilline NA
Raúl Grijalva $2,000
Danny K. Davis $6,000
Brad Sherman $5,500
Ben Ray Luján $5,000
Dutch Ruppersberger $7,500
Terri Sewell NA
John B. Larson $5,500
Charles A. Gonzalez $10,500
James R. Langevin $8,000
Collin C. Peterson $4,500
Jerry McNerney $12,750
Joe Courtney $4,250
Gerald Connolly $9,500

Total $496,400

Courtesy Kelvin Luffs

Several weeks ago, the Netherlands’ former state-owned telephone company — Koninklijke KPN N.V. — thought it would be a fine idea to charge their mobile customers extra subscription fees for accessing popular online services like Skype, YouTube, and Facebook.  KPN’s proposal would have added €3 a month for the privilege of using Skype.  Want to update friends on Facebook?  That will run €0.02 per megabyte.  YouTube?  €0.50 per hour.  Not a single Euro would be passed along to any of these companies, however.  KPN itself would bank the entire amount.

The Dutch Parliament reacted to news of this, and other recent controversy involving the country’s mobile providers, by introducing strong Net Neutrality regulation in Parliament — the second country after Chile to do so:

1. Providers of public electronic communication networks which deliver internet access services and providers of internet access services do not hinder or slow down applications and services on the internet, unless and to the extent that the measure in question with which applications or services are being hindered or slowed down is necessary:

a. to minimise the effects of congestion, whereby equal types of traffic should be treated equally;
b. to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the enduser;
c. to restrict the transmission to an enduser of unsolicited communication as referred to in Article 11.7, first paragraph, provided that the enduser has given its prior consent;
d. to give effect to a legislative provision or court order.

2. If an infraction on the integrity or security of the network or the service or the terminal of an enduser, referred to in the first paragraph sub b, is being caused by traffic coming from the terminal of an enduser, the provider, prior to the taking of the measure which hinders or slows down the traffic, notifies the enduser in question, in order to allow the enduser to terminate the infraction. Where this, as a result of the required urgency, is not possible prior to the taking of the measure, the provider provides a notification of the measure as soon as possible. Where this concerns an enduser of a different provider, the first sentence does not apply.

3. Providers of internet access services do not make the price of the rates for internet access services dependent on the services and applications which are offered or used via these services.

4. Further regulations with regard to the provisions in the first to the third paragraph may be provided by way of an administrative order. A draft order provided under this paragraph will not be adopted before it is submitted to both chambers of the Parliament.

5. In order to prevent the degradation of service and the hindering or slowing down of traffic over public electronic communication networks, minimum requirements regarding the quality of service of public electronic communication services may be imposed on undertakings providing public communications ­networks.

The new bill, expected to pass the Dutch Senate as early as this week, would ban mobile providers from nickle-and-diming customers for the applications they run on their mobiles.  It’s a far different approach than Net Neutrality policies in the United States, which exempt cell phone companies.

van Dam

KPN’s original announcement that it was introducing extra charges for certain popular mobile applications raised privacy concerns in Parliament over exactly how KPN knew what their customers were doing with their phones.  That’s a question the Netherlands Consumer Authority wanted answers to as well.

KPN was accused of using “deep packet inspection” to monitor the activity of their customers.  In April, KPN discovered many of them were using an alternative messaging service called WhatsApp to bypass paying SMS text message charges.

Labour MP Martijn van Dam was unimpressed with KPN’s defense of its monitoring customer activity.  Although the company said the monitoring practice is widespread, it denied it was violating the privacy of its customers in the process.  van Dam suggested that would be akin to “a postal worker who delivers a letter, looks to see what’s in it, and then claims he hasn’t read it.”

van Dam is a co-author of the Net Neutrality bill that soon followed and is expected to pass over the objections of mobile companies, who claim they will be forced to raise prices in response.