Welp, so much for rule of law. It was nice while it lasted.
It's actually much less abusive to the poor than the plans offered by other cell service companies.
With ATT or Verizon, you
- Pay approximately the same amount per month in total as with TMobile (getting service AND a phone), whether you got a "subsidized" phone or not
- Are on the hook for 2 years no matter what (with TMobile, you at least have the option of avoiding any sort of two year commitment -- just don't finance your phone on a two year schedule through TMobile)
- If you decide that you can't afford the service anymore (for instance because you're too poor), you get stuck with an "abusive" early termination fee which never changes amount -- if you cancel after one month, it is the same amount as if you cancel with only one month left. This is in contrast to TMobile, where you can avoid having any sort of two year commitment in the first place, or if you do have such a commitment, the penalty for early leaving decreases steadily to zero over time.
So, all told, it sure looks like TMobile is *substantially less* abusive to the poor than other phone companies.
You seem to be very worked up about this. Perhaps you should take a few minutes to sit and take some deep breaths.
Let's be completely clear about one thing: The suit in question is NOT alleging, as you seem to be doing, that TMobile's practice here is unfair or unlawful. Instead, the suit is alleging that TMobile has not described their practice adequately in advertisement.
sudo -s is fewer characters than sudo bash.
sudo make me a sammich