Cell Phone Fees OK For Consumers, Not GovernmentCell Phone Fees OK For Consumers, Not Government

I hate early termination fees. Big shock, I know. But what's even more infuriating is seeing reports that Sprint didn't charge government subscribers an ETF because "the government will never, never accept such penalty amounts."Consumer anger already is reaching a boiling point with a few lawsuits already being filed, and these leaked confidential e-mails by the AP show then-Nextel marketing VP Scott Wiener saying that customers' complaints are real.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless already have made some adjustments to their ETFs, and the FCC is currently mulling a nationwide policy. For some reason, I just don't think we need the FCC's help on this, just some common sense.

The refrain from carriers is that they have to charge these fees because many handsets are subsidized. While some buy their own phones outright (particularly the first iPhone), the majority of consumers still get their phones free or at a carrier discount. Because of this, I'm not completely opposed to an ETF.

But not all subsidies are equal. Carriers should simply adjust the ETF according to how much of a discount they got for the handset. If you brought your own handset to the party, then you shouldn't be charged.

Additionally, Verizon and AT&T are reducing the cost of living depending on how long you've been under contract and that's a step in the right direction.

What do you think? Are the ETFs shady, or is it the consumer's fault for signing a contract they don't understand? I mean, even if you can't get the latest and greatest phone, there are options to get mobile service without a contract.

How would you fix early termination fees?