It is impossible to advise you on the law without a full assessment of all the facts and to review the subscription agreement. The value in the file only shows the current balance at the time the file is created. It is not detrimental to your credit file. It`s just a backlog or standard albums (several missed payments) that can be detrimental to your credit file. There are two prototypes of mobile phone contracts. First, prepaid or monthly rolling contracts in which the customer prepays or reimburses a monthly service with no obligation beyond one month. Second, contracts with a predetermined initial commitment period of more than one month, for which the customer pays a fixed fee for at least the number of months set during the term of the contract. This article will focus exclusively on the second type as a long-term commitment. Contracts of this type may in turn include the provision of a handset or can only be SIM devices, i.e. limited to the provision of telephony services without the necessary equipment. The analysis below is based on the assumption that the majority of mobile phone contracts consist of providing mobile phones and is intended to attract customers by improving the price of the mobile phone. However, most of the results also apply to rand-SIM contracts. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission focuses on mobile phones, but does not extend its activities to contractual agreements between consumers and suppliers.
The regulation of the terms of mobile phone contracts is therefore the responsibility of the Member States. There is a federal prohibition on tariff regulation, but express authorization to make arrangements for the “other conditions” regime. (47) US code 2012, section 332 (c) (3) (A)). Despite several attempts in both states (Public Utilities Commission of the State of California 2006; MY S1617 2013; Minnesota Statutes 2004 Section 325F.695; for New York, see Chang 2012; A form of consumer protection for mobile phones has been discussed by legislators in 22 states, see Ante 2008) and the Federal State (Cell Phone User Bill of Rights, p. 1216, 108th Congress 2003), so far no bill on mobile phone users has been successfully implemented. There is no federal data on the initial commitment period for mobile phone contracts; In practice, the most common 24-month contracts are by far (O`Grady 2008; a legislative overview is provided by Bar-Gill 2012, p. 239-240). In Canada, where desire, not harmonization, was the desire to make the market more competitive, there is another change.
In 2012, the Canadian Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) launched a public consultation to define a mandatory code for wireless wireless services (2013 Telecommunications Regulatory Code) that resulted in the CRTC`s wireless code. The consultation was initiated after a parliamentary committee concluded that progress in broadband penetration in Canada was “disappointing” (Middleton 2011, p.