[quickstang]

One thing I still dont understand is how Sprint can get away with charging $10 more for a 4G device when 4G is not in all places yet. I would have thought by now some lawyer would have looked into this. I can see paying the $10 more if it is available in your area, but to charge people $10 more for something not everyone can use just to reside on the hardware seems illegal to do.

I'm trying to think of something I could compare it to hardware wise that would make no sense, or some sort of fee...

I mean what if Netflix said that they were charging you $5 a month a more because now you can get Blu Ray movies. Lets say I have a player but they say that right now the discs are available in select markets.

There should be some way for them to DISABLE the 4G to where if you do not want it but still want the device, you dont have to pay the $10 extra.

Or... Not charge a person until it is available in their area. There is no way it can be legal to charge a person for something they cant use.

Once it is available then ok. But until then there should NOT be a $10 fee.

I really wish a lawyer would chime in on this issue on the internet somewhere related to this type of stuff. Maybe i'll post that elsewhere and see what info I get.