The cheek of it, Cell C announcing at the launch of its contract buy-out campaign that it won't hike prices for the duration of the contract when it had done just that a couple of months earlier. Of course Vodacom and MTN have done it too in recent months, because, they say, the small print on their contracts allows them to. Their customers have been unimpressed.So what can you do in response to your cellphone network unilaterally changing the key term of your contract? Well, thanks to the Consumer Protection Act, you can cancel, with a month's notice, before the two-year term is up, and port to a competitor that, having done just that itself, has now removed that offensive term from its new contracts.It is not a complete "get out of jail free" card. The act entitles the networks to charge a "reasonable" cancellation penalty, which, given the cost of the phone that has to be paid off, can be quite prohibitive.With this in mind, Cell C sweetened the lure by offering to buy people out of contracts by paying "up to" R10000, including a new phone, provided porters signed its new Epic plans.And so the war began.Vodacom CEO Shameel Joosub dismissed the campaign as a marketing gimmick, unlikely to have much impact, but Cell C claims that consumer response to the campaign, "and in particular the guarantee that prices will not increase during the contract term", has been "phenomenal" and exceeded its expectations.And no, it is not disclosing the numbers, yet.But the network is accusing "some" of its competitors of preventing "unhappy customers" from cancelling their contracts early by charging them "excessive and unreasonable" cancellation penalties."Cell C has been made aware of certain instances in which some of the network providers are charging customers more to cancel contracts early than to stay in their contract for the full term," network spokesman Karin Fourie said."This means that customers who are unhappy with their current network provider and wish to move to Cell C have to pay for future services that they will never receive."The act states that a cancellation penalty can not be so high that it has the effect of negating the consumer's right to cancel a fixed-term agreement like a cellphone contract early.MTN subscriber Ali Grunow was one such case.He signed an MTN Sky subscription in September at a monthly subscription of R1578, with an LG G3 handset with a retail value at the time of about R8500.With 14 months left to run on his contract, in which time he would have paid MTN R22 092, he asked for an early cancellation settlement so that he could port to Cell C. He was quoted R27 904 - almost R6000 more than he would have paid had he stayed with MTN to full term.And to make matters worse, while I was investigating this case MTN debited Grunow's bank account in the amount of R32 234.MTN explained that by saying that Grunow was one of 78 MTN customers whose settlement amounts had been miscalculated due to a "once-off system error".His correct settlement amount was R6289, In Your Corner was told."MTN apologises profusely for the inconvenience and undertakes to resolve fully outstanding matters with affected customers," said the network's chief customer experience officer, Eddie Moyce.He promised to make other cases available for scrutiny to prove his case.As for Vodacom, the example Cell C provided was that of a business contract, which does not benefit from legal early-cancellation provisions, said Vodacom spokesman Richard Boorman.Cell C then provided another subscriber that Vodacom had charged the remainder of the handset fee, plus 75% of the subscriptions for the remaining period."Cell C made unsubstantiated claims that other networks are charging more than the outstanding fees to cancel a contract - that simply isn't true in Vodacom's case. It must prove it [the claim] or retract," Boorman said.CONTACT WENDY:E-mail: consumer@knowler.co.zaTwitter: @wendyknowler SO, WHAT CAN WE CONSUMERS LEARN?When signing any fixed- term contract, be it with a gym, a cellphone service provider, a home-security company, or a landlord or rental agency, find out just how "reasonable" their early- termination policies are, and compare them with those of their competitors.Competition is a wonderful thing. With Cell C now offering contracts without a clause that entitles it to increase the contract subscription at any time or by any percentage, we should never accept cellphone contracts with that clause in them again.COSTS OF AN EARLY EXIT FROM PHONE CONTRACTCell C: Phone subsidy X months remaining, plus current bill.Vodacom: 75% of full monthly fee X months remaining, plus outstanding bill.MTN: Phone subsidy X months remaining, plus next month's subscription plus bill for outstanding usage.Telkom: Phone subsidy X months remaining, plus outstanding bill plus R800..YOU MAY ALSO WISH TO READ:*Last week’s column revealed how some debt collectors are continuing to contact consumers with demands to pay debts which have prescribed, despite the fact that since March 13 this year, thanks to an amendment to the National Credit Act, it is illegal to sell or collect prescribed debt.In Your Corner took up the case of Maya Silinga who was first contacted by Norman Bissett and Associates (NBA) late last year, claiming he owed about R28,000 on a car that was repossessed in 2007. Having received no further demand for payment at the time, he assumed the price fetched at auction covered the outstanding balance owed to the bank.NBA continued to demand payment from Silinga after the March amendment, despite the fact that the debt had prescribed. That’s because in the previous three years, Silinga had made no payment, had not acknowledged the debt and had not been summonsed in respect of it.Asked why his file had not been closed in March, in the absence of any proof that the debt had not prescribed, NBA invited Silinga to “register his contention” that the debt had prescribed.He did so, and on Wednesday received a letter stating: “After careful investigation we hereby accept your contention that this matter has prescribed. Please be advised that this particular matter has been closed.”Here’s the thing. After March, that debt was prescribed and Silinga should not have been made to point that out - the file should simply have been closed. ..