Would you switch your cell-phone provider if you didn't have to pay that nasty early termination fee that the companies charge customers to get out of their contracts?

Nearly half (47 percent) of cell-phone users polled said they would most definitely switch or consider switching cell-phone service carriers to get a lower rate and better service if they didn't have to pay an average penalty of $170 to cancel their service contract, according to a new survey by U.S. PIRG, the national lobbying office for state Public Interest Research Groups, which are nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organizations.

"Early termination penalties prevent consumers from voting with their feet when their cell phone company treats them wrong," said Ed Mierzwinski, the consumer program director for U.S. PIRG. "Since the cell-phone companies know the penalties make switching unaffordable for many consumers, the carriers can get away with shoddy overpriced service. Eliminating these unfair penalties will let consumers out of the cells they are locked into."

I've certainly been trapped in a contract with a cell-phone company I loathed (for bad billing practices I won't go into). But with a $175 early termination fee, it just wasn't worth it to break the contract with six months to go. But you'd better believe that the moment my term was up, I was so gone.

The vast majority of wireless rate plans involve service agreements in which customers sign up for one- or two-year contracts. The PIRG report found that ETFs, or early-termination fees, range from $150 to $240, depending on the company.

The PIRG report also found that three out of four survey respondents indicated they would support the elimination of the early termination penalties.

But CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade group, says early termination fees are necessary. Besides, if consumers don't want to be subject to an early termination fee, they have the option to sign up with a plan without one, said Joe Farren, director of public affairs for CTIA.

Of course, the better-priced plans often come with the early termination penalty.

"Without the early termination clause, people would be gaming the system," Farren said. "People would walk away with a $500 phone for virtually nothing. An early termination fee allows the wireless provider to recoup the costs of giving a phone to a consumer for a steep discount. Without it, you simply have an economic model that doesn't work."

Farren was adamant that an early termination fee is not intended to prevent a customer from jumping to a competitor.

But a number of consumers disagree. So much so that the industry is facing consumer lawsuits filed in several states challenging the fairness of the fees. In response to the lawsuits, CTIA-The Wireless Association petitioned the Federal Communications Commission in March to rule that an ETF is not a penalty but rather an integral part of a customer's rate plan. Thus, CTIA argues, state courts have no jurisdiction in this matter.

The association argues that while the costs for acquiring and provisioning new customers are significant, most of the rate plans offered do not require customers to pay for these costs at the beginning of the contract term. Instead, carriers recover these "upfront costs gradually from customers through a variety of rate elements."

If you are a cell-phone user, I hope you get as incensed as I was when you read this:

"The ETF thus provides a measure of predictability to the revenue stream reasonably expected by wireless carriers, enabling carriers to offer attractive initial discounts and monthly pricing to customers willing to make a minimum service commitment and also ensuring carriers some measure of compensation for lost revenue and otherwise unrecoverable upfront costs caused by early terminations."

U.S. PIRG as well as 15 members of Congress are urging the FCC to reject the cell-phone industry's petition and let state courts determine if these early termination fees are reasonable. You should, too.