750,000 Customers Still Lease Phones > According to some of you

According to some of you

The larger issue here is that most companies would rather take your money and not try to steer you toward a better solution.

Even in your case, the provider is NOT going to come to you any say, hey, we offer less expensive solutions now, so come pay less for the same thing or better. Why would they clue you in that you should pay less?

Then again, there are some companies who do exactly that. This is more an issue of corporations being greedy and not doing the morally proper decision of automatically rolling the customers to a better solution that is cheaper.

puritan

Regardless of if she made the decision or not, the point is that it's 21 YEARS later and Ma Bell has been ripping her off to the tune of $14 THOUSAND dollars for ONE, 1960's rotary phone that cost them MAYBE $50 to make to begin with.

It is exactly this kind of predatory behavior on the part of companies that leave a sour taste in most peoples mouths. Just because they CAN keep charging, doesn't mean the automatically SHOULD. And the "well, they made the decision" defense doesn't cut it.

If you or I as a individual were to do such things, we would be buried under the prison for fraud or some such in short order.

Corporations want the right to suck their customers dry for every penny they can get, while having absolutely NO responsibility to be a respectable corporate citizen, or, to be held accountable for their actions like we are as citizens.

reply to R4M0N

reply to R4M0N
On a similar note, my contract for DSL with AT&T has been up since January, at which time my monthly DSL bill went from, I believe, $21.95/month to $34.95/month. Obviously, their billing program knew when my contract was up and automatically adjusted my bill to the higher rate. I've been paying the higher rate since that time when all I'd have to do to lower it is pick up the phone and call. It would have been nice if I didn't have to do that, but I don't blame AT&T for my laziness and procrastination. Business is business, I suppose.

reply to R4M0N

reply to shortckt
for $14,000 i'm sure they would have bought an identical version on ebay (or from a garage sale) and sent it back to her good as new!

they want to keep milking that cow!

milk milk milk!

reply to Fatal Vector

reply to shortckt

reply to R4M0N

reply to R4M0N

quote:

---

Awwww. Let's all hold hands and sing kumbayah too while we are at it.

---

Ooh, I'm mentally ill. Touche! Maybe you can charge me $10 for a cure made up of mud-puddle water and horse hair, then applaud your own capitalistic ingenuity!

Instead of regurgitating talk radio punditry, lets go door to door tonight and see how many of these 750,000 have full control over their faculties, and if they understand their bills.

If they don't, we can laugh at them! Maybe hit them with fruit!

reply to R4M0N

reply to Karl Bode

said by Karl Bode:

Ooh, I'm mentally ill. Touche! Maybe you can charge me $10 for a cure made up of mud-puddle water and horse hair, then applaud your own capitalistic ingenuity!

Instead of regurgitating talk radio punditry, lets go door to door tonight and see how many of these 750,000 have full control over their faculties, and if they understand their bills.

If they don't, we can laugh at them! Maybe hit them with fruit!

You're absolutely no fun.

reply to R4M0N
"1. Why do we have to disregard her decision making?"

Ummm, because it was made 21 YEARS ago under a ruling that has absolutely NO bearing today and they are just leaving it in place because of the money it brings in? It's not a matter of "disregarding". It is a matter of being a honest and respectable business.

"2. It was for two phones over the last 14 years."

So what? How does that lessen the fact that they are ripping her off? All that means is she paid $7,000 per phone.

"3. What does the longevity of the charge have to do with the issue?"

I refer you back yo #1 above.

"4. The cost of making a product has no bearing on how much a company should charge for it. Do you really think it costs $30 or even $20 to make a monster cable, then why do they charge $50 for an HDMI cable?"

It doesn't? Getting $50 from some dolt for a "monster" cable is not the same thing as ripping off the elderly for year after year for rental on a totally obsolete device.

"5. It's the customer's responsibility to make sure he or she is paying a competitive price. A cable modem rental is $10 extra from most cable internet providers. For $30 you can buy a cable modem on ebay. Is the cable comany ripping people off by leasing the modem when people can buy one for 3 months worth of rent?"

Again, this attempt at comparison does not fit. It's not a matter of a "competitive" price. It's a matter of ripping off the elderly and incompetent for 21 YEARS for rental on a obsolete device originally furnished by a monopoly. Cable modems are not obsolete devices.

And, yes, the cable company IS ripping people off by leasing the modem, just as they have been for cable boxes for decades (which, oddly enough, is why the FCC mandated "Cable ready" tuners and a standard channel scheme back in th 80's to stop this very thing, and is also why the only ones who rent boxes are those that like the "premium" channels).

This is the same reason they are so hot to get you on digital, because now you have NO choice at all. you MUST rent the box.

"Now do you expect the cable company to tell everyone to go to ebay and buy a modem instead of renting from them? Even if they don't buy one from ebay, circuit city is having a sale right now for a TOP OF THE LINE motorola SB5120 for only $39.99. Should comcast and the other companies tell eveyone to go to Circuit city?"

A respectable corporate citizen would do so, yes. You notice the telcos dont rent modems, they give/sell them and advise customers what ones will work on their systems.

"The company did its part and informed the customer that they were free to stop leasing the phone. she freely CHOSE (freedom come with responsibilities too) to keep the lease. Now unless she's deemed unable to make a rational choice, the company did all it was supposed to do."

Yes, they did what they were ORDERED to, 21 YEARS ago. She chose to keep the phone then and the telco was more than happy to keep ripping her off for those 21 years, instead of doing what a reputable firm would have and just quit charging her for it and transferring ownership to her.

It must be nice getting away with collecting $7,000 for a rotary phone. I think they should be made to refund most of it, truth be told.

In this case, "she chose to keep the lease" just doesn't cut it. They are ripping these people off, plain and simple.

reply to R4M0N
"Was she entitled to a free phone? Did the company promise her a free phone after so many years of service?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, she was, since that was part of the deal she agreed to back then: Repair or replace.

reply to Karl Bode