  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits ....
... where the only winners would be the lawyers who file the class action lawsuits.
By having the FCC ratify and make the new policies law instead of just phone company policy, the consumers get the break and the phone companies can't back out of them later.
All the lawsuits will do is line the pockets of a bunch of scummy law firms that would probably net the actual customer nothing more than a discount voucher on their next phone upgrade. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
| TK JUNK,
We all recognize this but you miss the big picture. While the lawyers WILL GET RICH, consumers will have laws protecting them on the books. Companies will no longer be able to get away with this crap. It has to come at someone's expense. Sure the lawyers will be the real winners monetarily, but the consumers will finally get protections in place. |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by jc100 :TK JUNK, We all recognize this but you miss the big picture. While the lawyers WILL GET RICH, consumers will have laws protecting them on the books. Companies will no longer be able to get away with this crap. It has to come at someone's expense. Sure the lawyers will be the real winners monetarily, but the consumers will finally get protections in place. But they get the legal protections anyway when the FCC implements the new rules. So where is the need for the lawsuits? All the lawsuits do is raise the costs to the cell companies - which WILL be passed on to the customer in higher fees. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
  mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | reply to TKJunkMail "scummy law firms"
That's redundant. |
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to TKJunkMail Tk you are very very wrong. It usually takes lawsuits to spur the action of agencies. Do you think worker protections, safety measures, and many of the luxuries we enjoy were done on their own? If you say yes, you are by far mistaken. Most changes only came after legal battles occurred. While I hate that the lawyers get rich off this, it's a fact of life. |
|
  jhboricua ExMod 2000-01 join:2000-06-06 Minneapolis, MN clubs:
| reply to TKJunkMail Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits ....
said by TKJunkMail :But they get the legal protections anyway when the FCC implements the new rules. So where is the need for the lawsuits? All the lawsuits do is raise the costs to the cell companies - which WILL be passed on to the customer in higher fees. Because of course, if we know something from all your posts, is that your real concern is always how this will affect the customers.  |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by jhboricua :said by TKJunkMail :But they get the legal protections anyway when the FCC implements the new rules. So where is the need for the lawsuits? All the lawsuits do is raise the costs to the cell companies - which WILL be passed on to the customer in higher fees. Because of course, if we know something from all your posts, is that your real concern is always how this will affect the customers. I'm a customer. I care too. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
  Matt Take me down to the paradise city Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to TKJunkMail said by TKJunkMail :... where the only winners would be the lawyers who file the class action lawsuits. By having the FCC ratify and make the new policies law instead of just phone company policy, the consumers get the break and the phone companies can't back out of them later. All the lawsuits will do is line the pockets of a bunch of scummy law firms that would probably net the actual customer nothing more than a discount voucher on their next phone upgrade. The FCC can't create laws, only regulations with fines attached. You know this.
I agree with you though that we need laws in place, rather than class-action lawsuits, to protect consumers. |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by Matt :said by TKJunkMail :... where the only winners would be the lawyers who file the class action lawsuits. By having the FCC ratify and make the new policies law instead of just phone company policy, the consumers get the break and the phone companies can't back out of them later. All the lawsuits will do is line the pockets of a bunch of scummy law firms that would probably net the actual customer nothing more than a discount voucher on their next phone upgrade. The FCC can't create laws, only regulations with fines attached. You know this. I agree with you though that we need laws in place, rather than class-action lawsuits, to protect consumers. But the regulations have the force of law when they are issued. This wouldn't be a policy statement like the FCC has for network neutrality, but real regulations that can be enforced by the courts. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
  pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to mod_wastrel said by mod_wastrel :"scummy law firms" That's redundant. It is also insulting to scum. -- This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
 jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04 USA | reply to jc100 Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits ....
There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by jjeffeory :There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. Without any ETF at all, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people, who would get service, quit, and then resell cellphones they got at deep discounts on eBay and elsewhere. Therefore, getting rid of ETFs would result in "no discounts" on cellphones. Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
  ReVeLaTeD Premium join:2001-11-10 San Diego, CA
| reply to jjeffeory You're kidding, right?
It costs time, and money, to set up a new account. Provisioning the line, activating the equipment, maintaining signal, etc etc etc...all rolled into it. It's not acceptable for the companies to eat thousands of dollars because a consumer got buyer's remorse two months in.
That said...on the flip side, state law needs to provide for a "cooling off" period. California, for example, does allow for 30 days to try a phone and service and cancel with no penalty or cost. I think that's more than reasonable. Notice I said STATE law. It shouldn't be Federally mandated, because no two states are different in their saturation of customers. California, I'm sure, has more Cingular and T-mo customers than the state of Montana.
What I would like to see here though, is a Federal ban on mandatory contract extensions due to account activity. I mean, if I'm in an apartment, my lease doesn't get extended unless I sign a new agreement to that effect. I don't think it's fair at all that they can essentially keep a customer for the long haul just because Joe Customer decided he wanted 600 minutes instead of 300. Ban the mandatory, force the cellcos to use incentives and competition to convince customers to extend on their own free will.
Of course, that would make too much sense. |
|
  KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TKJunkMail This is why they should offer the plans unlinked to any phone.
IE "Bring your own phone" or "Buy what you like" and use our service. What they have been doing is using the gee whiz factor of the latest fancy phone to sell people their service contracts (iPhone, anyone?).
There should be no ETF options on every contract level. You buy the phone you want, or pick one they offer, and have the choice to pay normal price (or buy one off the Net). IE every phone should be unlocked and not bound to a particular carrier. That's been anti-competitive for years. -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
  KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to ReVeLaTeD said by ReVeLaTeD :You're kidding, right? It costs time, and money, to set up a new account. Provisioning the line, activating the equipment, maintaining signal, etc etc etc...all rolled into it. On a wireless new account? Please. I think the main cost is the labor cost of the employee who has to spend 30 seconds typing your info into the computer to set up your account. -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
  Matt Take me down to the paradise city Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by KrK :said by ReVeLaTeD :You're kidding, right? It costs time, and money, to set up a new account. Provisioning the line, activating the equipment, maintaining signal, etc etc etc...all rolled into it. On a wireless new account? Please. I think the main cost is the labor cost of the employee who has to spend 30 seconds typing your info into the computer to set up your account. You're exactly right. Sometimes, a human isn't even required. I've added 3 lines via the web with Verizon, with no human interaction whatsoever. The phones were active in 5 minutes or so.
It's the discounts on the phones that will lock the consumer into the contract. Most carriers will allow you to have a plan with no contract if you don't buy a discounted handset. |
|
 EPS
join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA
| reply to KrK I disagree- I know a cell-phone company will work in my area, if I can get a free phone by agreeing to sign up with them for a long-term contract why shouldn't I?
Now, non-contract options should be available, but I think for most consumers the current set-up is more cost-efficient than the one you are suggesting. |
|
  dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| reply to TKJunkMail said by TKJunkMail :said by jjeffeory :There should be NO ETF fees. The companies are all big enough to handle setups and the risks. If I suddenly don't like a service, or move, or whatever, I shouldn't be penalized. NO ETFs. Without any ETF at all, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people, who would get service, quit, and then resell cellphones they got at deep discounts on eBay and elsewhere. Therefore, getting rid of ETFs would result in "no discounts" on cellphones. Sure you could then buy one on your own at full price, but you won't get the deal a Verizon or AT&T get when they buy cellphones in the millions and then resell them. What about those that bring their own handset and get nothing in subsidies when they join and are unhappy and get hit with ETF. sorry TK i dont buy that arguement. is just an easy no cost way to make money off of unhappy subs. -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|