jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits ....
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 |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| 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
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 |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | reply to jc100
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 |
|
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 EPS
said by EPS :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. Actusally that is what I am suggesting. That non-contract options should exist, and should be cheaper since there's no rebated hardware to cover.
--
"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!) |
|
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Endicott, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :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. Gosh, you mean we'd actually be able to do business directly with Motorola and Nokia instead of being locked into the walled garden model of carriers that see fit to disable useful features just because they don't mesh with their revenue model?
And I'd like to know why a $200 ETF is justified on a phone that retails (without a contract) for $100 and can be had in pre-paid kits for around $30-$40. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
·Comcast
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD :It's not acceptable for the companies to eat thousands of dollars because a consumer got buyer's remorse two months in. That said... 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. Explain your logic to me. It is unacceptable to cancel 60 days into the plan, but 30 days is reasonable? |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :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. Yep. How many lawsuits have changed the law, enforced it, or made it a precedent? Almost all of them. A lawsuit filed today is deep-rooted in a lawsuit filed 10-20-50-100 years ago. Read a lawsuit (the complaint) and see how many citations of case law there are--a bunch.
Example: XYZ, Inc. sues ABC, Inc. over predatory pricing. XYZ, Inc. wins setting precedent.
Actuals:
Florida capped the interest rate title loan companies could charge so they moved to Alabama.
A lawyer sued an Airline over airline safety in the 1970s. He won. It changed airline safety forever. Laws came forward to cover the airline safety procedures.
Miss. - A lawyers sues State Farm and other insurance companies saying that wind damage from hurricanes caused water damage and the insurance company had to pay. LA. then did it. Florida was doing it. Insurance companies lost big time. In Florida (absent Crist as Insurance Commish), now State Farm is dropping Wind Damage from policies this year. My question: WHAT THE HELL IS IT GOOD FOR NOW?
Did you know that class action lawyers put ALL the money out to sue, take depos, gather evidence, etc.? Class actions are complex litigation that can take 10-20 years to finish. Lawyers suing over breast implants 18 years ago have yet to see a penny even though they won.
Medical malpractice lawyers (you're best friend since State Departments of Health won't discipline a doctor if he left an Altoids box in someone while being drunk and snorting cocaine in the OR) spend $100,000 or more putting a case together.
Old saying: You hate lawyers till you need one.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| reply to KrK
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. And that employee has to be paid.
Again, I'm not matching dollar for dollar. What I'm saying is, there IS an investment on part of the company activating the service and they need insurance. Without the ETF and a 30-day trial, what you'd have is a bunch of people who just keep jumping ship every time a different carrier launches a phone or a feature that the individual wants. T-mobile going 3G is a perfect example - everyone's delusions of a 3G Sidekick or a 3G HTC device make them want to jump ship...when quite honestly their existing service works just fine.
Then Sprint launches 4G and boom - they want to jump back.
It'd be a bonafide nightmare and that's why I think some sort of fee for terminating contracts early without just cause is more than warranted. Don't get me wrong...I don't think ETFs should be charged if the customer can show a pattern of clearly unsatisfactory service, or that the company breached the agreement, or that multiple attempts to repair hardware have not revealed a satisfactory conclusion. IN that case and ONLY in that case, ETF should be disregarded, because you didn't get the service you signed up for.
What consumers in the US want is a free pass to jump ship whenever they please, which of course would drive up costs for those who are more stable.
Nuh uh. No thanks. |
|
thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA | reply to TKJunkMail
Then why is is that Verizon is trying to get me to sign up to a new contract that still has an ETF in it even though I'm sticking with the phone I've had for 2.5 years?
Why is there an ETF for contracts that don't give you a new phone? |
|
homenode
Premium
join:2007-11-18
Bullhead City, AZ
| reply to TKJunkMail
Speaking as one of the guys that helped invent "churn", it's the "churn" that casues the need for ETFs. It used to be that phone companies had you locked-in because they were a monopoly. Then, with deregulation in the 1980's, they started competing on price. The price wars got customers "shopping" for service every few months and switching every time they got a better deal. It got worse when the phone companies started offering rebates to sweeten the churn from competitors, to the point where there were BBS's that kept the best switch deals up to date for all the phone companies out there. (Remember Dr. Bob's "Long Distance for Less"?)
Companies started instituting the ETF to add a stick to the carrot of changing vendors. Yeah, you could get 6 months free and a $100 rebate, but you had to pay it all back if you quit before the year was up. Made sense: you're going to have customer poaching going on no matter what, and most customers aren't rational consumers in that they look at the cheap price and the shiny-shiny to make a decision.
It's the air fare wars all over again. Southwest offers reasonable, fair prices in all their markets, regardless of the number of competitors they have. Other airlines, like American, Delta, Northwest, United, offer cheap fares where they compete against Southwest and HUGE fares where they don't.
Southwest doesn't have an "ETF" on its tickets - yes, you can change a ticket 5 minutes before the plane leaves and pay NO PENALTY on rebooking the flight. Every other airline has draconian ETFs - $150 change fee plus the fare change - usually double or triple the price of the original ticket.
The point in this digression: you have two completely different business models working in the airfare market. And you have customers using both - with most customers taking the "shiny-shiny" of a $100 ticket on American with no possibility of getting a refund or rebooking - instead of the $150 Southwest ticket with no strings attached. (If this wasn't true, you wouldn't have AA or DL or UA or NW in business any more.)
SO...until a telco decides to "do a Southwest" - which would be flat-rate contracts, phones purchased separately or added to the contract for a nominal or no fee, and either no ETFs or a "reasonable" ETF like one month's additional fee and the reamining cost of the phone, you'll continue to have the freebies and come-ons because customers love that "shiny-shiny" feeling...
Maybe Sprint will be the first one to do this - they need to do SOMETHING to break out of their current funk! |
|
