how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to jjeffeory
Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... 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. | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| 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!) | | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | 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. | |
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | 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? | |
| 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. | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by ReVeLaTeD:And that employee has to be paid. Yes... That's what "Labor cost" means.
Customers should be able to move to the competition when they offer better features, superior service, or better pricing. Long term contract lock-ins is purely anticompetitive.
--
"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!) | |
| I don't think so. The competition is still there. T-mobile still offers the best rate plans. Sprint still offers the fastest data. Verizon still offers the "cool" phone. Then you have the sub carriers like Helio etc filling in the gaps with people who don't want long term commitments. But the competition is still there, trust and believe.
Nobody is forced to go contract. You can buy a phone at full price and get ripped off without a contract. There are plans designed to give you the minimum allowable service with no agreement. All carriers offer some flavor of prepaid. So there are options for consumers who don't want a contract. Saying that contracts are anticompetitive is missing the boat entirely. Are they anti-consumer? Maybe.
Again, don't misunderstand me. I don't like the arbitrary extension of said contracts just for changing a service or getting a subsidized phone. I think THAT should be abolished, yes. The ETF? No. Just mandate a 30-day trial period for which each consumer can try the various providers to find one that works for them, and if you don't cancel in the 30 days, you're locked.
PS, I also agree with the prorated ETF. No logic in paying $200 after I'm a year and a half into service. Forgot to mention that part. | |
|
