 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
Re: Getting new rules locked in by FCC better than lawsuits .... 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. |
