| reply to dcurrey
Re: Bull $hit They can do that if they want to. If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. |
|
|
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by battleop:They can do that if they want to. If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. This attitude is what is wrong with the state of capitalism in our country right now. I'm not attacking you personally, just what you said is often repeated by proponents of big business.
However, there becomes a point when you have significantly eliminated enough competition that no, they can't do that if they want to. I'm not saying the guy doesn't owe the money, but the Big 3 should have mechanisms in place to avoid this. This is 2009 and they state they can't monitor data usage in real time? Hell, AT&T's website can't even give me up-to-the-minute usage, it's a day or two behind.
If my ATM card can update my bank account after I use it and before I get back home, AT&T can make it so there are protections in place for this sort of thing.
Why don't they? Because that would mean people like me would cap usage (data and voice) to prevent overages. When an overage of 100 minutes costs $50, you have a lucrative side business going on. It's in your best interest not to allow consumers to avoid such charges.
And the oft repeated mantra of "you can go somewhere else" is not true. There is only the illusion of choice. All carriers have basically the same pricing model with the same draconian contracts, ETFs and overages. I challenge you to find a single carrier he could have used that wouldn't have popped him with these overages? (And pre-pay doesn't count. We're adults, we don't have time to refill a pre-paid card.) |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to battleop
Would it matter? We have 2 or 3 large carriers left. They have all the same basic plans and fee structures. When one raises rates the other usually follow. Text messaging is one example. Sort of like price fixing. This is why the bells never should have been allowed to merge. No true competition. They all do basically the same thing only under 2 or 3 different names.
No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything. |
|
| reply to Matt
I think that what all of the carriers are doing is highway robbery. It's not right, they should put some pressure on the network he was roaming on to help get it taken care of. What annoys me and lead to my statement is that people think that they HAVE to do something about it just because they are a big company. |
|
| reply to dcurrey
"No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything."
Yet the Cowsumers let them. Complaining does not and will not make them change. They only pay attention to subscriber counts and revenue. If people complain but the number of subscribers continues to increase then they keep on doing what they are doing because more subscribers are coming in. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to battleop
said by battleop:What annoys me and lead to my statement is that people think that they HAVE to do something about it just because they are a big company. I do think they should have to. $17,000 could very easily bankrupt someone or destroy their credit for the rest of their life if they decided not to pay.
AT&T should have reasonable measures in place to allow users to protect themselves from this type of scenario that aren't black and white, no data or data, no international or international. Either that or provide a one-time "we'll eat it" incentive. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to battleop
said by battleop:Yet the Cowsumers let them. you mean the regulators approved it. as a consumer, i would have objected to every single request for a merger. |
|
| said by morbo:said by battleop:Yet the Cowsumers let them. you mean the regulators approved it. as a consumer, i would have objected to every single request for a merger. While the other 80% or so of America probably didn't even care. |
|
| reply to dcurrey
said by dcurrey:No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything. For your sake, I hope you never eat in a restaurant. Hard to find a single item in any restaurant that isn't at least a triple digit markup.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? |
|
| said by PaulHikeS2:said by dcurrey:No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything. For your sake, I hope you never eat in a restaurant. Hard to find a single item in any restaurant that isn't at least a triple digit markup. The reason they have to mark it up so much, is because they have to pay Natural Gas prices for cooking, Air Conditioning for the cooking area, plus management, and a small amount actually goes to the waiter as their hourly money.
The Telecoms have 3 major things they pay for: Spectrum (overpriced by our government so that small companies can't afford it), Workers (Higher management ALWAYS OVERPAID), and Facilities costs (they build way to many stadiums and BS).
Once a company gets to a certain size (they always forget about Customer Service at this point) they need to be held accountable even if an idiot (probably an employee) makes a mistake on their own bill, considering that somehow in America we can get away with saying "Unlimited Data" as long as we put a star next to it.... |
|
 CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to PaulHikeS2
And yet their average profit margin is less than 5% Which means - most of the items do not have that much markup. Certainly alcohol and desserts also have high markups but most of that is eaten by the costs of everything else needed to run a restaurant.
With markups like that - they would not be the #1 business to go under in less than 1 year. |
|
| Re: Bull $hit Um..yeah.  |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by battleop:What annoys me and lead to my statement is that people think that they HAVE to do something about it just because they are a big company. I do think they should have to. $17,000 could very easily bankrupt someone or destroy their credit for the rest of their life if they decided not to pay. For most, it's not even a decision to not pay, it's a necessity. Personally, I don't know a single person who has $17,000 laying around that they can blow on a phone/data bill. A few of my friends even travel to Mexico frequently and still don't have that kind of loose cash. |
|
PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to Anon
I think you're lost. The forum you're looking for is over here »Current Affairs/Politics |
|
| reply to battleop
said by battleop: If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. If you do not like it... You always have a choice...
Such as tired phrase... It's bull. When an industry acts as one, there is no choice... |
|
 jsz0Premium
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by battleop:They can do that if they want to. If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. This attitude is what is wrong with the state of capitalism in our country right now. I'm not attacking you personally, just what you said is often repeated by proponents of big business. I disagree. I think that it shows, in reality, the vast overwhelming majority of customers aren't effected and don't care or they certainly would switch to other carriers or simply stop using any data service. Once they start caring and vote with their dollars the companies will respond and change their ways. Some people get angry at these companies but I get angry at the apathetic and ignorant consumers who allow it. If given the chance free market capitalism will run wild. That's a fact. If consumers cannot be bothered to read a contract and say "Oh... No thanks." and walk away then they are a huge part of the problem. |
|
| reply to CylonRed
Re: Bull $hit said by CylonRed:And yet their average profit margin is less than 5% Which means - most of the items do not have that much markup. Certainly alcohol and desserts also have high markups but most of that is eaten by the costs of everything else needed to run a restaurant. With markups like that - they would not be the #1 business to go under in less than 1 year. You're confusing gross margin with net earnings. Food always has to be marked up at least 300% (although you're correct that they make the most on drinks and desserts) which is a gross margin, but net earnings are based on revenue after all costs, including rent, fixtures, labor, insurance, etc. are considered. |
|
