how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to rit56
Re: Not on Verizon I don't know that I agree with the "heavily regulated" part of your comment. Mobile web access is important to me, and I will agree that it's changed my lifestyle-- but it isn't an essential part of my life in the same way that electricity and running water are. The government should not control pricing nor set pricing policy in these areas.
That being said, I do believe that there is some sort of collusion going on between some of these companies-- AT&T and Verizon, in particular. It seems too coincidental that each has a similar pricing plan, and that each changes prices and included features within a short time of the other doing it. Some would call this good competition; I choose to look at it with a more skeptical perspective.
There are things that, IMHO, the government should do however. Some of these fit under existing laws.
Truth in advertising: Since when does the word unlimited translate into a usage cap of 5GB per month? Unlimited means without limits. If AT&T and Verizon want to cap usage on "unlimited" mobile Internet plans at 5GB per month, then they should be forced to advertise these plans as a "high usage metered" plan with a 5GB cap, or something similar. The word "unlimited" applied the way they are doing it confuses many customers; indeed, I believe that is exactly their intent.
Eliminate bundling practices: Some people want to buy an "enhanced multimedia device" and have no intention of using it to surf the web. They don't, and they won't. Requiring them to pay for even one byte of data when they don't want it should not be allowed. We all know that Verizon is doing this simply to bump up people's plans by $10 or more per month. If they need/want this extra amount, then they should price their monthly service plans and/or handsets accordingly to reflect this additional charge. This would eliminate things like the $30/month data plan charge that AT&T places onto each iPhone, for those who want the phone but have no intention of using its data capabilities.
Eliminate contract requirements for those who bring their own devices to use. Supposedly contracts are used to allow wireless companies to recover the costs of providing discounted handsets to customers. If there is no device provided to the customer, then there is no cost to recover. (Subsequently, customers who opt for month-to-month service may be subject to more frequent price variations since they are not locked into a contract.)
Provide discounted service to those who bring their own handset. Theoretically part of the amount charged for wireless service is to recover the cost of providing a subsidized handset. People who bring their own devices (or those who buy handsets at non-subsidized prices) should receive a service discount equal to the amount that the wireless provider calculates to be the "recovery cost" of the subsidy.
Standardize billing documents between carriers. Each bill from each carrier should have about the same types of line items. If there are bogus fees that a carrier is trying to make appear as taxes (or "recovery charges", or the like), then that carrier should be heavily fined until these charges are labeled as additional carrier-imposed fees. Help people understand their bills and compare apples to apples when doing so.
There are probably a few more ideas I could come up with; these are all I could think of off the top of my head.
--
Obama lies. His public option forces people into paying more for less coverage, and provides government paid abortion and euthanization while denying treatment and coverage to many others. Read the fine print, it's worse than an cell phone contract. | |
| Those are all good ideas, and would make the industry more honest and competitive.
And your right, the government (via the FCC, FTC, etc.) largely has the power to force some of these changes already.
How they get away with some of these things, for so long, is beyond me. Outright lies in advertising (Unlimited! = 5 GB cap), bogus below-the-line-fees (not in advertised price), forcing a text plan (or pay $0.25 each way, including receiving), and forced bundling in general.
I posted earlier in the thread about carrier "subsidies," which is really financing, not a subsidy. They bundle the cost of service with the cost of financing, and don't break out the cost financing. So people don't know the real cost of the phone, the effective interest being paid, or the service. There's no incentive to buy your own phone, when you pay full price for service.
This won't change unless the government forces carriers to separately list the cost of financing and service, and to break out the details of financing (effective interest rate). Just like the government requires all loans to provide all the details of the financing involved. | |
|
