| Whats next? I am as anti-telco as the next guy, but I'm not sure the government needs to get involved in private party contract law. As long as both sides (the company and the consumer) are aware of the etf before the contract is signed, there shouldn't be a problem.
I would however like to see some sort of regulation in place requiring your signature before the company can just automatically renew/extend the original contract though. |
|
1 edit | said by Camelot One:I am as anti-telco as the next guy, but I'm not sure the government needs to get involved in private party contract law. As long as both sides (the company and the consumer) are aware of the etf before the contract is signed, there shouldn't be a problem. I would however like to see some sort of regulation in place requiring your signature before the company can just automatically renew/extend the original contract though. I look at it like parents and children. If children can do the right thing and play fair, parents generally won't get involved with their lives unless its major things. The problem is, children can't do this.
The same can be said for large corporations when dealing with their customers. If they would stop trying to find ways to screw over their customers for as much money as possible (ETF's, long-term contracts, etc, etc) then the parents (government) wouldn't have to keep stepping in to try to stop them.
I'm actually one for less government intervention, but the fact is, without it, things would go back to the wild wild west days with snake oil salesman selling, well, snake oil.
One recommendation would be businesses who are recognized as being competitive and extremely pro-consumer would get tax breaks, certain preferential treatment, priority for government work, blah, blah, blah.
In most cases, government is more than happy to screw over the consumer if it helps big business and lines their pockets but eventually, the big guys screw over the little guys so much that government has to step in and say "no more". |
|
|
|
| reply to Camelot One
And Senator Klobuchar has more important things on her plate - like a few weeks of Healthcare debate, and the increase of the national debt ceiling, and about 8 spending bills that need to be passed before year end if the gov't is expected to keep open. And right now it looks like the Senate won't get even these critical things done without working thru Christmas.
Somehow I doubt her stupid bill will go anywhere and will never even get out of committee.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Camelot One
Given the size of the markets involved, the fact that most areas are basically duopolies in which collusion exists and consumers don't have much of a choice anymore (good luck getting a job that pays well without being available 24/7) and because all of these companies are renting out public property (part of a spectrum) I would say that the government has a right to step in. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Camelot One
The only thing such legislation will accomplish if passed is increased costs to purchase phones and initiate service. How's that for anti-consumer and anti-competitive? |
|
| reply to chimera
"the fact that most areas are basically duopolies"
Name a market with just two Cell providers. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to Camelot One
Agreed. Seriously, you can get all of Verizon's plans without a contract. You just have to pay more for the phones. Verizon isn't disallowing functionality, they're just charging more if you terminate the contract before it runs out. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to battleop
said by battleop:"the fact that most areas are basically duopolies" Name a market with just two Cell providers. MINE |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Camelot One
said by Camelot One:I am as anti-telco as the next guy, but I'm not sure the government needs to get involved in private party contract law. As long as both sides (the company and the consumer) are aware of the etf before the contract is signed, there shouldn't be a problem. I would however like to see some sort of regulation in place requiring your signature before the company can just automatically renew/extend the original contract though. yeah this is a problem since the consumer has no choice. Your point of view is like saying if a girl is about to be raped and the guys asks "can I rape you?" and she says yes knowing she doesn't have any other choice then that's ok because she said he could. |
|
 don1p2
join:2004-06-11
Boston, MA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:And Senator Klobuchar has more important things on her plate - like a few weeks of Healthcare debate, and the increase of the national debt ceiling, and about 8 spending bills that need to be passed before year end if the gov't is expected to keep open. And right now it looks like the Senate won't get even these critical things done without working thru Christmas. Somehow I doubt her stupid bill will go anywhere and will never even get out of committee. Exacty. Somehow I don't suspect that the Founding Fathers, had in mind that they were creating a consumer "protection" agency when the House and the Senate and the division of powers between the branches of the Federal gov't were created.
This sort of Democratic Party pandering is exaxctly what they are looking for....an American people have become too dumbed-down to enter into a contract of their own free-will without big gov't intervention.
Be afraid. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Camelot One
said by Camelot One:I am as anti-telco as the next guy, but I'm not sure the government needs to get involved in private party contract law. As long as both sides (the company and the consumer) are aware of the etf before the contract is signed, there shouldn't be a problem. What private party? Does any legal person have a born civil right to spectrum or right-of-way? When your selling something you rent from the government, the government can attach any terms it wants to the deal. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to Camelot One
I can't think of any way an ETF would ever benefit a regular person. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| reply to Camelot One
 We have police to protect us from ordinary criminal thugs. We have regulations to protect us from corporate thugs. Anyone that feels that we do not need the government or government regulation to protect us against thugs should be given a free months vacation in Somalia. They can learn what it is like to live where there is no government interfering with their citizens right to do whatever they want.
P.S. Don't forget your Jolly Roger so you will fit right in! |
|
| reply to BF69
You must not look very hard.
AT&T, US Cellular, Tmobile, and Verizon all show coverage for Camden, TN. I didn't waste any more time looking for others. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Camelot One
While I generally agree with your sentiments, its not like we (users) get to actually negotiate a contract here.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ |
|
| reply to don1p2
I'm not afraid, I'd rather have subservient business to a powerful friendly government, then subservient government to an all powerful corporate controlled world. Government wants control and power, and most of what I do is of no concern or care of the government even if they were massively powerful. Do they care that I write short stories and take too many photos of my friends, or do they care that Sundays are wake up late day, and sometimes we like to spend the entire Sunday wasting time in Ikea, and at Bath & Body Works, frankly no. They'd prefer us to be quiet little consumers, and I'm fine with that. If they did what's right for consumers and the citizens of the country rather than corporations for once I think we'd all be a little bit happier, and able to just be happy little citizens. |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
·Cox HSI
| reply to axus
said by axus:I can't think of any way an ETF would ever benefit a regular person. By allowing the companies to subsidize the phones. |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | reply to BF69
How is anyone compelled to choose a particular carrier or phone? These new subscribers aren't conscripts.
IOW, they absolutely have the choice to say, "$300 ETF? Are you insane? F-You, I'm taking my business elsewhere." |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to PhoenixDown
But you have a choice whether to sign the contract or not. Don't like the terms? Don't sign the contract  |
|
| reply to PhoenixDown
said by PhoenixDown:While I generally agree with your sentiments, its not like we (users) get to actually negotiate a contract here. said by openbox9:But you have a choice whether to sign the contract or not. Don't like the terms? Don't sign the contract openbox9 pretty much made my point. I agree, the ETF sucks. But people are informed of it in advance, the fee is set, and they agree to it - in exchange for getting a discount on the phone. Its no different than those apartment complexes that offer the first month free rent, but if you break the lease, you have to pay for that month. Its basis contract 101. And I see it as even LESS of a problem now that there are so many non-contract cell plans.
Now auto-renewals, and pretty much anytime a person isn't physically signing the contract, that is a different story. |
|
