 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | So? As has been shown, an ETF is an entirely optional and preventable fee. There is no need for this bill, and all it will do is give cell phone companies another excuse to raise prices for service, and eliminate any discounts on phones that are offered now.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by pnh102:As has been shown, an ETF is an entirely optional and preventable fee. There is no need for this bill, and all it will do is give cell phone companies another excuse to raise prices for service, and eliminate any discounts on phones that are offered now. Absent collusion, simply raising service prices will negatively impact subscribership.
As to elimination of discounts on phones, the only point of those is lock-in. In markets without phone discounts, people seem to have little problem affording phones. Even if they didn't, not everyone *needs* a cell phone. Damned few *need* the type of connectivity that cell phones afford (and, no, having the ability jack your jaws on the phone during a movie does not count as a need).
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by nixen:As to elimination of discounts on phones, the only point of those is lock-in. True, but every cell provider already provides a reasonable amount of time during which a customer can bail if the service is not working for them. I don't see why most customers should have to lose a discount on phones that they now enjoy simply because a minority of people are whining about an entirely avoidable and preventable fee.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by pnh102:said by nixen:As to elimination of discounts on phones, the only point of those is lock-in. True, but every cell provider already provides a reasonable amount of time during which a customer can bail if the service is not working for them. I don't see why most customers should have to lose a discount on phones that they now enjoy simply because a minority of people are whining about an entirely avoidable and preventable fee. The "discount on phones" is really only a discount if you buy the argument that the first few hits of crack/meth/etc. the dealer gives you are free. There's simply no such thing as free or discounts. You pay for it *somewhere*.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
 Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA
2 edits | reply to pnh102
There would be no reason to lose the discount. Its just making sure the fee is directly proportionate to the discount as this bill would require. This was the reason for ETFs anyway. The purpose (this is what we were told) of the ETF is to recoup the discount. This bill simply would require the carriers to adhere to that reason. In some instances with devices, it does appear to be adhered to. However, if carriers are freely able to start changing fees, the customers will end up being screwed in the end because the carriers will start charging based on what they think people will pay even though at some point becomes ripping us off.
There is nothing wrong with making sure the carriers stick to the original reason for ETFs. We need to derail this train before it goes too far off track. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to nixen
said by nixen:The "discount on phones" is really only a discount if you buy the argument that the first few hits of crack/meth/etc. the dealer gives you are free. There's simply no such thing as free or discounts. You pay for it *somewhere*. And under this law, we'll pay more because carriers would have no incentive to offer discounts.
If people want to go to the foreign model of paying full price for a phone, they are already able to. But for the rest of us who don't enjoy paying full price when it isn't needed, leave us out.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | What is with this current thinking that this bill will get rid of the ETF all together? It WILL NOT DO THAT. Its only designed to make sure the carriers don't charge more for the ETF than what the customer received as a discount. |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:And under this law, we'll pay more because carriers would have no incentive to offer discounts. If people want to go to the foreign model of paying full price for a phone, they are already able to. But for the rest of us who don't enjoy paying full price when it isn't needed, leave us out. Do you even bother to read before you respond? Do you even bother to think before you write? There is no freaking discount. What you perceive as a discount just means that the provider is recovering their costs, elsewhere. If the discount is designed to be recouped in X months (and, let's be real, X is considerably less than your contract term), anything beyond X months is pure profit for them. Then again, you probably think that credit cards are free money, too.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to pnh102
If the bill passes, and companies eliminate discounts on phones, then they won't be able to charge any early termination fees to consumers. (One of the clauses limits ETFs to the amount of discounts provided.)
I'd say that was a good thing.
What a concept: requiring wireless companies to treat customers fairly. I'm not normally a big fan of legislating actions like this for companies, but when sufficient competitive pressure doesn't exist (the wireless market is an oligopoly) then something needs to be done to ensure that consumers' desires are adequately represented.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by nixen:As to elimination of discounts on phones, the only point of those is lock-in. True, but every cell provider already provides a reasonable amount of time during which a customer can bail if the service is not working for them. I don't see why most customers should have to lose a discount on phones that they now enjoy simply because a minority of people are whining about an entirely avoidable and preventable fee. Tell that to iPhone customers who have seen their service degrade over time but still have a hefty ETF to pay.
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to nixen
said by nixen:Then again, you probably think that credit cards are free money, too. The $400 worth of gift cards and stuff I've received so far this month from my credit card companies indicates that there is indeed free money in credit cards if you're doing it right. 
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by wierdo:said by nixen:Then again, you probably think that credit cards are free money, too. The $400 worth of gift cards and stuff I've received so far this month from my credit card companies indicates that there is indeed free money in credit cards if you're doing it right. Ok... And the transaction fees that Visa/MC/AmEx/etc. charge to the people you buy things from: do you think the sellers just eat that or do you think they raise their overall prices to account for the cost of accepting credit cards? That $400 would go much further if they didn't pass expenses on.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo:said by nixen:Then again, you probably think that credit cards are free money, too. The $400 worth of gift cards and stuff I've received so far this month from my credit card companies indicates that there is indeed free money in credit cards if you're doing it right. Which is possible because the merchant gets screwed out of a certain percentage. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| said by Necronomikro:Which is possible because the merchant gets screwed out of a certain percentage. Yep, the merchants do indeed pay a fee for service, part of which is rebated to me.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
| reply to pnh102
Im sorry, I must of missed it. Which part of the outlined items would make the cost go up? |
|
| reply to Steve B
said by Steve B:However, if carriers are freely able to start changing fees, the customers will end up being screwed in the end because the carriers will start charging based on what they think people will pay even though at some point becomes ripping us off. Yes, this is called the free market/capitalism. Something is worth whatever people will pay for it. I understand what you're getting at but if people will pay $500 for something that cost $5 to produce then in the end whose fault is it really?
Just sayin' is all.
--
|
|
 ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada | reply to wierdo
Yep, you ARE a weirdo, wierdo.
The merchants pay a fee and then pass it RIGHT BACK TO YOU, you bonehead!
There is no free lunch. How many fucking times do people have to repeat that? |
|
| reply to nixen
said by nixen:Ok... And the transaction fees that Visa/MC/AmEx/etc. charge to the people you buy things from: do you think the sellers just eat that or do you think they raise their overall prices to account for the cost of accepting credit cards? That $400 would go much further if they didn't pass expenses on. Wow, I LOVE your signature. It is always amazing to me how the word "free" brings out the stupid in people. Nothing in this life is free except sunshine and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land.
Cell phones are NEVER free; you're just going on a payment plan. The person who just looks at the price of the device and not the cost of the contract is just like the person who falls for the car dealer scam of just talking about the payments and not the total price. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Steve B
said by Steve B:Its only designed to make sure the carriers don't charge more for the ETF than what the customer received as a discount. This just begs the question. Why is this even the government's business? The ETF is a fully disclosed and entirely avoidable fee. I could understand if the government was cracking down on phone companies imposing an ETF in a manner that wasn't agreed to by the customer first, but if an ETF is imposed in a manner that was fully disclosed to the customer beforehand and the customer agreed to the terms, then tough.
Again, if people do not want to be bothered with an ETF, they can buy a phone for full price already, among other things.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to nixen
said by nixen:Do you even bother to read before you respond? Do you even bother to think before you write? I see that I have won yet another argument with you. Next.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
