 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Useless As always the FCC misses the mark.
Investigate the hidden fees tacked on to every phone bill that EVERYONE PAYS. Not the fully disclosed and easily dodged fees that FEW PEOPLE PAY.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
| You get a +1. I'm glad to see someone gets it.
--
|
|
|
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:As always the FCC misses the mark. Investigate the hidden fees tacked on to every phone bill that EVERYONE PAYS. Not the fully disclosed and easily dodged fees that FEW PEOPLE PAY. They should investigate both. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Why?
Every cell carrier clearly discloses the ETF and the terms under which a customer will pay it. For most people the ETF could be $500 and they would never pay one. There are also numerous ways ETFs can be avoided entirely by canceling unsatisfactory service within the grace period, getting a prepaid phone or paying full price for a phone. Simply put, this is not a big problem.
On the other hand, no cell company is willing to give you an estimate of the hidden fees which are tacked on to a customer's monthly bill prior to purchasing service. Since these companies are clearly able to calculate such fees after the fact, they should be made to do this beforehand as well by including the cost of these fees in the advertised price of the service.
As long as companies are upfront about their fees, then there is no problem.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
1 edit | said by pnh102:Why? Every cell carrier clearly discloses the ETF and the terms under which a customer will pay it. For most people the ETF could be $500 and they would never pay one. There are also numerous ways ETFs can be avoided entirely by canceling unsatisfactory service within the grace period, getting a prepaid phone or paying full price for a phone. Simply put, this is not a big problem. Even if you bring your own phone or pay full price for a phone, you pay the same monthly rate as someone who acquires a 2 year loan from a carrier. There is thus a strong disincentive to go month to month on a carrier.
ETFs were meant to cover the cost a carrier would incur for providing a new phone to you on a loan if you left early. However, since the real price of the phone is not disclosed, and the ETF is the same for anyone on a 2 year contract, it has since lost its true meaning. ETFs are now simply anti-consumer tools meant to prevent customers from switching to another carrier, allowing carriers to avoid direct competition.
That's why. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | None of this changes the fact that paying an ETF is strictly the choice of the user. If people do not want to pay an ETF, then they can choose to avoid engaging in the activities that they have agreed would oblige them to paying an ETF.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to pnh102
difference is they use those "unfees" as a profit engine and as such lobby against them being removed or worse, being put out in the light at time of sale.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Kearnstd:difference is they use those "unfees" as a profit engine and as such lobby against them being removed or worse, being put out in the light at time of sale. Lobbyists wouldn't buying if people in power weren't selling. I am sure there is a fair amount of truth in what you say and with that, it just reinforces my point about the FCC being useless in this regard.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
