| reply to fiberguy
Re: It's very simple when it comes to ETFs... To OP:
Ummm, this is the FCC's JOB. You'd rather them do nothing for their paychecks?
The government absolutely needs to close these loopholes these carriers use to EXTORT money out of people.
This is caused by these very same corporations and politicians that have caused the current economic crisis.
Let's not focus on that though....too much trouble to fault the actual causes.
Yes, the tax code is out of date and nobody disagrees with that. It has been for ages.
There are some things Ron Paul is right about and pressure needs to be exerted across the board. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| said by GiveEmHell :
To OP:
Ummm, this is the FCC's JOB. Says who? Seems to me (and the courts, lately) that the FCC thinks its job is to do whatever the hell it wants to. God forbid they focus on their core requirements like managing spectrum and such. |
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | reply to GiveEmHell
No, these are duties for the FTC. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to GiveEmHell
Mr. Anon....
The FCC and what it's duties really are is in itself a whole other conversation.. HOWEVER, the FCC was created to ensure that frequency space was allocated amongst those that use it... the whole notion that they're worried about an ETF fee that is not a requirement to a consumer is absolutely absurd!
You CLEARLY didn't read my post and you clearly already have your point made up in your mind and are obviously not likely to even listen - as you already haven't...
.. the point was made.. the consumer does NOT have to take the subsidy on the cell phone which comes with the requirement that you stay for 2 years of service! The mere fact that they are already pro-rating this fee (which while I do think is a fair idea) is also a far reach. Again, you, the consumer, knows that taking the phone with a discount comes with terms.. do you know what the definition of the word "terms" is? If not.. look it up.
I do NOT like government getting involved, to this level, when it comes to consumer purchases.. The consumer is a complete IDIOT if they are not understanding that by getting the "deal" they have to commit to a term of service.
Here's the issue, and you can spare me your "loop hole" argument please.. that's nonsense.. the issue is that the poor harmed "extorted" consumer has the option to take the phone at full price which doesn't come with a contract. So please, tell me where these "loopholes" are you speak of and how the carriers are using these to "extort" anything.. and while you're at it, please look up the definition of the word "extortion" before you use that again in this case.
You say so much in your post, Mr. Anon, which also makes me wonder why you won't create an account and put some stability to your post in the first place. You should look also at your finger pointing of the corporations (Which I noticed you placed first in your line of accused) and politicians.. you should also include in that line up those members of Wall St. as well as the consumer him or herself...
It's people with opinions such as yourself that want to point the blame at everyone else as being at fault.. but again, look at the consumer for the economic crisis! The CONSUMER willingly signed on the line in many cases.. they purchased FAR more home than they could afford.. they turned their homes into ATMs so they could buy big SUVs they couldn't afford.. plasma TV's, and many other things they really didn't need in the first place. It's called "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" and "LIVING IN YOUR MEANS"... something that MANY people didn't do.. MOST EVERYONE is to blame on the economy.. well, I'm sorry, but I took no part in this mess.. I pay cash for everything I purchase except for the home that I know that I could afford and STILL CAN. But, thank you to everyone else that participated in the big cash grab of the 2000's, becuase of all those people's irresponsibility, I'm someone that also gets to pay the price.
But.. you pointed your finder at politicians as a cause of the economic problems, right? So why in the world do you want the FCC to investigate anything? Who do you think places the FCC where they are? Who do you think has control over the FCC? And this is where you turn for protection?
You have choices.. you don't want the ETF fees that are somehow extorting money from you, then buy the phone at full price... go get one from eBay.. or better yet, don't buy a PDA phone - YOU DON'T NEED ONE! yes... you don't! if YOU, the consumer, are not happy with what the offer in front of you is, either don't take it, OR go with another provider who will give you the better deal. Thanks to VZ, there are now MANY providers that have a better deal for you.. get it? By choosing to NOT do business with, or simply not buying the item with such a major ETF in the first place, YOU are making the change to the market place and guess what.. you don't need to bother those corrupt politicians in the first place.. .
But, I'm sorry.. this will fall on deaf ears becuase the only thing you want, and BELIEVE, is that the FCC is mandated to look at, basically which turns out to be, WHY in the world the consumer is such an idiot in the first place.
But, to answer your question in the first place.. yes, I want the FCC to do their job.. NOTHING MORE! It's their job to manage frequency.. that's all their job should be in the first place as its why they were created. The FCC is just more bureaucracy that has grown far beyond it's boundaries, AND, beyond what the constitution allows of them..
(A small lesson.. the FCC is a body of government that is allowed to create rules that affect laws in this country - or as its said more simpler.. they're doing the job of congress which they don't have the constitutional authority to do. Also, they somehow have the ability to assess fines and penalties, again, something that only the judicial branch has the authority to do... so if you wonder why I could care less about the FCC in this case.. now you know) |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:No, these are duties for the FTC. How so? Where do they have the constitutional authority to do all these things they seem to be doing as of late? Jester 121 said it well.. their core job is managing spectrum to which I'll add.. in the open air.
Seriously.. not sure where you believe they have the lawful authority to do the things they are so-called "in charge of" these days.. but, anyone that has studied the constitution and the law knows that agencies like the FCC taking on the duties they have taken is actually not very kosher in the eyes of the laws. |
|
GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by fiberguy:said by Gbcue:No, these are duties for the FTC. How so? Where do they have the constitutional authority to do all these things they seem to be doing as of late? Jester 121 said it well.. their core job is managing spectrum to which I'll add.. in the open air. Seriously.. not sure where you believe they have the lawful authority to do the things they are so-called "in charge of" these days.. but, anyone that has studied the constitution and the law knows that agencies like the FCC taking on the duties they have taken is actually not very kosher in the eyes of the laws. Managing spectrum is the FCC's job.
Managing anti-consumer behavior (ETFs) is the FTC's job. I was replying to the anon in which he says the FCC should be doing that.
--
My Blog 2.0 |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | OOOOOHHHH.. der.. Sorry.. dang F and T... I though you were saying FCC.. Sorry!!  |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:Managing spectrum is the FCC's job. Managing anti-consumer behavior (ETFs) is the FTC's job. I was replying to the anon in which he says the FCC should be doing that. FCC gets responsibility as they already are tasked with some aspects of regulating rates and fees of telecommunication services. If you had both the FCC and FTC having jurisdiction over similar issues I would guarantee you that the telcos would simultaneously argue to each commission that the OTHER commission was the one responsible for whatever the issue is at hand. |
|
| reply to fiberguy
Re: It's very simple when it comes to ETFs... The problem is some carriers (here's looking at you Sprint) will still lock you into a contract even if you pay full price on the equipment or bring your own. Then if you cancel you still have to pay the ETF and that doesn't exactly seem right to me. If that happens to be the only network that works where you live then you are stuck with the contract they provide. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Sprint doesn't require a contract when you bring your own phone. I have two of my 5 lines that were started with out their phone, but one I already owned on my own, and those phones still enjoy contract free services.
Yes, there are some, okay, many reps at Sprint that think as you state, however, you do NOT need to have a contract... what you're dealing with is an under-educated CSR on the other end of the phone. |
|
