| responsable What ever happened to being accountable for your actions? Hows it the wireless companies that you sign a contract without verifying what you will be paying and what you could be paying? Hows it the wireless companies fault if you take your US phone overseas and don't call to find out pricing first and rack up a huge bill. I fail to see in any one of those comments above how they use excuses to racking up bills. For instance the old "my parents" thing... are your parents stupid? NO, of course not so why cant they find the information thats available freely with a simple phone call or a 2 second visit to a website? Why are they immune from following the rules that the wireless companies set however if the government gets involved and sets rules theres no problem following that.
Fill me in here please! |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by josh7234:Why are they immune from following the rules that the wireless companies set however if the government gets involved and sets rules there's no problem following that. Fill me in here please! Because the wireless companies may be setting the rules to their benefit? For example, people on a pay-as-you-go plan usually don't have good credit. Wireless carriers don't let them rack up a $10k bill. Why? Because the carrier knows the customer can't pay for it. In such a case, the company's rules are created to benefit the company -- not the customer.
You may say the customer chose that plan. But, that's a moot point. The customer couldn't choose a different plan because she has bad credit. The rules concerning who gets to walk into a surprise are conveniently designed to protect the carrier from those people who have no chance of paying for that surprise.
I don't understand you guys who are all "nanny state" about this. It doesn't deny anyone any services. It just requires them to pick their normal usage, and consent to exceptions.
This is as "bad" as credit card companies blocking charges due to exceptional activity. All you have to do is call the company and confirm you're making the charges. The only reason CC companies do that is because they're on the hook to eat it. If the government created a "wireless user's bill of rights" (like they did for borrowers), the wireless companies would do this exception handling the same way the CC companies do. Just to protect themselves.
Either way, it's the result of the "nanny state" balancing competing interests -- to facilitate the market.
Mark |
|
| I understand your point and im not so much into the "nanny state" however I think that the wireless companies should be able to charge whatever they feel. Not right that the government is telling people how to run there company when the governments broke itself why should we listen to the fed about how things "should" be done. It all goes back government creating a "dumb" consumer a consumer which no longer has to research etc because there under the impression that the fed will "protect" them. As far as the credit card bill of right thing its far different... credit cards can be swiped for purchases and contain hidden fees and interest rates etc..cell phone companies are different because you sign a contract stating you agree you will be in contract for 2 years and that there could be roaming fees and data usage so fourth. At that point it becomes up to the consumer to protect themselves. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by josh7234:As far as the credit card bill of right thing its far different... credit cards can be swiped for purchases and contain hidden fees and interest rates etc..cell phone companies are different because you sign a contract ... Your credit card agreement is a contract.
And, it was tilting the balance of competing interests toward CC companies 5-6 years ago that led to the hidden fees and enormous interest-rate jumps that recently led to the government tilting the balance back toward cardholders (requiring banks and CC companies to disclose fees, apply interest rate changes to new purchases, etc.).
Why do you believe that's "far different?" It seems like the same principle. Transparency, informed consent, predictability. Markets work best when those principles are at work. Not one one party can "spring" something on the other party just because they didn't take their cellular or credit-card contract to a lawyer to fully understand every little details.
If you're opposed to this kind of transparency-causing government, how do you feel about building codes and zoning laws? They do the same thing. We could say it's the buyer's responsibility to make sure every stud bay contains the proper level of insulation, or PVC plumbing pipes were primed before cementing. Why use "government" to force builders to live by rules instead of forcing customers to live by bulders' rules?
Or, why use government to prevent your neighbor from disposing of their property any way they wish? Just because *you* don't want them to convert their home into a late-night biker bar? When you could have purchased enough land to be responsible for yourself, instead of using "government" to force your neighbor to be responsible to you?
Seems like the same principle to me. We like it when markets operate smoothly, predictably, with a sense that it's a fair fight between buyers and sellers. That doesn't mean we make everything 100% fair. Just that we take steps to prevent obvious abuses.
Mark |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:I don't understand you guys who are all "nanny state" about this. It doesn't deny anyone any services. It just requires them to pick their normal usage, and consent to exceptions. Mark If it were mandatory for Wireless Telcos to offer it to the customer, but not mandatory for the customer to sign up, wouldn't that satisfy both sides of the debate?
To be useful, the relevant information would be prominently included in any advertisement that offered device/plan details.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Noah Vail:If it were mandatory for Wireless Telcos to offer it to the customer, but not mandatory for the customer to sign up, wouldn't that satisfy both sides of the debate? Isn't that what's happening? You choose one, or you get the middle range by default? Not as safe as the lowest range. Not as hassle-free as the highest range. The best of both worlds for those who choose nothing?
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Simply put nothing about a cell phone contract is hidden anywhere. If you have to take a cell phone contract to a lawyer then i suggest you dont get a cell phone, none the less it still comes down to the consumer to protect themselves. Dont understand a contract dont sign it. Nothings hidden ever.
When people come out and say that we need government intervention usually its because they didnt take the proper precaution for themselves and their family so be it. Like the market collapse only people that arent benefiting are the people who didnt take the proper precaution themselfs.
josh |
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Isn't that what's happening? You choose one, or you get the middle range by default? Not as safe as the lowest range. Not as hassle-free as the highest range. The best of both worlds for those who choose nothing? Mark said by Karl Bode:As of July 1, mobile broadband users in Europe must choose a maximum monthly cost they want to pay for mobile data. If NO isn't a choice, then there isn't a choice.
Seems about as voluntary as our new Healthfare Plan.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Noah Vail:If NO isn't a choice, then there isn't a choice. That would be a reason to split the difference, and give the non-chooser the middle range.
said by Noah Vail:said by Karl Bode:As of July 1, mobile broadband users in Europe must choose a maximum monthly cost they want to pay for mobile data. Why did you leave out this part:
said by Karl Bode:If users don't choose a limit, a limit of $68 per month is set for them (that's data only, and doesn't include voice minutes or other bill totals). said by Noah Vail:Seems about as voluntary as our new Healthfare Plan. Or, requiring credit-card companies to abide by rules that individual cardholders might be willing to waive (such as usurious interest rates). Or, requiring builders to live up to building codes; and buyers to abide by zoning obligations.
We balance competing interests all the time. It's never "voluntary." But, it makes the markets work better than the alternative.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to josh7234
said by josh7234:Simply put nothing about a cell phone contract is hidden anywhere. There's nothing hidden about credit-card and banking fees either. You just have to look hard enough. And, it is your responsibility to do so when you sign the contract agreeing to whatever fees and interest rates you may incur.
Societies tend to standardize mature markets like those so the exceptions are treated like exceptions. Wireless is entering the same realm.
No big deal. Nothing worse than we accept every day as a token of civil society and ordered liberty.
Mark |
|
| reply to josh7234
Yep. You can put in all the rules, requirements, and regulations you want. The stupid, the ignorant, the oblivious will always find a way to screw up. The rest are just being lazy and making excuses for it. Having said that, the carriers should have had a kill point integrated into their systems long ago, it's just good business. As with most things in life, mostly villains, few heroes. |
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Why did you leave out this part: said by Karl Bode:If users don't choose a limit, a limit of $68 per month is set for them (that's data only, and doesn't include voice minutes or other bill totals). Mark Because it doesn't refute my point. It does, however, obfuscate it a bit.
That is, it obscures the larger issue of cloaking compulsion in consumer advocacy.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Noah Vail:said by amigo_boy:Why did you leave out this part: said by Karl Bode:If users don't choose a limit, a limit of $68 per month is set for them (that's data only, and doesn't include voice minutes or other bill totals). Mark Because it doesn't refute my point. It does, however, obfuscate it a bit. That is, it obscures the larger issue of cloaking compulsion in consumer advocacy. NV [Chuckle] You quoted the article to say the customer doesn't have the choice not to choose -- when the article clearly says "if the customer doesn't choose..."
You can obviously "not choose." Nobody will hold a gun to your head and force you to choose. The only difference is that you'll get a different (more typical) default than you do today. One that's more balanced between benefiting the wireless company and the customer.
All consumer protection is "compulsion." If you're an obsessive libertarian on the topic, then you'd oppose building codes, zoning laws, food & drug quality laws (the SEC, banking regulations, and societal creation of corporate entities, a legal yet fictional "person" to facilitate commerce).
All these things we take for granted as tokens of a civil society and ordered liberty. And, they're "compulsive" in the sense that they alter what willing buyers and sellers would freely negotiate.
If you'd get rid of those things, it helps us understand how classify your opinions on this topic. (Irrelevant fringe.).
If you wouldn't, it also helps us classify your opinions on this topic. (Just typical libertarian "all hat, no cattle.").
Mark |
|
