| reply to hhawkman
Re: Yawn said by hhawkman:said by pnh102:How hard is it for people to, you know, not subscribe to, plans that do not suit their needs?
Not hard at all, but as is usual, they aren't informed about the crippled plan until AFTER they sign all the contracts. If contracts were written in plain english, the average consumer would be able to understand that they aren't getting the internet. But they aren't. It took me 5 mins yesterday on the MetroPCS web site to see that the $40 MetroPCS plan was a crippled walled-garden plan. I wouldn't sign on to any service until I did at least a brief check on the terms and capabilities of the plan. You don't need a law degree to do at least a basic level of checking. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | the average person isn't even going to read the fine print they are just going to sign up and roll with it. you knew what you were looking for, most people don't even look. |
|
| said by FBGuy:the average person isn't even going to read the fine print they are just going to sign up and roll with it. you knew what you were looking for, most people don't even look.
Except it wasn't in fine print. It was laid out in nice big print with columns and pictures comparing the 3 plan versions. Though I do agree you have to be able to read at least at a high school level - unfortunately a level which many of our fellow citizens are incapable of doing. But that is a whole other discussion. |
|
|
|
| reply to FBGuy
and why should the Gov't protect these people? It's not the Gov'ts fault that the public FAILS to read their agareements for use. |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| its the governments job to protect people from misleading or misrepresentative(sp?) marketing.
I expect when I buy something that it be labeled clearly as to what I am getting. This includes using words that I can understand. If all of the phone companies are using legalese then there needs to be someone to force them to make them use plain English so that I can understand it.
The government is the only ones that can do anything about it anyways. Consumers are stupid. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
When I click on "4G Web", I see: "You have the freedom to surf the Web in your hand using the 4G Network." Misleading? Yes. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to FBGuy
And what exactly do you expect the government to do? Should they pass laws requiring people to read contracts before signing them? In these cases most people are just following the previous congress' lead. It is ironic to expect congressional misleaders to do something about corporate misleaders. |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| no they should require businesses to explain the service completely and throughly. hell they can even give classes to make sure the customer actually understands the product. /s
buy seriously something has to be done. It would be nice if there were a free market, but in telecommunications, especially wireless, it is impossible to have that so it has to be regulated. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp:And what exactly do you expect the government to do?
A valid role for government would be something like "truth in lending," which requires the parameter of the contract to be presented in a standard format, easy to discover and compare. Or, like "nutritional labeling" which serves the same purpose.
I don't know how that might apply in this case. But, it wouldn't be unusual to impose requirements on how a contract is presented, or details disclosed. |
|
nycitynyPremium
join:2005-08-09
New York, NY Reviews:
·VoicePulse
·PHONE POWER
·RCN CABLE
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
My friend on Verizon was paying for VCast without wanting, needing or using it. We found this out when I accompanied him to upgrade to a smartphone and associated plan. I went with him because he has so little understanding of this stuff. And he has a Masters Degree from UCLA.
Folks like him don't look at their bills nor do they care to understand them. And companies like Verizon and MetroPCS live off of this ignorance and laziness. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to FBGuy
said by FBGuy:the average person isn't even going to read the fine print they are just going to sign up and roll with it. you knew what you were looking for, most people don't even look.
It's not in small print.. but besides, I kinda like the legal system in our country... IGNORANCE is no excuse.
The fun of this is what excuse the nanny will try to make FOR the ignorant person when they can't read what is in front of their face.
This all goes down to the nutrition charts in fast food joints. Libs seem to think that having a nutrition chart isn't enough,.. so now they want and demand, in some areas, that calories are right on the menu next to the price of the burger we all know isn't going to make you skinny. And if that wasn't bad enough, they now want fat, protein, and carbs listed on the menu board as well. (Funny thing is that much study has already proved that people just don't care to be bothered with making the decisions they make, rather, they only care about getting "justice" for down the road when they've been wronged.
Where does it end? |
|
| reply to FBGuy
said by FBGuy:the average person isn't even going to read the fine print they are just going to sign up and roll with it. you knew what you were looking for, most people don't even look.
and who's fault is that? what's the first thing most parents tell their kids when signing their name...NEVER SIGN A CONTRACT WITHOUT READING THE CONTRACT. there's 3-7 carriers in most markets...don't like one, go with another. don't like contracts? go pre-paid or metropcs. there's plenty of options...
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png |
|
| reply to FBGuy
said by FBGuy:its the governments job to protect people from misleading or misrepresentative(sp?) marketing.
I expect when I buy something that it be labeled clearly as to what I am getting. This includes using words that I can understand. If all of the phone companies are using legalese then there needs to be someone to force them to make them use plain English so that I can understand it.
The government is the only ones that can do anything about it anyways. Consumers are stupid.
where does it say this is the government's job? it's certainly not the federal government b/c it's not listed anywhere in the constitution. maybe some states have laws "protecting" consumers but they inevitably just cause higher prices.
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:besides, I kinda like the legal system in our country... IGNORANCE is no excuse.
That's not true. You're often required to initial each paragraph to demonstrate there was a "meeting of the minds." That you truly deliberated and consummated the contract.
Or, consider how fine print on the back of carnival tickets (saying "acceptance of this ticket constitutes agreement to hold us harmless for all injury or death." Those are generally unenforceable except for accidents resulting despite "reasonable care" by the carnival staff. As we all know, "reasonable care" isn't well-defined. It's what a dozen of your peers can be convinced.
That's the same controversy of so-called shrinkwrap licenses (terms of use, end-user agreements, etc.). They can specify limitations and expectations of the use of the service. But, as part of a legal obligation on the user (to pay for 3 years, or give up their right to judicial review), there is insufficient evidence that the terms were understood, deliberated and consummated.
If you don't believe me, just try to put "you agree to give us title to your home" in a EULA/ToS. You'll have absolutely zero enforceability.
Also, "ignorance is no excuse" applies to liability, not contractual adhesion. If someone's injured on your property due to a slippery or uneven surface, ignorance of that condition doesn't remove your liability.
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:and who's fault is that? what's the first thing most parents tell their kids when signing their name...NEVER SIGN A CONTRACT WITHOUT READING THE CONTRACT.
There's a certain point where burying penalties, overages and limitations (on a 3-year monthly payment) starts to look predatory. It doesn't matter that it's the consumer's fault for not being more careful.
We've established this principle in so many ways it's not close to being debateable.
1. The SEC exists precisely because people couldn't navigate all the treachery of stock offerings. Various financial reporting formats, or claims in prospectus, or dilution.
The personal responsibility people said: "Go visit any company you're going to invest in. Investigate their books, creditors and management!"
2. The FDIC exists precisely because people couldn't navigate bank practices, solvency, reserves, etc.
3. Same thing for Truth in Lending, 3-day right of recision, food ingredient and nutritional labeling.
4. Healthcare. The profession was given a monopoly to set standards and accredit institutions and members of the academy because individuals didn't want to perform "due diligence."
For example, if it were the individual's responsibility, we'd have hundreds of medical accrediting organizations and the individual's responsibility to investigate any medical professional's credentials, the track record of that credentialing organization to enforce its standards, etc. We essentially converted "free choice" into socially-enforced higher standards to protect the public (at the expense of lower-cost goods and services).
Would you abolish all those things? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:it's certainly not the federal government b/c it's not listed anywhere in the constitution.
The federal constitution doesn't enumerate interstate highways, education, energy, wildlife or forest conservation, national park creation and operation, environmental protection, labor and occupational safety enforcement, and dozens of other things.
Would you get rid of those things?
I'm just trying to help you contextualize your comment for readers. Do you selectively adopt a minimalist position when you believe it won't benefit you. Or, would you truly like to see the Grand Canyon turned into a time-share condominum complex? |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to amigo_boy
Enough of your own version of philosophy.. please save that for someone else.. k? It's very well established in this country that ignorance is no excuse.
Stop over analyzing it,.. stop spinning in your Utopian views.. and stop acting like you're in your evening robe, slippers, and pipe having some conversation that everyone is beneath you.. okay? The simple fact is there.. if the document has been handed to you, and the VERY LEGAL SYSTEM that will tell you "ignorance is no excuse" sets the rules that customer notification has to be performed to solidify your agreement, well, who are you to come in with your, what ever you call it, and tell the whole country they're wrong?
The bottom line is that you ALWAYS try to spin your statements WAY out of line.. maybe Mensa is a forum you should join.
By the way, no one is going to put in "you agree to give us your home" in a EULA and you know it. However, flamboyant arguments like yours are made all the time by extremists trying to tell their points. That one was about as good as republicans saying that if gays are allowed to marry, then people will want to marry their cars or the tree in their front yard.
Sorry.. you're too much over the top for me.. I'm just not as smart as you.
Oh, and one more thing, sorry.. but I have to.. your little statement on if someone's injured on my property due to a slippery or uneven surface (which the two are not exclusive to each other in the first place).. lets take slippery.. I can tell you live in AZ, and I can CERTAINLY tell you still believe that what goes on in AZ must be the same all over the country (tell me your views on your one world government plans sometime, okay?) but here in MN, in many cases, people try to sue on slippery surfaces quite often, be it from rain, or snow, ice, or even sprinklers.. however, those plaintiffs find themselves tossed out on their asses, much the same as when they slipped in the first place, because up here, see, we're in the belief that if you slip on ice in MN, then you're ignorant to the fact we get ice. If you slip on snow, then you're ignorant to the fact we get snow. If you slip on water from storms, well,.. ignorant too.. oh, and sprinkers? Guess what? we water our lawns up here - those are facts of life.. as far as uneven goes, you may get some leeway there, but often people will do the required painting of the uneven walkway which does cover their liability. If someone isn't looking where they walk and they trip - that's their fault. (Sure, reply with a few exceptions to the general rule as I'm sure you will, however, just know that I simply won't read it, nor respond to it. It will just be pointless, off topic, and spin into several tangents away from the original topic anyway)
The point remains.. ignorance is no excuse. We're talking about cell phones here, not cruise line tickets. We're talking about a people trying to claim that they're not aware until AFTER they sign this alleged contract that the service they purchased didn't include the web.
Dude, face the fact.. many people are ignorant and are so because they chose to be. One thing that most people are capable of in life is that they can ask questions... however, most people "won't be bothered by the details" until something snaps them hard later. And then comes the outrage.
You want to solve out soaring debt in this country? ... slap a tax on the stupid. We'd have it paid off by June. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by fiberguy:The point remains.. ignorance is no excuse.
So... you're saying you can put a clause in a shrink-wrap license saying "by opening this packet, you agree to sign over your home" would be enforceable?
There's no way such a "contract" would be upheld simply because the homeowner was ignorant of that term of the contract.
Contracts require a "meeting of the minds." Burying something like that in fine print doesn't constitute "meeting of the minds." It could even be evidence of a bad-faith contract. An attempt to avoid meeting of the minds and get something over on someone through ignorance of what is assented to.
said by fiberguy:stop spinning in your Utopian views.. Maybe I'm not the one with utopian views?
Honestly, the next time you sell something on eBay, add something with small font saying "I get your house with this sale."
Let me know who's utopian. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by Somnambul33t:it's certainly not the federal government b/c it's not listed anywhere in the constitution.
The federal constitution doesn't enumerate interstate highways, education, energy, wildlife or forest conservation, national park creation and operation, environmental protection, labor and occupational safety enforcement, and dozens of other things. Would you get rid of those things? YES
interstate highways are completely constitutional: commerce clause was originally intended to grant the federal government authority to settle disputes between entities across state lines, to promote the transfer of goods between states, and to prevent the states from boycotting/placing high taxes on goods from other states. Inter-state highways are completely under this clause, however i'd argue that normal community/intra-state roads are not and we should not be spending federal funds on them.
national parks should be abolished, the land sold off to private individuals/companies, and the entire department of the interior disbanded.
Education has NO place in federal policy. at all. abolish the dept of ed and restore the balance of power back to state and local governments to allow them to choose their own values.
the EPA is the single worst entity in the US and has caused millions of deaths worldwide with their policies. destroy it and save people and businesses hundreds or millions of dollars and thousands of lives a year.
labor laws like wage laws and OSHA are one of the single-biggest contributors to the mass offshoring of US jobs.
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Somnambul33t:said by amigo_boy:said by Somnambul33t:it's certainly not the federal government b/c it's not listed anywhere in the constitution.
The federal constitution doesn't enumerate interstate highways, education, energy, wildlife or forest conservation, national park creation and operation, environmental protection, labor and occupational safety enforcement, and dozens of other things. Would you get rid of those things? YES Thanks for your honesty. Most people only selectively invoke literal "enumerated powers" argument. When faced with the things I mentioned above, they backpeddle and say "that's different" (for fear of being irrelevant).
said by Somnambul33t:interstate highways are completely constitutional: commerce clause was originally intended to grant the federal government authority to settle disputes between entities across state lines But, now I'm detecting some backpeddling. (Chuckle.).
There were no disputes between states when interstate highways were created. They were created just because the federal government was in the best position to manage it.
The same argument could be made for consumer protections. That consolidating and standardizing protections reduces cross-state disputes and enhances commerce by making commerce more predictable.
said by Somnambul33t:national parks should be abolished, the land sold off to private individuals/companies, ...
Education [too]. ...
the EPA [too] ...
labor laws like wage laws and OSHA [too].
Good. I'm glad to help readers contextualize your remarks on consumer protections.
It's easy to get all goose-bumply with Jingoist rhetoric. But, when people realize how that's either not consistently applied (or what it means when it is) the tingly feeling tends to go away rather quickly.
The prospect of irrelevancy has that effect on people. |
|
