how-to block ads
|
JasonD
@comcast.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail 
fiberguy
| reply to rudnicke
Re: Nasty
said by rudnicke :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Get a F-ing clue. Do you know what it's like to operate a business? Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization. I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.
Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT! | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| No you get a F-clue....The business wouldn't be the business if it wasn't for their consumer. There are a lot of businesses that are square with the consumer, and they do just fine. Most of these companies would not have these issues if they would just listen to their customers issues and try to come to an understanding with them. The corporations would have you think that everyone is sue happy, when most of the time they just wanted someone to listen to their problem and work with them.
"Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? "
that is part of the problem. People take the business at it's word that thats what they will get and when you call them on it, it seems to disappear and you then become a trouble maker.
Peace
--
BlooMe | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :said by rudnicke :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Get a F-ing clue. Do you know what it's like to operate a business? Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization. I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused. Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT! You are the one full of BS. I have run a business and never had the issues you claim to have had.
Arbitration is nothing more than buying your judge and verdict.
If a business did not try and screw over consumers day after day, this wouldn't be a problem. | |
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| reply to JasonD
Why dont you pony up and login??
So you feel that it's ok with these companies to take advantage of their customers? Do you feel it's ok for these greedy bastards to bury rate hikes? What are these companies so afraid of? Are they worried that the courts just might be fair and find that the consumers rights are violated?
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. | |
umm
@ameritech.net
| reply to JasonD
In my opinion as a consumer, I would have to say if they need an arbitration company they are doing something questionable that needs explaining.
Why would anyone choose to operate a business with questionable processes?
What ever happened to "you see something you like, you buy it, your done"?
It seems like that process goes more like this:
"something you like, read the fine print, decipher fine print, consult lawyer, buy it, wait for changes, decide whether or not to keep or try another"
And yes my family have been and still are self employed running several businesses. BTW, with no fine print. | |
averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
edit:
January 25th, @11:37AM
| reply to woody7
Agree with woody7.
The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help.
Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help. | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent Straw man. Here, I'll knock it down for you.
You basically assert that the costs would be higher if the corporation had to defend its business behavior in court. I reply that the customer should not have to trade their legal rights for lower costs--lower costs that are artificially low if they do not represent the true cost of providing the service. Put another way, the customer should not be forced to sell their right to sue for a couple bucks less per month on their phone, broadband or cable bill.
Maybe some business services should be non-existent if the only way they can be provided is to strip the customer of their basic commercial rights. Maybe some business models are inherently invalid and should not be subsidized at the expense of the customer's legal recourse.
Ask any decent attorney what they think about mandatory arbitration. Only the ones making money off of it think it's the grand idea you do.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to averagedude
said by averagedude :Agree with woody7. The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help. Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help. Then buy it out.. You got a break up front going in to that contract.. you want out? Fork over the $100 to $200 break out and be on your way.
I don't agree or like the contracts either, but, you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play.
And again, you also have something really wrong here. You don't HAVE to take the 2 year contract.. there are month to month services and pay as you go. The difference? They don't give you all those nice things that you get when you go into an agreement. What you're also saying is that you want all the goodies and offers but with out any strings or giving anything in return.
So.. if you don't like contracts and don't want to be locked in, take a go-phone, or a virgin phone. There are choices to be made..  | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to moonpuppy
And your business is the model for everyone else? Do you have millions of customers? no... doubt it. Anyway...
When you guys sit here and throw around, loosely I might add, "business screwing over the consumer".. you often forget that it's and objectionable opinion you're speaking of, and like others said, businesses are tired of running to court at every turn because a consumer found the right greedy attorney to drag the company to court over something outright stupid and slap a six digit figure to the complaint over a 3 digit "dispute"...
It's also easy for people to say the consumer is "screwed" yet very rarely do people every say why and give real examples.
Truth be known - the consumer is not always right. Sorry, Marshall Fields... but THAT was a great marketing campaign in the early 90's that only caused major misguided entitlement issues in the world today.
**'The Customer is always right' - What they were attempting to do was to make the customer feel special by inculcating into their staff the disposition to behave as if the customer was right, even when they weren't.**
Want some good truth reading? »positivesharing.com/2006/07/why-···service/
The business sets the terms.. some consumers don't like them - go elsewhere. If you have no other choice, don't call it being screwed, instead, be smart and approach with caution moving forward.
I also operate businesses. While I do my best to take care of the customer, some people will never feel you treat them right no matter what. THERE is your "I'm being screwed" consumer.. at some point, the company just says "forget you" and gets tired of dealing with the customer. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to hopeflicker
Last time I checked, didn't we just discuss companies like Sprint, who is one of the "we're being screwed by" corporations, who just buried a rate hike and then opened themselves up for their customer to break the contract with out penalty?
If you're in a contract, and your rates are raised, it seems you have two choices. 1) Enforce your contract with them which has been done. or 2) Break the contract and move on.
Courts already know this.. and courts also know that rates go up and don't see it as being screwed, unless they violate both 1 and 2 above. | |
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by averagedude :Agree with woody7. The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help. Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help. you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play. I disagree. These companies use contracts to avoid competition. If you lock someone into 1-2 contract, then you dont have to worry about them jumping ship to go the a less expensive provider. It is also a method of guarantee revenue of a time period. Furthermore, if these communication companies offered a good service (i.e. show up when they say they will, have a good working billing system, offer decent tech support with English speaking people), then maybe, just maybe people with stick with the company.
When a company grows into a large entity (thousands of customers), this is when service takes a nose dive.
These communication (and other)companies are notorious for sub-par service, and everyone knows that. Maybe they should work on their internal communication system first.
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
edit:
January 25th, @05:22PM
| You are ABSOLUTELY right! The contract is 'also' used to avoid competition. But, that comes on many levels as well.
On one level, customers were offer shopping one provider over the other and would jump ship every other month because of a sale. There are several factors that play into this.. one was that it costs a lot of money to gain a customer up front. It also takes them about 6 months to start breaking even on them... second, to churn a customer, it costs money that they don't make back... so yes, the contract comes to play.
Do you get a subsidized hand set? Yes.. (and yes there are exceptions) Again.. pay the break out fee and move onwards to the next provider.
If customers continued to go with the hot deal, and we know that mentality is alive and well here on this site alone, then prices would in fact sky rocket for us all. Thus, the contract.
Think about when the contract came.. When it was just the A/B systems, contracts started to come to play, BUT, they were pro-rated contracts. (ie: if you were in a 1 year, were 6 months through, the break out was $100, then you paid $50 to get out) Now that there are several carriers, they did away with that. Too many companies in the field make it even costlier for the carriers. (not making an excuse, just saying it like it is)
So now.. if a contract is what is screwing the customer, then how come people cry foul over cable and all their ill, who has no contract, when phone companies stick a contract on EVERYTHING these days and they, of all people, are the saviors?
But, in large, I do happen to agree a lot with what you say... with that said, there are MANY reasons out there to feel 'screwed'.. however, as I've said before, being "screwed" is objectionable and an opinion - only in which case the opinion *can* be wrong.
p.s. - there is still cell phones with out contracts. | |
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by fiberguy :On one level, customers were offer shopping one provider over the other and would jump ship every other month because of a sale. There are several factors that play into this.. one was that it costs a lot of money to gain a customer up front. It also takes them about 6 months to start breaking even on them... second, to churn a customer, it costs money that they don't make back... so yes, the contract comes to play. Using this argument, I gather you wouldn't find it offensive to walk into any store that has advertised to gain a customer to pay a "contract" to purchase something from them. Who says McDonalds doesn't spend a heaping amount of money to gain/maintain customers? Should they begin charging a minimum term of use? Customers certainly churn regularly depending on mood, food desire, location, ease of access (lines/travel distance). Perhaps we do not have enough competition? None of the competitive business can get that guarantee, can they? 6 months to break even would be a non issue if the service was excellent, or "good enough". It ain't like customers are seeing discounts for multi-year commits, unlike in other businesses.
said by fiberguy :If customers continued to go with the hot deal, and we know that mentality is alive and well here on this site alone, then prices would in fact sky rocket for us all. Thus, the contract. Yeah! This is why Walmart is such a friggin giant, yet doesn't really dominate the overall retail market. They are HUGE but they have yet to monopolize any but the smallest of markets (rural, if you will). Walmart sucks money out of the suburban market and passes on to the rural market, at the same time, sucking more out of the vendors that deal with them. Are there any markets that Walmart has no competition?
Does ANY mass market competitive business, other than cable and telecom, require multi-year contracts? Perhaps the mass market contracts are indicative that this isn't the competitive market it should/could be.
said by fiberguy :Think about when the contract came.. When it was just the A/B systems, contracts started to come to play, BUT, they were pro-rated contracts. (ie: if you were in a 1 year, were 6 months through, the break out was $100, then you paid $50 to get out) Now that there are several carriers, they did away with that. Too many companies in the field make it even costlier for the carriers. (not making an excuse, just saying it like it is) This made sense when the business was new and fairly dominated by the LECs and was priced at a buck a minute.
This also made sense when competition was created and everyone was seeking out market share at any cost.
This only currently makes sense because the carriers themselves will only allow devices they approve on their networks. The rub being, they only approve devices that they control from a sales standpoint. The "subsidy" is driven by the carriers who demand control so they can sell stuff on those devices that they have deemed ok to be on their network.
In simple terms, the business is not competitive. If the ISPs of yore required you to purchase a special modem to dial up, instead of requiring we use a Hayes compatible modem, we'd likely still be in dial up days and purchasing dial up services for 10 cent a minute to have this discussion.
said by fiberguy :So now.. if a contract is what is screwing the customer, then how come people cry foul over cable and all their ill, who has no contract, when phone companies stick a contract on EVERYTHING these days and they, of all people, are the aviors? A good question, but many people are contracted with Cable as well. The only free space from contracts is Telephone at this point, and that may vary from state.
Unfortunately people are people. Markets are markets.
Competitive markets provide more equal balances.
Where equals compete to sell and buy, prices tend to stabilize. Do we agree on that at least?
said by fiberguy :p.s. - there is still cell phones with out contracts. p.s. - you have defined the competitive market cell companies fear, it is like the carterphone decision 1.5 (2.0 if you just buy your favorite phone and activate it with your preferred carrier of the day, week, month, year with appropriate pricing incentives for commits). Crazy I know, but when will the first ballsy carrier offer contracts by individual? Scary new world that may never happen...but would in a purely competitive environment.
p.p.s. - if it weren't for government monopoly/franchising,
many in rural america didn't have tv, hence Community Antenna TV. The digital box there is no more necessary than the cellular phone to use the service, other than by carrier design.
Sounds a lot like we are in the same business. I read a lot and often disagree with you, but I respect your thoughts and do acknowledge your point of view (just don't often disagree or agree enough to bother responding).
Final thought...no matter how you cut it, the network is getting less expensive from a capex and opex perspective.
It's short term in the carrier world and long term in wall street world. | |
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization.
I disagree. If your legal team is large or your require a means of "beating your customers at the head", you either have business model that is not viable without a monopolistic niche or a model that feeds off that behavior in the first place.
said by JasonD :
I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.
Could there be a reason for this that was brought on by the businesses themselves? (Or trial lawyers that can't get employed willing to gamble?) These risks need to be brought into the cost of service and/or insured against. This is not new to the 21st century. Sounds like you advocate a teenager beat his kid brother because his father beats him...ugh. Poor business model IMO.
said by JasonD :
Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT!
So our costs would be higher and we make more rational economical choices, but you'd lose. So some businesses are non existent, the world won't end. Small print contracts that protect you but leave me open makes no more sense than you accepting a small print contract from me that says no...don't like it? DON'T SELL IT!
*duh* | |
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by averagedude :Agree with woody7. The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help. Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help. Then buy it out.. You got a break up front going in to that contract.. you want out? Fork over the $100 to $200 break out and be on your way. I don't agree or like the contracts either, but, you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play. And again, you also have something really wrong here. You don't HAVE to take the 2 year contract.. there are month to month services and pay as you go. The difference? They don't give you all those nice things that you get when you go into an agreement. What you're also saying is that you want all the goodies and offers but with out any strings or giving anything in return. So.. if you don't like contracts and don't want to be locked in, take a go-phone, or a virgin phone. There are choices to be made.. In all fairness, why buy out the contract? Just use the service to it's fullest potential and they might cancel you.
If you can't use the service to it's potential, a letter to the better business bureau might help. Complaints to local public service commissions might help. FCC? Small claims court? Local papers and/or news stations? Blogs? BBR? There are routes to resolve a non-functioning phone service.
Maybe the original poster didn't really have horrendous customer service issues? | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
edit:
January 26th, @12:31AM
| reply to xsiddalx
Ok... You're talking about a retail environment and we're talking about a service industry (communications) which is totally different. The two don't argue the same way.
Also.. I'm curious where all these cable TV contracts are coming from? Cable is well known for now requiring contracts. | |
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by fiberguy :Ok... You're talking about a retail environment and we're talking about a service industry (communications) which is totally different. The two don't argue the same way. Are you suggesting that we individuals are wholesale customers and can opt into individual contracts?
Communications is a retail business, predominantly.
Telephony, Cable, Satellite, Cellular, ISP....they are all retail.
They all have wholesale arms are well.
It is simple.
Examples:
Telephone companies sell wholesale to LD and CLECs.
Cable sells wholesale to religious channels and shopping.
Sat....follows cable
Cellular sells wholesale to SMS providers (american idol?)
ISP (often all of the above now) have similar deals.
said by fiberguy :Also.. I'm curious where all these cable TV contracts are coming from? Cable is well known for now requiring contracts. I don't understand. Your question answers itself.
If your asking about cable companies, they were started on the same monopolistic guarantees as telephone companies. They are still requesting deregulated pricing offered under the telecom act of 96 for basic service. Cable franchises and prices were originally offered at at a given rate of return for a set of basic services. The TA96 gave them freedom of return based pricing for basic services once competition hit a certain level.
Just in case I misinterpreted, cable contracts are certainly a minimum of 6 months of more depending on the market and digital upgrades are required with a modem rental, which amount to the equivalent of renting a telephone. Any box would be cheaper sold at walmart if it met cable specs. Any phone would be cheaper if sold at walmart if it met cell company specs.
For the record, I have only shopped at walmart mart 6 or 7 times in my life.
I don't think I understand your differentiation. Service are sold by barbers, goods are sold by grocers. Neither of the two require contracts as the norm, nor do the contracts necessarily equate per customer. | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| I love reading what you write. It's probably the clearest analysis/argument posted in this thread.
Just a little data point for your cable contracts: Offering a rebate at the third and sixth months is the equivalent of requiring a three or six month contract to get a discounted rate. While they claim "no contracts" the reality is you pay rack rate without pretending you are in one.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by RadioDoc :Just a little data point for your cable contracts: Offering a rebate at the third and sixth months is the equivalent of requiring a three or six month contract to get a discounted rate. While they claim "no contracts" the reality is you pay rack rate without pretending you are in one. Good point. I just go off what my 80+ grandmother's sister tells me about her comcast phone service, and lack of ability to change, and what I read on the billboards & tv adverts.
Semantics suck....
Contracts are contracts.
Rebates are rebates.
Coupons are coupons.
Mixing the three makes for interesting discussion.
Never thought I'd see the day that my grandparents would no PIC their LD (and get charged to do so at the benefit of the telco).
I'm satellite, telco, cellco. Separate and cheaper. | |
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
January 26th, @02:03AM
| said by xsiddalx :I'm satellite, telco, cellco. Separate and cheaper. Indeed, me too. If bundling didn't make the providers more money they would not offer it.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
