Home  ›  News  ›

FCC Wants A Better Explanation from Verizon On ETFs

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 36 replies

It Would Be Nice...

Azeron

Jan 8, 2010, 7:34 PM
...if Verizon responded honestly. "We raised them because we can. We are not forcing anyone to sign these contracts and the Early Termination Fee only applies to customers who cancel service while under contract."
...
vampyra

Jan 8, 2010, 8:56 PM
* We like the Screw the Hell outa our customers!!**
...
drcellular

Jan 8, 2010, 9:08 PM
If everyone just does what they agree to do when they sign a contract it doesn't matter what the etf is.
...
futuresealsniper

Jan 8, 2010, 9:10 PM
It'd be nice if the gov't just minded their own business. I hate Verizon as much as the next guy but it's people who sign these contracts that f themselves.
Learn to read and know exactly what you sign. You shouldn't have any problems then. Jeez, common sense is an endangered species in the states.
...
Jayshmay

Jan 8, 2010, 9:51 PM
I'm curious, are there ?ANY? real consumers on Phone Scoop, or are all of you brainwashed, soldiers of corporations?!!!!!???
...
jvp3

Jan 8, 2010, 9:57 PM
Jayshmay said:
I'm curious, are there ?ANY? real consumers on Phone Scoop, or are all of you brainwashed, soldiers of corporations?!!!!!???

I'm a real consumer.

And I think what Verizon's doing, while it might make some level of sense from a business standpoint, really sucks from a consumer standpoint, and I think it will come back to bite them in the butt.

Especially since smartphones are going to become more and more ubiquitous anyway, and the prices will drop. Now that some carriers are adding them to prepaid plans, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of contracts and super high ETFs
...
Jayshmay

Jan 8, 2010, 10:01 PM
Heck they are already making money back at a rapid rate with their outrageous $30 a month data rates for speeds that aren't even worht #30 a month.
...
jvp3

Jan 8, 2010, 10:49 PM
Yeah, but you're not paying so much for speed as you are for convenience. It's the same reason that prices at convenience stores are so high for the same items you can get for a lot less at supermarkets. The convenience factor. Those $30 data plans are pretty much $15 for speed, $15 for convenience. Or, $5 for speed, $25 for convenience. However you might like to configure them.

Not that I agree with this sort of mentality, just trying to see it as how Verizon probably does. When it comes to providing services, service providers come up with all kinds of lofty loads of BS to explain why they charge what they charge for their services. Like late fees. There's no reason at all why anyone should be charged $7 for not paying their bill before...
(continues)
...
Azeron

Jan 8, 2010, 10:59 PM
Something else that I thought was ridiculous when I worked for Verizon was their sending out an email stating that the company was losing money due to Text and Data blocks. Yeah, ill-gained money. Many customers have no idea what text messaging is or mobile web. Why should they chance getting charged for BS?
...
bp3dots1

Jan 9, 2010, 2:49 PM
Those fees also help discourage people making their payments late. The income from payments is factored in to VZW's spending, and they need to have the money in the bank to use it when they plan to. They wouldn't need late fees if people were all decent enough to pay their bills on time.

Does it screw over some people? Some will say yes, I will say, you probably had 2 weeks since you got the bill to pay it, why did you wait till the last day?
...
Azeron

Jan 9, 2010, 2:54 PM
I always wait until the last day because it hurts so much.
...
Azeron

Jan 8, 2010, 9:59 PM
Jay, that's all I am is a consumer. I don't work for any company though I have worked for four in the past. You just can't understand that there are those of us out here who do not believe that the government is benevolent.
...
Jayshmay

Jan 8, 2010, 10:07 PM
Well isn't it the government's job to protect consumers?

P.S. It's nice to know somebody like yourself who is as active as you are on Phone Scoop is not a wireless employee.
...
Menno

Jan 8, 2010, 10:17 PM
No, it's not the government's job to protect consumers.

It's the goverments job to protect us from threats from abroad (militart) and threats from within (police) It is not their job to hold our hands so we as a culture can remain constantly ignorant of how things work and then go crying back to mommy fcc when someone pulls a fast one on us that they told us about beforehand
...
Jayshmay

Jan 8, 2010, 10:22 PM
Well the why were laws passed against gift cards expiring in some states,...because state lawmakers were looking out for consumers, that's why.
...
Menno

Jan 8, 2010, 11:07 PM
no, they are looking for votes, nothing more.

if they could stay in office by screwing people on live tv they would do it. never forget that
...
jvp3

Jan 8, 2010, 11:17 PM
Actually, if it's not the government's job to protect consumers from rapacious corporations, is it the government's job to protect rapacious corporations from angry consumers armed with, say, assault weapons and/or explosives, who are tired of being used and abused by those corporations, and see no other way to seek justice than through violence?

Cuz, y'know, take the government out of the equation, and we consumers can fight our own battles against the corporations in whatever way gets us satisfaction, including the spilling of blood, if that's what it takes.

Just remember - when and if that happens, and no matter how many corporate lives are lost, you did ask for the government to NOT BE INVOLVED. So be careful what you ask for, beca...
(continues)
...
Menno

Jan 8, 2010, 11:31 PM
no. one is VIOLENCE> the other are customers too stupid to read
...
jvp3

Jan 8, 2010, 11:53 PM
I think you're talking specifics. I'm talking in broad generalities.

Anyway....
...
Menno

Jan 9, 2010, 12:41 AM
If the company was pulling a bait and switch (such as changing the ETF after the contract was signed) then YES the government should get involved, but if a company approaches a consumer and says: I will give you this great deal on this product if you do x and the customer says yes, it is WHOLLY the customers responsibility to own up for their actions.
...
jvp3

Jan 9, 2010, 12:48 PM
Menno said:
If the company was pulling a bait and switch (such as changing the ETF after the contract was signed) then YES the government should get involved,

Wait. Why? You already said the government shouldn't be involved. You can't pick and choose when or how the government's going to be involved. If it's not the government's job to protect consumers, it's not the government's job to protect consumers, PERIOD. Not "it's their job to protect consumers if the corporations pull a bait & switch." If I don't need the government's protection BEFORE I get screwed, I don't need their protection AFTER I've gotten screwed.

This is about regulation. The government either speaks for we the people of the United Sta...
(continues)
...
bp3dots1

Jan 9, 2010, 3:01 PM
"Wait. Why? You already said the government shouldn't be involved. You can't pick and choose when or how the government's going to be involved. If it's not the government's job to protect consumers, it's not the government's job to protect consumers, PERIOD. Not "it's their job to protect consumers if the corporations pull a bait & switch." If I don't need the government's protection BEFORE I get screwed, I don't need their protection AFTER I've gotten screwed."

Those are two wholly different scenarios. Bait and switch by the carrier is against the law, and thus, the govt has the right to intervene.

The customer willingly signing a contract where they were informed of the terms and the company abided by it, is not against the law. The ...
(continues)
...
Menno

Jan 9, 2010, 3:55 PM
Yes, there are times when the government should get involved. But this is only when your property, ideas, or life is taken from you involuntarily (or they are infringed upon without your consent). you signing a contract (when you do not even HAVE to sign a contract to get the newest devices on Verizon) is not one of these cases.

the government shouldn't get involved in business practices unless they are infringing on the rights of customers.

Me saying: Hey, I'll sell you this leaf for a million dollars! is not infringing on your rights. you can buy it or you can ignore me.

But if I say I'll give you the leaf and then 3 months later try stealing a million dollars from you, I am violating your property.

If the exchange was volun...
(continues)
...
ChieflandFL

Jan 9, 2010, 12:49 PM
AGREED.

and if said customer does not agree with terms, that customer can go do business with someone else.

No one is forcing anyone to sign up with Verizon. You can go to AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.

No one is forcing you into a contract. You can buy a phone off of eBay and start service contract free.

I am tired of ignorance.
...
immortalkist

Jan 9, 2010, 3:41 PM
HERE HERE!!!!
...
Azeron

Jan 9, 2010, 2:19 AM
A guy grabbed me when I worked in retail and the only thing that saved him was the rule of law. If they suspended consequences believe me there would be plenty of reps tagging trouble makers in the noggin.
...
Caucasian

Jan 9, 2010, 3:57 PM
The government is not looking out for peoples best interest. They (politicians) are looking to keep their positions, and most would like to place their ideals into law (e.g.- Pro-lifers, Pro-Christians etc). Where law is supposed to be unbiased, opinion can never be unbiased so the laws they support and pass are based on opinion.

A pleasant reminder to how all governments end up at some point is Animal Farm. If it's been more than a few years since you read it, you might get a refresher course in History Repeating Itself and read it again.
...
Versed

Jan 9, 2010, 5:18 PM
Jayshmay said:
Well isn't it the government's job to protect consumers?

P.S. It's nice to know somebody like yourself who is as active as you are on Phone Scoop is not a wireless employee.


No, its the governments job to blow up nations that haven't done anything to us, to tell you how to have sex and with whom, what forms of birth control, who you should pray to, what to if your pregnant. But, they are in no way there to interfere with helping you with consumers right.

Its funny how all of a sudden these so called complaints about "big brother" interference goes the wayside when it supports "their" ideology.
...
Azeron

Jan 9, 2010, 5:31 PM
Again, MY philosophy is hands off in private life as well. Don't assume everyone who is against government interference is a conservative republican or whatever.
...
Caucasian

Jan 9, 2010, 5:49 PM
I'm a conservative when it comes to finances and so called "small" government.

Perhaps we can all start a commune somewhere in the Yukon?
...
Iknownothing

Jan 8, 2010, 10:07 PM
Of the people, for the people, by the people.
...
AndroidRules

Jan 8, 2010, 10:22 PM
Jayshmay said:
I'm curious, are there ?ANY? real consumers on Phone Scoop, or are all of you brainwashed, soldiers of corporations?!!!!!???


I'm with an authorized dealer but they dont activate with just one particular carrier. I very much identify with being a consumer and not schmuck who buys stock with a particular company and goes out of way to defend their business practices.

Regarding Verizon, I think they're overpriced. To seem to think their network justfies that. I've used multiple carriers driving throughout the country (recreational purposes, not for business) and I admit, Verizon is the most reliable. But the thing, not everybody needs the extensive coverage. Not everybody lives in a trailer ...
(continues)
...
AndroidRules

Jan 8, 2010, 10:23 PM
Ugh too many typos there as I was on my phone but you get the picture
...
Jayshmay

Jan 8, 2010, 10:28 PM
Or go with a perticular carrier because they have a national ad that brainwashes them into thinking the have the most reliable network.

I've been with ATT for 8yrs, the only other national carrier I'd be open to considering is Tmo, I just prefer GSM. And Tmo launched a 2-line unlimted plan for $80/mo recently, that's pretty awesome!!!!
...
Iknownothing

Jan 8, 2010, 10:04 PM
Hey Jay, try reading it with a jersey accent. Now imagine tony Soprano saying it to silvio over pasta while he justifies wacking his neighbor that he loaned money to.

tell me it doesnt work.

Oh and futuresealsniper, you do understand usury is illegal?
...
bp3dots1

Jan 9, 2010, 2:45 PM
The American consumer doesn't want honesty. They want to hear the answer they wanted.
...
60dollarcarcharger

Jan 9, 2010, 5:42 PM
amen
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.