Phone Scoop

printed July 29, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=9554&fh=3030533

Home  ›  News  ›

Verizon Wireless Recants, Won't Charge $2 Fee

Article Comments  

all discussions

Good

OmegaWolf747

Dec 30, 2011, 3:16 PM
I think that was a smart move on Verizon Wireless' part.
...
famoussasjohn

Dec 30, 2011, 3:36 PM
FCC to Investigate Verizon's New $2 Bill-Pay Fee
30 minutes later..
Verizon Wireless Recants, Won't Charge $2 Fee


Laughing
...
dlmjr

Dec 30, 2011, 4:35 PM
famoussasjohn said:
FCC to Investigate Verizon's New $2 Bill-Pay Fee
30 minutes later..
Verizon Wireless Recants, Won't Charge $2 Fee


Laughing


I was wondering what authority the FCC has for pricing practices.
...
yarmock

Dec 30, 2011, 4:42 PM
To look out for consumer to make sure we arent being taken advantage of.
...
dlmjr

Dec 30, 2011, 6:36 PM
yarmock said:
To look out for consumer to make sure we arent being taken advantage of.


That isn't really what the FCC was created for.
To be or not to be a Verison customer is a consumer choice.
The FCC shouldn't be dictating billing practices.
If consumers don't like the charge, they can take their business to another carrier. That's called a free market.
...
yarmock

Dec 30, 2011, 6:41 PM
But the way it works out, we are trapped in a contract, and should not be required to pay $200+ dollars to move to another carrier because one is trying to get too greedy. They regulate communications companies, if not the FCC im sure congress or justice dept would have stepped up.
...
yarmock

Dec 30, 2011, 6:43 PM
Fees to accept VISA/MS/AMEX is nothing new. No reason to charge the customer for something that they chose to accept as part of an agreement with the issuing company.
...
sp_5015

Dec 30, 2011, 7:46 PM
correct me if I'm wrong...I'm thinking you're a troll for Verizon doing damage control?
...
Jayshmay

Dec 31, 2011, 12:59 AM
Phone Scoop is full of witness corporate cronies who stop being actual consumer minded people and are more so mouth-pieces for CEO's.
...
Jayshmay

Dec 31, 2011, 1:00 AM
Ooops, I meant to say wireless not witness, duh me.
...
T Bone

Jan 1, 2012, 12:26 AM
It's also filled with lost of people who think that flinging ad hominems at people actually constitutes a logical argument.
...
HawkeyeOC

Dec 30, 2011, 8:06 PM
yarmock said:
But the way it works out, we are trapped in a contract, and should not be required to pay $200+ dollars to move to another carrier because one is trying to get too greedy. They regulate communications companies, if not the FCC im sure congress or justice dept would have stepped up.


My understanding is that greedy people were signing up for subsidized phones and then breaking their contract and selling them at a profit on ebay and other places making these greedy companies lose money on the phones...hence the $200 fee. You can always buy a phone full price and put in on without a contract with most carriers. It used to be done this way but too many people nowadays won't do this Very Happy
...
dlmjr

Jan 2, 2012, 11:56 AM
yarmock said:
But the way it works out, we are trapped in a contract, and should not be required to pay $200+ dollars to move to another carrier because one is trying to get too greedy. They regulate communications companies, if not the FCC im sure congress or justice dept would have stepped up.


As a consumer you accepted the 'contract' when you dedided you didn't want to pay retail for your phone.
You had choices, you chose 'contract'...

And, no, the FCC was not created to regulate what kind of misc charges carriers require from their customers.

Congress nor the Justice Dept has no business in this either.

This is a charge levied by a legally operating company that the consumer is free to accept...
(continues)
...
bluecoyote

Dec 31, 2011, 4:21 PM
We don't live in a world with unlimited wireless spectrum, so the whole "free market" thing doesn't entirely apply.

Spectrum is, in essence, a public resource. Verizon buys the spectrum from the FCC in order to run services on it per agreement with the FCC. The reason the FCC exists is to ensure that this finite resource isn't abused by both companies with access to this spectrum and by companies that don't (e.g. jamming Verizon's network or causing interference.)

Is it the FCC's job to investigate possible anti-consumer behavior? Absolutely. Did Verizon do anything illegal? Not likely, but it's the FCC's job to act if they did.
...
dlmjr

Jan 2, 2012, 12:02 PM
bluecoyote said:
We don't live in a world with unlimited wireless spectrum, so the whole "free market" thing doesn't entirely apply.

Spectrum is, in essence, a public resource. Verizon buys the spectrum from the FCC in order to run services on it per agreement with the FCC. The reason the FCC exists is to ensure that this finite resource isn't abused by both companies with access to this spectrum and by companies that don't (e.g. jamming Verizon's network or causing interference.)

Is it the FCC's job to investigate possible anti-consumer behavior? Absolutely. Did Verizon do anything illegal? Not likely, but it's the FCC's job to act if they did.


If and when Verison becomes the only carrier, then yo...
(continues)
...
yarmock

Jan 2, 2012, 4:23 PM
So your arguement is someone may have gotten a discounted phone, so they have to pay any retarded fee any wireless company so chooses to charge you... or pay up to $200 to move elsewhere?

BTW i dont have verizon. dont like them at all.
Im just shocked that people are willing to let a corporation take advantage of them and justify it because a small amount of people USD to sell phones on ebay. come on. So according to a few peoples arguements here who exactly is to look out for the consumer and make sure we arent bein abused? no one??!?!?
...
T Bone

Jan 1, 2012, 12:32 AM
Truth is, the FCC is becoming a rogue agency, its existence was always of dubious constitutionality, and whatever flimsy justification it may have had at one point which may have at one point seemed halfway plausible (the 'scarcity' argument) is now well past its expiration date and does even remotely hold true today. In this day and age of 500+ cable TV channels and nearly infinite satellite and internet radio stations, the claim that 'the airwaves are scarce' is absurd on its face, the days when you only had three TV networks and only one or two local radio stations are lost past, this is the 21st century, not the 1930's, the FCC is useless and it is spiraling out of control and turning into a rogue agency, it is beyond saving and should...
(continues)
...
T Bone

Jan 1, 2012, 12:24 AM
But who is responsible for protecting customers from the FCC?
...
mycool

Jan 1, 2012, 10:58 PM
T Bone said:
But who is responsible for protecting customers from the FCC?


The people we vote in to represent us in the oversight of these agencies.

Did you skip political science class in high school? Or are you just repeating some slogan the crazy people use?
...
HatesBlackberrys

Dec 30, 2011, 6:39 PM
None. They cannot FORCE a company to eat a lose, otherwise the company can just just say "we no longer take credit card payments".


It's stupid that the FCC would investigate that a company said they'd no longer deal with a forced charge from CC companies.
...
luigi524td

Dec 30, 2011, 5:01 PM
Another business management "Opps"!

Were any of these characters paying attention in their management classes when the chapter about about THE CUSTOMER was discussed ?!?!?! Or, were they asleep.
...
sp_5015

Dec 30, 2011, 7:48 PM
Very Happy
...
HawkeyeOC

Dec 30, 2011, 8:10 PM
This one was a big oops!
...
Jayshmay

Dec 31, 2011, 1:12 AM
Verizon should have learned from that stunt BoA tried to pull a few months ago with that $5/mo debit card fee. Consumers don't like to be f'd with!
...
HawkeyeOC

Dec 31, 2011, 10:32 PM
Jayshmay said:
Verizon should have learned from that stunt BoA tried to pull a few months ago with that $5/mo debit card fee. Consumers don't like to be f'd with!


I agree, but maybe they were looking at the airline industry and how commonplace fees for everything are there. Who knows.

The BofA fee was another boneheaded move from the point of the consumer, but there is more behind that then most people realize. It was a direct response to government meddling in the financial system. Each debit transaction will now be capped by the government. Merchants won, Banks lost near term and we the consumers will lose long term when it's passed onto us.

Here I am making this political...yikes Shocked

Anyway, g...
(continues)
...
Jayshmay

Dec 31, 2011, 1:06 AM
That's what I say!!! These CEOs need to go back to business school.
...

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 Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
1