or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The politics of cell phone contracts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The politics of cell phone contracts

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjojade View Post

If the ETFs are required for the company to recoup subsidy costs of your phone, then why does the cost of your contract not decrease after two years? Or if you buy an unsubsidized phone, why do you still need to pay that rate? And why can't I buy an unsubsidized iPhone and get a month to month contract with AT&T? Oh, yeah, that's just MORE profit for them then.

That's because we have a Congress controlled by Democrats, and for the most part are cowards that don't have the guts to pass legislation requireing the ETF to reduce over the length of the contract.
post #2 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

That's because we have a Congress controlled by Democrats, and for the most part are cowards that don't have the guts to pass legislation requireing the ETF to reduce over the length of the contract.

Riiiigggghhht....and Republicans have proven that they stand up to big business when exactly??? I'm not a member of either party, but if I had to choose one that looks out more for consumers than businesses it would definitely NOT be Republicans!
Too many Apple products to list...
Reply
Too many Apple products to list...
Reply
post #3 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

That's because we have a Congress controlled by Democrats, and for the most part are cowards that don't have the guts to pass legislation requireing the ETF to reduce over the length of the contract.

Really? You're blaming the Democrats for a lack of regulation on business? I guess you haven't been following news on Wall Street recently.
post #4 of 9
Senator Amy Klobuchar (Democrat, MN):

Quote:
AT&T is forcing its customers to pay a price to get their freedom, and thats not right. Too often consumers find out after committing to a multi-year contract that their wireless service doesnt meet their needs, and changing your wireless provider shouldnt break the bank. Once again wireless providers have shown that they would rather use arbitrary fees than network and service quality to keep customers. It is time for Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to act to ensure competition and consumer protection in the cell phone marketplace.
post #5 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

That's because we have a Congress controlled by Democrats, and for the most part are cowards that don't have the guts to pass legislation requireing the ETF to reduce over the length of the contract.

And the Republican minority it too concerned with "small government" to think about putting something forward to control this.
post #6 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

That's because we have a Congress controlled by Democrats, and for the most part are cowards that don't have the guts to pass legislation requireing the ETF to reduce over the length of the contract.

Couple of points -
Congress is not controlled by dems, need 60 in the Senate. don't have it.
And Dem's 'as a block', they do not have votes even if they did because it a fairly diverse group not lack of guts.

Where as repub 'as block' are pretty homogenous (read in to that as you will) and are all for business does what business does, market will sort it out etc etc (unless they themselves don't like it or get screwed by that philosophy)

But this is off topic, we try to refrain from posting partisan political stuff ... sorry everyone.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #7 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonklers View Post

1. contract prices are high to payback subsidies, this makes sense.
2. when your contract is over, you still have to pay the same price, that's makes no sense.
3. charging ETF for the iphone to get the subsidy back if you leave early, that makes sense
4. refusing to unlock your iphone after your contract is over, that should be illegal.

i dont mind current plan costs and ETF if they were to be implemented fairly. The right thing to do is provide non contract prices and iphone unlocks after your contract ends.

Spot on!!!!!!

Congress and the FCC should address 2 and 4, and not with another 1500 page bill no one has read. I could do it with a page or two.
post #8 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

Couple of points -
Congress is not controlled by dems, need 60 in the Senate. don't have it.
And Dem's 'as a block', they do not have votes even if they did because it a fairly diverse group not lack of guts.

Where as repub 'as block' are pretty homogenous (read in to that as you will) and are all for business does what business does, market will sort it out etc etc (unless they themselves don't like it or get screwed by that philosophy)

But this is off topic, we try to refrain from posting partisan political stuff ... sorry everyone.

You are talking more about Republican voters, not the guys in DC. Neither party has shown a clear path historically. Dems add and reduce regulation when in power, and so have the Reps. The only differences are what they regulate and how.

By the way, if you think the Dem's are really anti Wall Street you are falling for their marketing. Wall Street gave a lot of money to the party for the 2006 congressional takeover and the 2008 election and they are getting plenty back for it. All the hearings and fines and even the new regulations are small potatoes compared to the outright gifts they are receiving. Think about this for a second...Fed will loan banks money for 0.5% and the treasury is borrowing from the banks, paying 4.5%. Banks borrow over $1 trillion from Obummer and then loan him $1 trillion and they make $40 billion a year RISK FREE! Wish I could get in on THAT RACKET! Look into it yourself, this really is happening, although they are doing their best to keep it under wraps. Funny you don't hear the Republicans screaming about it either. Hmmmmmm.
post #9 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

That's because we have a Congress controlled by Democrats, and for the most part are cowards that don't have the guts to pass legislation requireing the ETF to reduce over the length of the contract.

The republicans would push through legislation that forced higher ETF's and name it the ETF reduction act.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The politics of cell phone contracts