Jobs' personal abuses are also legend: He parks his Mercedes in handicapped spaces, periodically reduces subordinates to tears, and fires employees in angry tantrums.
Rumor has it, Jobs is one of very few people who has permission to drive a car without a license plate in California; and he parks with permission in handicapped spaces on the Apple Campus to avoid being harassed. The tantrums are premeditated acts he puts together for special situations or special people to obtain the desired results.
Are you telling me that you are forced to accept the terms of a mobile contract? No you are not, the mobile companies present their contract covering services, pricing, and conditions, from this you have the choice of accepting it, or refusing it, you are not forced into either of those two decision. If you accept it and they can't live up to their end of the contract then demand to be taken out of the contract without, without cost. If you don't have consumer laws to back this up, I am really sorry for you.
Maybe you should be taking your concerns to your local consumer rights group, all mobile companies have contracts, and as I have said, none of them are forcing you to sign it. But if you do, as I have said, you have consumer rights (well you should do anyway),
I don't understand why you still think that just because you are not forced to sign a contract, it must be fair? A fair contract means both sides had the same negotiating power to get terms that are better for each side. Consumers and wireless providers clearly do not have the same negotiating power. In fact individual consumers have almost no negotiating power in this matter at all, since wireless providers have chosen to not compete based on contract terms (either due to tacit collusion or outright illegal collusion) consumers have no choice but to accept the contracts as-is. Yes, collectively consumers have some power in that they can complain to consumer protection groups and if enough of them complain they may be able to get the government involved and investigate. But it would be a stretch to say that since consumers have the ability to do so, they are able to negotiate fair terms.
I don't understand why you still think that just because you are not forced to sign a contract, it must be fair? A fair contract means both sides had the same negotiating power to get terms that are better for each side. Consumers and wireless providers clearly do not have the same negotiating power. In fact individual consumers have almost no negotiating power in this matter at all, since wireless providers have chosen to not compete based on contract terms (either due to tacit collusion or outright illegal collusion) consumers have no choice but to accept the contracts as-is. Yes, collectively consumers have some power in that they can complain to consumer protection groups and if enough of them complain they may be able to get the government involved and investigate. But it would be a stretch to say that since consumers have the ability to do so, they are able to negotiate fair terms.
I haven't said it was fair, I said if you disagree with it, don't sign it. With a mobile contract you have the choice, you can choose to accept it, or refuse it, no one is forcing you to accept it.
Now, I don't know what country you live in, but (I will just say) several countries have good consumer protection laws, and these contracts cannot take away your consumer rights in these countries. If it is price you don't like, then again I say don't accept the contract, if it is conditions, again, don't accept the contract. But if you are implying that all mobile companies in your country are running illegal collusion contracts and getting away with it, then I think you have bigger problems than just your mobile contracts.
I haven't said it was fair, I said if you disagree with it, don't sign it. With a mobile contract you have the choice, you can choose to accept it, or refuse it, no one is forcing you to accept it.
Now, I don't know what country you live in, but (I will just say) several countries have good consumer protection laws, and these contracts cannot take away your consumer rights in these countries. If it is price you don't like, then again I say don't accept the contract, if it is conditions, again, don't accept the contract. But if you are implying that all mobile companies in your country are running illegal collusion contracts and getting away with it, then I think you have bigger problems than just your mobile contracts.
I didn't say they are necessarily running an illegal collusion scheme. But noncompetitive behavior doesn't just arise from illegal collusion. It's very easy to happen in any market with very few firms, they can each observe the other firms behavior and have considerable market power, and we get into situations where even without illegal collusion the firms settle upon prices or terms that are very similar and disadvantageous to the consumer. This is the situation with the wireless providers in the US, they offer very similar contract terms, so if you don't accept the contract, all you can do is go to another provider and accept more or less the same terms, so in the end there is really no choice.
Consumer protection doesn't really factor in here, because the wireless providers aren't necessarily doing something wrong. Assuming that there's no illegal collusion going on, they still have an advantage over the consumer simply due to the market structure, with so few providers, they have easily created a situation where each offers similar terms, thus giving consumers little choice but to accept them. Consumers in this sense have very little negotiating power.
And now they are trying to kill Apple. They have no loyalty!
There is no loyalty in business. Do we need to count the times Jobs has plunged the knife in someone's back because it was in Apple's best interests?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Why should contracts be illegal? Contracts are two way, they are there for both parties, you should be reading them before signing them, if you don't like it, don't sign it, you weren't forced to sign it. If a mobile company is unable to provide an adequate service then you should be able to get out of your contracts, your local consumer protection laws should help you get out of it also.
Contracts should not be illegal. If it wasn't for them, phones the iPhone would not be selling. Phones are also available it full no contract pricing. That being said, I would like to see congress pass something that all phones should have to be sold unlocked in return with the user having to pay the difference in price between what they paid and the no-contract price for a cancellation fee.
In California it doesn't matter if it's a public road or a campus of Apple - you'll be charged for the violation
Oh, I know that. Same for you, too. But Jobs has a special dispensation for driving without license plates and quite possibly for parking in handicapped areas on the Apple Campus. Even if he did get ticketed, I'm sure he can afford the fine and that it's worth his not being hassled.
Oh, I know that. Same for you, too. But Jobs has a special dispensation for driving without license plates and quite possibly for parking in handicapped areas on the Apple Campus. Even if he did get ticketed, I'm sure he can afford the fine and that it's worth his not being hassled.
I think you are forgetting your original point. I think you were trying to defend Steve Jobs as a person, right? But if you say he parks in handicapped spots because he doesn't want to get harassed and don't mind paying the tickets because he can afford them, that doesn't make him sound very good.
I think you are forgetting your original point. I think you were trying to defend Steve Jobs as a person, right? But if you say he parks in handicapped spots because he doesn't want to get harassed and don't mind paying the tickets because he can afford them, that doesn't make him sound very good.
You're right. Steve Jobs is a terrible person. He's just too highly motivated for anyone's good.
Consumer protection doesn't really factor in here, because the wireless providers aren't necessarily doing something wrong. Assuming that there's no illegal collusion going on, they still have an advantage over the consumer simply due to the market structure, with so few providers, they have easily created a situation where each offers similar terms, thus giving consumers little choice but to accept them. Consumers in this sense have very little negotiating power.
I thinking you are wandering off track from the original Marvin made. If they aren't doing something wrong, then why are you worried.
Marvin original said, to which I replied...
Quote:
Locking you into 2 year contracts should be made illegal. What if their service after 6 months is terrible? You have to pay up for your entire remaining contract to be able to go somewhere else. That's extortion. I have dealt with a number of phone companies over the years and my experience leads me to one conclusion... evil, the lot of them.
That is the point they made, the one I replied to, and the same reply still stands, if you don't like the contract, then don't sign it, you are not being forced to, and if you have issues there is consumer protection to help you.
I thinking you are wandering off track from the original Marvin made. If they aren't doing something wrong, then why are you worried.
Marvin original said, to which I replied...
That is the point they made, the one I replied to, and the same reply still stands, if you don't like the contract, then don't sign it, you are not being forced to, and if you have issues there is consumer protection to help you.
Well ok, let's put it this way. If I don't sign the contract, then I can't get cellphone service. But what if I really need cellphone service? I can go to another provider...who will offer me more or less the same contract. Then what?
Would you say that one is forced to sign the contract? That depends on your definition of "forced" I suppose. A strong notion of "forced" might mean someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign the contract. A weak notion of "forced" might mean that you need a service that is deemed a necessary component of living by societal standards and are thus forced to accept whatever contract is offered to you if there are no alternatives to choose from. If you have to think about this issue in these terms, then you can think of it as if you are being forced to sign the contract, under the weak notion of "forced".
Serves Steve right. How many time has Steve teamed up with other people then screw them over?
Wozniak 70's - Jobs and Wozniak had a deal where they would split proceeds 50/50 on stuff they sold to Atari. Jobs told Woz they made $600. In Nolan Bushnell's book, "Silicon Valley Guys" it was revealed Jobs was actually paid $3k-$5k.
At age 23, and already wealthy, Jobs fathered a child and for 2 years, while the mother was on welfare, he kept denying he was the father. He even went as far as signing a court documents stating he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child."
How about Microsoft, HP and Motorola who deeply regret ever partnering with the Apple.
Apple even tried to license its OS at one time and then literally put their licensees out of business by breaking their promise to support them because it was not convenient.
Jobs' personal abuses are also legend: He parks his Mercedes in handicapped spaces, periodically reduces subordinates to tears, and fires employees in angry tantrums.
Stanford management science professor Robert Sutton discussed Jobs in his bestselling 2007 book, "The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't." "As soon as people heard I was writing a book on assholes, they would come up to me and start telling a Steve Jobs story,"
Once again all true. Steve Jobs is an absolute crappy human being. He will lie, cheat, steal, and completely betray even his supporters to get ahead and burns a lot of bridges. However he gets results. He is an excellent executive though. Will, those burned bridges eventually collapse around Apple, yes but the current product line will be dead and buried when that happens.
Well ok, let's put it this way. If I don't sign the contract, then I can't get cellphone service. But what if I really need cellphone service? I can go to another provider...who will offer me more or less the same contract. Then what?
Would you say that one is forced to sign the contract? That depends on your definition of "forced" I suppose. A strong notion of "forced" might mean someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign the contract. A weak notion of "forced" might mean that you need a service that is deemed a necessary component of living by societal standards and are thus forced to accept whatever contract is offered to you if there are no alternatives to choose from. If you have to think about this issue in these terms, then you can think of it as if you are being forced to sign the contract, under the weak notion of "forced".
Burners or pre-paid phones are not available where you live?
Well ok, let's put it this way. If I don't sign the contract, then I can't get cellphone service. But what if I really need cellphone service? I can go to another provider...who will offer me more or less the same contract. Then what?
If you "need" a cellphone service then you must have placed this in your decision making process. Also you don't need a contract to have cellphone service, there other options to which you only have to meet terms of service, no contract required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein
Would you say that one is forced to sign the contract? That depends on your definition of "forced" I suppose. A strong notion of "forced" might mean someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign the contract. A weak notion of "forced" might mean that you need a service that is deemed a necessary component of living by societal standards and are thus forced to accept whatever contract is offered to you if there are no alternatives to choose from. If you have to think about this issue in these terms, then you can think of it as if you are being forced to sign the contract, under the weak notion of "forced".
Believe it or not, a cellphone is not a "need" device, it is still a luxury item.
If you "need" a cellphone service then you must have placed this in your decision making process. Also you don't need a contract to have cellphone service, there other options to which you only have to meet terms of service, no contract required.
Believe it or not, a cellphone is not a "need" device, it is still a luxury item.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about this because it would bring us too far off course, but I hope you will acknowledge that "needs" beyond the most basic components of survival are social constructs and what one group of people in one region under one set of circumstances consider a luxury, a different group of people in another region under another set of circumstances may consider a need.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about this because it would bring us too far off course, but I hope you will acknowledge that "needs" beyond the most basic components of survival are social constructs and what one group of people in one region under one set of circumstances consider a luxury, a different group of people in another region under another set of circumstances may consider a need.
But you were the one that brought up the necessity of having a contract, so if it is such a desperate necessity as you say then what is so bad with the contract that started you down this path in the first place?
But you were the one that brought up the necessity of having a contract, so if it is such a desperate necessity as you say then what is so bad with the contract that started you down this path in the first place?
It wouldn't be fair. Let's say that wireless service is a necessity, That doesn't automatically mean that service offered with any terms is then fair by virtue of how necessary it is. If there were many wireless carriers competing for customers trying to attract them using, among other things, good contract terms, then consumers can use their ability to shop around as a mechanism to gain negotiating power, thereby ensuring a more fair contract, even if both sides know that it is a necessity for the consumer.
It wouldn't be fair. Let's say that wireless service is a necessity, That doesn't automatically mean that service offered with any terms is then fair by virtue of how necessary it is. If there were many wireless carriers competing for customers trying to attract them using, among other things, good contract terms, then consumers can use their ability to shop around as a mechanism to gain negotiating power, thereby ensuring a more fair contract, even if both sides know that it is a necessity for the consumer.
You didn't answer the question, what is it in the contracts that you have the issue with? To just say, they aren't fair doesn't really say anything concrete
You didn't answer the question, what is it in the contracts that you have the issue with? To just say, they aren't fair doesn't really say anything concrete
Oh I see what you mean. It could be any number of things that restricts what consumers can do or implicitly add to their costs or degrades their level of service. Length of the contract, amount charged for early termination, service and other fees, level of service, etc. I don't think the specifics matter here, we can talk about this in somewhat abstract terms. Lets take a simplified case, suppose consumers and service providers are on equal footing, and the contract they end up negotiating says that the provider guarantees to provide 10GB of voice and data per month, in return for the consumer to agree to a 1 year obligation. Now suppose that the wireless provider has more power than the consumer, the contract they end up negotiating may say that the provider guarantees to provide 5GB of voice and data per month in return for the consumer to agree to a 2 year obligation. This is not necessarily a realistic example but I hope it illustrates how the two sides of a contract may not get the same out of the contract if they don't have the same negotiating power.
Burners or pre-paid phones are not available where you live?
Shhh your being logical.
And why waste that logic on someone that has basically spammed not only this topic but others on this forum without actually knowing what they are talking about..... oh wait thats most trolls on here.....oops.
Comments
Serves Steve right.
Sorry, but no.
Jobs' personal abuses are also legend: He parks his Mercedes in handicapped spaces, periodically reduces subordinates to tears, and fires employees in angry tantrums.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...tune/index.htm
Rumor has it, Jobs is one of very few people who has permission to drive a car without a license plate in California; and he parks with permission in handicapped spaces on the Apple Campus to avoid being harassed. The tantrums are premeditated acts he puts together for special situations or special people to obtain the desired results.
Get over it.
Are you telling me that you are forced to accept the terms of a mobile contract? No you are not, the mobile companies present their contract covering services, pricing, and conditions, from this you have the choice of accepting it, or refusing it, you are not forced into either of those two decision. If you accept it and they can't live up to their end of the contract then demand to be taken out of the contract without, without cost. If you don't have consumer laws to back this up, I am really sorry for you.
Maybe you should be taking your concerns to your local consumer rights group, all mobile companies have contracts, and as I have said, none of them are forcing you to sign it. But if you do, as I have said, you have consumer rights (well you should do anyway),
I don't understand why you still think that just because you are not forced to sign a contract, it must be fair? A fair contract means both sides had the same negotiating power to get terms that are better for each side. Consumers and wireless providers clearly do not have the same negotiating power. In fact individual consumers have almost no negotiating power in this matter at all, since wireless providers have chosen to not compete based on contract terms (either due to tacit collusion or outright illegal collusion) consumers have no choice but to accept the contracts as-is. Yes, collectively consumers have some power in that they can complain to consumer protection groups and if enough of them complain they may be able to get the government involved and investigate. But it would be a stretch to say that since consumers have the ability to do so, they are able to negotiate fair terms.
I don't understand why you still think that just because you are not forced to sign a contract, it must be fair? A fair contract means both sides had the same negotiating power to get terms that are better for each side. Consumers and wireless providers clearly do not have the same negotiating power. In fact individual consumers have almost no negotiating power in this matter at all, since wireless providers have chosen to not compete based on contract terms (either due to tacit collusion or outright illegal collusion) consumers have no choice but to accept the contracts as-is. Yes, collectively consumers have some power in that they can complain to consumer protection groups and if enough of them complain they may be able to get the government involved and investigate. But it would be a stretch to say that since consumers have the ability to do so, they are able to negotiate fair terms.
I haven't said it was fair, I said if you disagree with it, don't sign it. With a mobile contract you have the choice, you can choose to accept it, or refuse it, no one is forcing you to accept it.
Now, I don't know what country you live in, but (I will just say) several countries have good consumer protection laws, and these contracts cannot take away your consumer rights in these countries. If it is price you don't like, then again I say don't accept the contract, if it is conditions, again, don't accept the contract. But if you are implying that all mobile companies in your country are running illegal collusion contracts and getting away with it, then I think you have bigger problems than just your mobile contracts.
I haven't said it was fair, I said if you disagree with it, don't sign it. With a mobile contract you have the choice, you can choose to accept it, or refuse it, no one is forcing you to accept it.
Now, I don't know what country you live in, but (I will just say) several countries have good consumer protection laws, and these contracts cannot take away your consumer rights in these countries. If it is price you don't like, then again I say don't accept the contract, if it is conditions, again, don't accept the contract. But if you are implying that all mobile companies in your country are running illegal collusion contracts and getting away with it, then I think you have bigger problems than just your mobile contracts.
I didn't say they are necessarily running an illegal collusion scheme. But noncompetitive behavior doesn't just arise from illegal collusion. It's very easy to happen in any market with very few firms, they can each observe the other firms behavior and have considerable market power, and we get into situations where even without illegal collusion the firms settle upon prices or terms that are very similar and disadvantageous to the consumer. This is the situation with the wireless providers in the US, they offer very similar contract terms, so if you don't accept the contract, all you can do is go to another provider and accept more or less the same terms, so in the end there is really no choice.
Consumer protection doesn't really factor in here, because the wireless providers aren't necessarily doing something wrong. Assuming that there's no illegal collusion going on, they still have an advantage over the consumer simply due to the market structure, with so few providers, they have easily created a situation where each offers similar terms, thus giving consumers little choice but to accept them. Consumers in this sense have very little negotiating power.
And now they are trying to kill Apple. They have no loyalty!
There is no loyalty in business. Do we need to count the times Jobs has plunged the knife in someone's back because it was in Apple's best interests?
Why should contracts be illegal? Contracts are two way, they are there for both parties, you should be reading them before signing them, if you don't like it, don't sign it, you weren't forced to sign it. If a mobile company is unable to provide an adequate service then you should be able to get out of your contracts, your local consumer protection laws should help you get out of it also.
Contracts should not be illegal. If it wasn't for them, phones the iPhone would not be selling. Phones are also available it full no contract pricing. That being said, I would like to see congress pass something that all phones should have to be sold unlocked in return with the user having to pay the difference in price between what they paid and the no-contract price for a cancellation fee.
he parks with permission in handicapped spaces on the Apple Campus
In California it doesn't matter if it's a public road or a campus of Apple - you'll be charged for the violation
In California it doesn't matter if it's a public road or a campus of Apple - you'll be charged for the violation
Oh, I know that. Same for you, too. But Jobs has a special dispensation for driving without license plates and quite possibly for parking in handicapped areas on the Apple Campus. Even if he did get ticketed, I'm sure he can afford the fine and that it's worth his not being hassled.
Oh, I know that. Same for you, too. But Jobs has a special dispensation for driving without license plates and quite possibly for parking in handicapped areas on the Apple Campus. Even if he did get ticketed, I'm sure he can afford the fine and that it's worth his not being hassled.
I think you are forgetting your original point. I think you were trying to defend Steve Jobs as a person, right? But if you say he parks in handicapped spots because he doesn't want to get harassed and don't mind paying the tickets because he can afford them, that doesn't make him sound very good.
I think you are forgetting your original point. I think you were trying to defend Steve Jobs as a person, right? But if you say he parks in handicapped spots because he doesn't want to get harassed and don't mind paying the tickets because he can afford them, that doesn't make him sound very good.
You're right. Steve Jobs is a terrible person. He's just too highly motivated for anyone's good.
Consumer protection doesn't really factor in here, because the wireless providers aren't necessarily doing something wrong. Assuming that there's no illegal collusion going on, they still have an advantage over the consumer simply due to the market structure, with so few providers, they have easily created a situation where each offers similar terms, thus giving consumers little choice but to accept them. Consumers in this sense have very little negotiating power.
I thinking you are wandering off track from the original Marvin made. If they aren't doing something wrong, then why are you worried.
Marvin original said, to which I replied...
Locking you into 2 year contracts should be made illegal. What if their service after 6 months is terrible? You have to pay up for your entire remaining contract to be able to go somewhere else. That's extortion. I have dealt with a number of phone companies over the years and my experience leads me to one conclusion... evil, the lot of them.
That is the point they made, the one I replied to, and the same reply still stands, if you don't like the contract, then don't sign it, you are not being forced to, and if you have issues there is consumer protection to help you.
I thinking you are wandering off track from the original Marvin made. If they aren't doing something wrong, then why are you worried.
Marvin original said, to which I replied...
That is the point they made, the one I replied to, and the same reply still stands, if you don't like the contract, then don't sign it, you are not being forced to, and if you have issues there is consumer protection to help you.
Well ok, let's put it this way. If I don't sign the contract, then I can't get cellphone service. But what if I really need cellphone service? I can go to another provider...who will offer me more or less the same contract. Then what?
Would you say that one is forced to sign the contract? That depends on your definition of "forced" I suppose. A strong notion of "forced" might mean someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign the contract. A weak notion of "forced" might mean that you need a service that is deemed a necessary component of living by societal standards and are thus forced to accept whatever contract is offered to you if there are no alternatives to choose from. If you have to think about this issue in these terms, then you can think of it as if you are being forced to sign the contract, under the weak notion of "forced".
Serves Steve right. How many time has Steve teamed up with other people then screw them over?
Wozniak 70's - Jobs and Wozniak had a deal where they would split proceeds 50/50 on stuff they sold to Atari. Jobs told Woz they made $600. In Nolan Bushnell's book, "Silicon Valley Guys" it was revealed Jobs was actually paid $3k-$5k.
http://www.woz.org/letters/pirates/30.html
At age 23, and already wealthy, Jobs fathered a child and for 2 years, while the mother was on welfare, he kept denying he was the father. He even went as far as signing a court documents stating he was "sterile and infertile, and as a result thereof, did not have the physical capacity to procreate a child."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...une/index2.htm
How about Microsoft, HP and Motorola who deeply regret ever partnering with the Apple.
Apple even tried to license its OS at one time and then literally put their licensees out of business by breaking their promise to support them because it was not convenient.
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blo...rned/?cs=16537
Jobs' personal abuses are also legend: He parks his Mercedes in handicapped spaces, periodically reduces subordinates to tears, and fires employees in angry tantrums.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...tune/index.htm
Stanford management science professor Robert Sutton discussed Jobs in his bestselling 2007 book, "The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't." "As soon as people heard I was writing a book on assholes, they would come up to me and start telling a Steve Jobs story,"
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...tune/index.htm
Once again all true. Steve Jobs is an absolute crappy human being. He will lie, cheat, steal, and completely betray even his supporters to get ahead and burns a lot of bridges. However he gets results. He is an excellent executive though. Will, those burned bridges eventually collapse around Apple, yes but the current product line will be dead and buried when that happens.
Well ok, let's put it this way. If I don't sign the contract, then I can't get cellphone service. But what if I really need cellphone service? I can go to another provider...who will offer me more or less the same contract. Then what?
Would you say that one is forced to sign the contract? That depends on your definition of "forced" I suppose. A strong notion of "forced" might mean someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign the contract. A weak notion of "forced" might mean that you need a service that is deemed a necessary component of living by societal standards and are thus forced to accept whatever contract is offered to you if there are no alternatives to choose from. If you have to think about this issue in these terms, then you can think of it as if you are being forced to sign the contract, under the weak notion of "forced".
Burners or pre-paid phones are not available where you live?
Well ok, let's put it this way. If I don't sign the contract, then I can't get cellphone service. But what if I really need cellphone service? I can go to another provider...who will offer me more or less the same contract. Then what?
If you "need" a cellphone service then you must have placed this in your decision making process. Also you don't need a contract to have cellphone service, there other options to which you only have to meet terms of service, no contract required.
Would you say that one is forced to sign the contract? That depends on your definition of "forced" I suppose. A strong notion of "forced" might mean someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign the contract. A weak notion of "forced" might mean that you need a service that is deemed a necessary component of living by societal standards and are thus forced to accept whatever contract is offered to you if there are no alternatives to choose from. If you have to think about this issue in these terms, then you can think of it as if you are being forced to sign the contract, under the weak notion of "forced".
Believe it or not, a cellphone is not a "need" device, it is still a luxury item.
If you "need" a cellphone service then you must have placed this in your decision making process. Also you don't need a contract to have cellphone service, there other options to which you only have to meet terms of service, no contract required.
Believe it or not, a cellphone is not a "need" device, it is still a luxury item.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about this because it would bring us too far off course, but I hope you will acknowledge that "needs" beyond the most basic components of survival are social constructs and what one group of people in one region under one set of circumstances consider a luxury, a different group of people in another region under another set of circumstances may consider a need.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about this because it would bring us too far off course, but I hope you will acknowledge that "needs" beyond the most basic components of survival are social constructs and what one group of people in one region under one set of circumstances consider a luxury, a different group of people in another region under another set of circumstances may consider a need.
But you were the one that brought up the necessity of having a contract, so if it is such a desperate necessity as you say then what is so bad with the contract that started you down this path in the first place?
But you were the one that brought up the necessity of having a contract, so if it is such a desperate necessity as you say then what is so bad with the contract that started you down this path in the first place?
It wouldn't be fair. Let's say that wireless service is a necessity, That doesn't automatically mean that service offered with any terms is then fair by virtue of how necessary it is. If there were many wireless carriers competing for customers trying to attract them using, among other things, good contract terms, then consumers can use their ability to shop around as a mechanism to gain negotiating power, thereby ensuring a more fair contract, even if both sides know that it is a necessity for the consumer.
It wouldn't be fair. Let's say that wireless service is a necessity, That doesn't automatically mean that service offered with any terms is then fair by virtue of how necessary it is. If there were many wireless carriers competing for customers trying to attract them using, among other things, good contract terms, then consumers can use their ability to shop around as a mechanism to gain negotiating power, thereby ensuring a more fair contract, even if both sides know that it is a necessity for the consumer.
You didn't answer the question, what is it in the contracts that you have the issue with? To just say, they aren't fair doesn't really say anything concrete
You didn't answer the question, what is it in the contracts that you have the issue with? To just say, they aren't fair doesn't really say anything concrete
Oh I see what you mean. It could be any number of things that restricts what consumers can do or implicitly add to their costs or degrades their level of service. Length of the contract, amount charged for early termination, service and other fees, level of service, etc. I don't think the specifics matter here, we can talk about this in somewhat abstract terms. Lets take a simplified case, suppose consumers and service providers are on equal footing, and the contract they end up negotiating says that the provider guarantees to provide 10GB of voice and data per month, in return for the consumer to agree to a 1 year obligation. Now suppose that the wireless provider has more power than the consumer, the contract they end up negotiating may say that the provider guarantees to provide 5GB of voice and data per month in return for the consumer to agree to a 2 year obligation. This is not necessarily a realistic example but I hope it illustrates how the two sides of a contract may not get the same out of the contract if they don't have the same negotiating power.
Burners or pre-paid phones are not available where you live?
Shhh your being logical.
And why waste that logic on someone that has basically spammed not only this topic but others on this forum without actually knowing what they are talking about..... oh wait thats most trolls on here.....oops.