-
Regulation is not "marxist socialism" or whatever outrageous nonsense was spewed earlier in this thread. I'm about tired of folks *now* expressing outrage, disgust, and spewing absurd monographs. Take a look at the FCC's recent history. Going back to at least 2006, and likely earlier (I stopped searching their site (fcc.gov) at 2006, they were expressing concern - industry-wide - about ETF practices. As I recall we had a Compassionate Conservative running the ship and appointing the FCC Commissioners in 2006, right? Sorry that the facts don't comport with your political views, but they are what they are.
Finally, if someone signs up for a smartphone they're doing so presumably with eyes wide open - in other words they have been explained and provided with the T&C. If they sign on that little electronic pad they're committing themselves to following the T&C. If they break the contract that breach should result in a monetary loss from the breaching party, like any other contract. ETFs are fine. Know what you're signing before you sign, and if you don't like it, go somewhere else for your service. But for the love of god, can we leave politics out it for a change?
It does, actually.
The customer agrees because if he/she wants that phone there is very little alternative. That's not quite the same thing.
See above. It's all well and good to blame the consumer for signing the contract, but you're absolving the company for tilting the contract heavily in favor of itself, and that's not right nor particularly free market.
It is when the other three companies generally follow suit. There's a reason why all of them were up until very recently charging almost exactly the same price for the same billing plan, and competition wasn't it.
There are always companies that will do something different -- this is what capitalism is.12-18-09 04:02 PMLike 0 - The FCC does have the authority.
Wireless and wired transmissions are regulated by the FCC.
Just because you are a private company does not mean you can do what you want.
You need a business license, articles of incorporation, etc...
No such thing as do whatever you want as a company.12-18-09 04:38 PMLike 0 -
"Regulated Capitalism" leads to socialism...... The government has no right to regulate free enterprise in what is supposed to be a free market system. Take for example the bailout of GM.... Socialism.....
And, if you had any brain about you at all you would know that the definition of Marxist Communism is a political state that occurs when capitalism succumbs to socialism..........12-18-09 06:12 PMLike 0 - Actually I said we were on our way to Marxist Communism.
"Regulated Capitalism" leads to socialism...... The government has no right to regulate free enterprise in what is supposed to be a free market system. Take for example the bailout of GM.... Socialism.....
And, if you had any brain about you at all you would know that the definition of Marxist Communism is a political state that occurs when capitalism succumbs to socialism..........
Cheers.12-18-09 06:28 PMLike 0 - I don't so much have a problem with the government regulating pollution, drugs, safety inspections, etc... but when it comes to an organization's financial practices, I draw the line....12-18-09 06:34 PMLike 0
- Respectfully, I don't draw absolutes on that issue. For example, in the housing industry, a renter/lender can't deny the rental app/loan app simply on the basis of race, gender, etc. I think that's a reasonable regulation, yet it does touch on "financial practices." It all comes down to common-sense balance, IMO. If the greater good is served by way of legitimate regulation (which, 99% of the time, require a public comment and review period prior to implementation), I'm not going to get in the way. If the regulation is plainly over the line, punitive, overreaching, or oppressive I would likely oppose it. Let's keep the ETF issue in context though: at this point all that's happened is FCC sent a 4 page letter to VZ requesting information. VZW responded today in a 77 page brief. That's all that's happened. No one's getting into VZW's pricing, no one's cramming any new regs or policies down their throat. What is taking place now is... dialogue. Which is a good thing.12-18-09 06:41 PMLike 0
- Respectfully, I don't draw absolutes on that issue. For example, in the housing industry, a renter/lender can't deny the rental app/loan app simply on the basis of race, gender, etc. I think that's a reasonable regulation, yet it does touch on "financial practices." It all comes down to common-sense balance, IMO. If the greater good is served by way of legitimate regulation (which, 99% of the time, require a public comment and review period prior to implementation), I'm not going to get in the way. If the regulation is plainly over the line, punitive, overreaching, or oppressive I would likely oppose it. Let's keep the ETF issue in context though: at this point all that's happened is FCC sent a 4 page letter to VZ requesting information. VZW responded today in a 77 page brief. That's all that's happened. No one's getting into VZW's pricing, no one's cramming any new regs or policies down their throat. What is taking place now is... dialogue. Which is a good thing.
Thats whats puzzling to me, why so many get bent out of shape when questions start being asked.
If the FCC finds that no action needs to be taken, then so be it. If they find anti competitive practices then so be it. If you don't like it then bring forth change by voting.12-18-09 07:18 PMLike 0 - My takeaway from your post is that, simply stated, you don't believe government has a role in regulating interstate commerce (which the legislature actually *does* have under the US Const.), or a role in regulating any "free enterprise." In your perfect world then, I presume, we'd strip mine and dump the dregs in rivers, polluting waterways for centuries; allow power and light companies to raise rates at their whim (without oversight from a PUC); still have a monolithic AT&T (think: pre-divestiture); allow you to prescribe me schedule iv narcotics (who needs the DEA licensing process?); abandon the practice of companies reporting quarterly and annual financial information (you'd like to invest blindly, wouldn't you? who needs SEC reporting requirements?); operate our airlines on a wing and a prayer - literally (are FAA inspections and pilot licensing *really* necessary regs?). You get the idea. There are sensible regulations affecting every aspect of your life. In the event an agency overreaches, that's what public comment periods and the ballot box are for. As I stated in my earlier post regarding VZW's ETF's, not only does the FCC absolutely have the authority to investigate VZW's interstate commerces practices (see: Commerce Clause to the US Const.), but it has been piddling around into the issue of ETFs for years. The VZW inquiry is simply an extension of the line they've been following for most of this decade.
Cheers.
The line gets drawn when the government barges into private business and (even inquires) about a price raise, or a fee raise. It's none of their business -- period. If the people do no like it, Verizon will change it because people won't sign PDA contracts with them. I would not agree with the FTC telling Safeway they can not charge $10/lb for meat. I do agree that they should have health standards.
Edit: Hiring/Firing standards should be abolished.12-18-09 10:48 PMLike 0 - Respectfully, I don't draw absolutes on that issue. For example, in the housing industry, a renter/lender can't deny the rental app/loan app simply on the basis of race, gender, etc. I think that's a reasonable regulation, yet it does touch on "financial practices." It all comes down to common-sense balance, IMO.
There is, however, no protection in the Constitution for cell phone purchasers.12-18-09 11:16 PMLike 0 - You're not comparing these two things as apples to apples. I'm sure no one would contest regulating flight traffic, regulating health standards for different industries (drugs, food, safety etc..) Consumers can not decide which drugs are safe, which building is safe to walk in, or which meat is contaminated on their own. You need advanced degrees for this stuff. You can, however, easily understand and choose about a $350 ETF.
The line gets drawn when the government barges into private business and (even inquires) about a price raise, or a fee raise. It's none of their business -- period. If the people do no like it, Verizon will change it because people won't sign PDA contracts with them. I would not agree with the FTC telling Safeway they can not charge $10/lb for meat. I do agree that they should have health standards.
Edit: Hiring/Firing standards should be abolished.
What would concern me more is government *not* listening to a myriad of customer inquiries to the FCC about the ETF change. If for nothing else, isn't government supposed to listen to the people?12-18-09 11:17 PMLike 0 - The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, etc. and thus a renter/lender cannot "deny rental app/loan" based on race, gender, etc. That is about as absolute as you can get. It is not common sense as it took rules being written to stop the discrimination. Some lender/renters would discriminate if there were no rules.
There is, however, no protection in the Constitution for cell phone purchasers.12-19-09 02:14 PMLike 0 - I disagree. They're a regulated industry. That's the way it is. As such, they're subject to inquiries. If they've done nothing wrong (and I don't personally believe they have) then what's the worry? (and why the 77 page brief?) If they've acted in violation of existing regs then they'll get their wrist slapped.
What would concern me more is government *not* listening to a myriad of customer inquiries to the FCC about the ETF change. If for nothing else, isn't government supposed to listen to the people?12-19-09 02:15 PMLike 0 - The correct answer is no where
The tenth amendment very clearly states that any power not expressly given to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people. While the government has the right to regulate interstate commerce this right is only meant to extend to tariffs and trade borders, to prevent the lack of state cooperation and free trade that occurred under the articles of confederation. The founding fathers were very much against a welfare state and government regulation of business, as they were all thinkers who liked what adam smith had to say.
While I do not like some of the things verizon has done recently (Bing) they have every right to change their terms for future customers based on their financial needs and concerns. If they wanted to they could charge you a thousand dollars to leave your contract early.... You know how you stop them from continuing to do that? You stop giving them your money and go to a different company. When the government gets involved in things to make them fair (see housing crisis) the market is distorted and everything is messed up.12-19-09 08:34 PMLike 0 -
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com12-19-09 10:19 PMLike 0 - The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, etc. and thus a renter/lender cannot "deny rental app/loan" based on race, gender, etc. That is about as absolute as you can get. It is not common sense as it took rules being written to stop the discrimination. Some lender/renters would discriminate if there were no rules.
There is, however, no protection in the Constitution for cell phone purchasers.
Bottom line: finding housing anti-discrimination in the US Const. might be tough, and I'm no strict constructionist I'm with WeekendBum here.12-19-09 10:40 PMLike 0 - It would be fun to know what phones actually cost. I can't imagine the last 6 months VZW sold the 8330 it cost them more than the ETF.
Hind sight says the BOGO Was a bad deal for the rest of us. No more free phones, just give us one phone at half price and maybe it they won't cancel the second line after It sells it on eBay.
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com12-20-09 12:40 AMLike 0 - Good article, it explains and boils the topic down to its essence.
Mobile Phone Cancellation Fees Help the Poor, Verizon Tells Feds | Epicenter | Wired.com12-20-09 12:47 PMLike 0
- Forum
- BlackBerry Carrier Discussion
- General Carrier Discussion
Reason for FCC's inteference
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD