21–29 of 29 posts
Unfortunately, they will probably respond by raising rates to cover lost revenue from early termination fees and the loss of lock-in. This is arguably better though, since there is up-front pricing. EDIT: Perhaps the only situation where it isn’t is where they are the only game in town and you intend to ride out the whole contract.
Unfortunately, they will probably respond by raising rates to cover lost revenue from early termination fees and the loss of lock-in. This is arguably better though, since there is up-front pricing. EDIT: Perhaps the only situation where it isn’t is where they are the only game in town and you intend to ride out the whole contract.
Right now the way it typically works is they have some monthly rate for service without a contract, say $100/month, and a discount monthly rate if you are on a contract, say $80/month but with a termination fee if you cancel service before the end of the contact (unless you are moving to somewhere where their service is not available).
Wouldn't their response to this be to simply stop offering the $80/month with a contract option so everyone has to go for the $100/month month to month service?
Speaking of contracts, I've realized from other comments that there are actually at least two kinds of contracts ISPs are using.
Apparently at some ISPs your contract is for N years of a specific plan. If you want to change to a different plan at that ISP you have to break the contract and can get hit with the early termination fee.
At others, such as Comcast, the contract is that you will maintain Comcast service for N years, and that if you keep the specific plan you are on they will not raise your price for N years. Changing Comcast plans does not break the contract. You just lose your price guarantee on your original plan, so if you later change back to it you will pay whatever the current price is.
For example, I canceled my Comcast "triple play" internet/voice/TV plan and replaced it with an internet-only plan a year into a two year contract with no problem and no termination fee.
I'm curious which of these approaches is more common.
Termination fees are utter garbage because say you happen to get locked into a 3 year fiber internet contract[1] (we are), and the price of fiber internet suddenly decreases by 3/4 then you end up paying like $200 more per month than anyone else getting the same fiber internet from the same company. The minute you eliminate termination fees, it’s a free market again and the company is obliged to give you the best pri…
Termination fees are utter garbage because say you happen to get locked into a 3 year fiber internet contract[1] (we are), and the price of fiber internet suddenly decreases by 3/4 then you end up paying like $200 more per month than anyone else getting the same fiber internet from the same company. The minute you eliminate termination fees, it’s a free market again and the company is obliged to give you the best pri…
> Termination fees are utter garbage because say you happen to get locked into a 3 year fiber internet contract (we are), and the price of fiber internet suddenly decreases by 3/4 then you end up paying like $200 more per month than anyone else getting the same fiber internet from the same company How often does that happen? All I've ever seen in ~35 years of using online services (dialup service, cable, DSL, satelli…
> “So, today we kick out a rulemaking[...]” Is it too much to ask that those who run the government use just slightly more formal language when making statements in their official capacity?
I think as long as what is meant to be conveyed is clear and concise, it's served its purpose.
I think is is overstepping what I need the FCC with my life. But you know what I want them to do? Increase the number choices I have. Breakup local monopolies on cable/fiber and make tax deals with local municipalities illegal or fair to competitors so we can avoid "I get one choice in internet provider".
If you own an ISP would you invest in an area where another ISP monopoly exists and all users in an area will have to pay sum to pay contract to move to your service. This also about competition just not customer service though yeah I agree internet infrastructure should be financed and run by the local governments just like roads etc are and let ISP compete on services
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think as long as what is meant to be conveyed is clear and concise, it's served its purpose.
Respectfully, I suggest that part of the purpose of Government Communications is to be formal. That is, to be explicitly separate from the mundane day-to-day work. Governmental rulings, especially at the Federal level, affect a lot of people. I want them to take their jobs seriously, and one of the ways they can convey that they’re being serious is by their non-standard, formal language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He said "probably".. rofl.. edit: I stand by it. I have fucking decades of history behind my statement so just enjoy being wholly inaccurate!
They're going to raise rates no matter what. It's difficult to know how much this will impact what they raise rates by.