Cingular Sucks

Originally Posted by n1ckel5

Here's the thing...

It was your choice (the customer) to agree to the contract terms, you know the fees, you know the bill's due date, you know the outcome to paying late.

I think it's somewhat childish to launch a campaign to make customer irresponsibility more acceptable.

I have considered the situation, and I still chose to pay my Cingular bill on time.

I think you have once again misunderstood my argument. For the record, I am not advocating making customer irresponsibility more acceptable. What I am asking is that wireless service providers not profit from people's irresponsibility (or worse, profit from someone's temporary inability to pay). It would be perfectly acceptable, for example, for wireless service providers to charge an interest rate for the interest income they would not receive because of a payment delay. But it is not acceptable for them to be profiting from these payment delays.

Regarding the issue of the contract, since the wireless service market is not particularly competitive with respect to being able to shop around for better contract terms, I think your argument falls a little short. In a world in which wireless service is a virtual necessity for a large number of people, wireless service providers tend to take advantage of the leverage they have over consumers to construct terms which are most beneficial (i.e., profitable) to them, rather than the individual consumer.

The whole concept of committing a consumer to a contract, in the first place, is highly questionable. And relying on the old argument of "Well, you signed the contract, so you need to live with it," is not sufficient, because it does not address the establishment of an inequitable contract in the first place. It simply does not address the argument I have been making at its source: That wireless service providers should be acting more responsibly themselves, and creating genuinely equitable contracts with their customers.

There is, for example, no demonstrable business need for the "termination fees" wireless service providers incorporate into their contracts -- especially in light of the fact that 45% of Consumer Reports survey respondents cite poor phone service as an important factor in terminating their contracts.

I would encourage readers of this forum to visit the following web site, should they have any questions or concerns about their cellular service.

Wireless Watchdog

---

› See More: Cingular Sucks

Originally Posted by charlespyott

I think you have once again misunderstood my argument. For the record, I am not advocating making customer irresponsibility more acceptable. What I am asking is that wireless service providers not profit from people's irresponsibility (or worse, profit from someone's temporary inability to pay). It would be perfectly acceptable, for example, for wireless service providers to charge an interest rate for the interest income they would not receive because of a payment delay. But it is not acceptable for them to be profiting from these payment delays.

Let me remind you that this is your opinion, and there are numerous customers who are happy paying their bills on time and avoiding this "unjust" late fee situation.

Regarding the issue of the contract, since the wireless service market is not particularly competitive with respect to being able to shop around for better contract terms, I think your argument falls a little short. In a world in which wireless service is a virtual necessity for a large number of people, wireless service providers tend to take advantage of the leverage they have over consumers to construct terms which are most beneficial (i.e., profitable) to them, rather than the individual consumer.

Please don't manipulate what I was saying. I stated simply that you agreed to those terms...fair or unfair. And this is a choice made by you, the consumer.

The whole concept of committing a consumer to a contract, in the first place, is highly questionable. And relying on the old argument of "Well, you signed the contract, so you need to live with it," is not sufficient, because it does not address the establishment of an inequitable contract in the first place. It simply does not address the argument I have been making at its source: That wireless service providers should be acting more responsibly themselves, and creating genuinely equitable contracts with their customers.

Why isn't it fair? You're right in that I think it's not ideal for me to be tied down for 2 years, but I understand why it's done. I/we do have options other than contract service. You have to chose what's best for you, and live with the decision.

There is, for example, no demonstrable business need for the "termination fees" wireless service providers incorporate into their contracts -- especially in light of the fact that 45% of Consumer Reports survey respondents cite poor phone service as an important factor in terminating their contracts.

I'm sure they'd happily do away with the termination fees if everyone agreed to pay full retail price for the phones. But then we'd be discussing why the cost of phones is high and why we don't receive free ones anymore.

I understand all of your points. But do understand, cellular communication is not a necessity. It is an optional service purchased by the consumer. We have all chosen to accept the terms of our agreement, and complaining after the fact is irresponsible on the part of the consumer.