fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to baineschile
Re: Wasnt the point of ETF
The funny thing is I don't get why they are going after Qwest of all providers. It was Qwest that first got out of having contracts anyway unlike AT&T and VZ or the other Bell companies.
While I am not a fan of Qwest, I DO have them, and I do agree with what they are doing. You don't have to sign a "contract" to get DSL. In fact, the discount you get isn't that great anyway. But, if you sign a contract to get a discount knowing of the ETF and then you want to sue or be part of this suit again Qwest, it sounds to me that the customer is partaking in fraud.
In the case of Qwest, you're signing up for a discounted rate in exchange for your promise to stay a customer. In this case, I agree the ETF should be higher than the discount. Why? Simple, if the penalty doesn't exceed the benefit, why wouldn't everyone just have the discount in the first place?
Qwest is just asking a customer to commit to a time period in exchange for a discount so they can better budget their A/R. Leaving early IS breaking your word and you should pay. They discounted the service, the customer partook in the savings, why should they be able to walk away scott free?
I think this time the law suit goes too far. The consumer, just like many corporations, need to suck it up and get their own acts and priorities in order and get some morals in place. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| "The funny thing is I don't get why they are going after Qwest of all providers."
Probably for the same reason Vonage was picked on. Pick a fight with the one that's big enough to put up a good fight but not big enough to drag it out for years and years. Once a precedent is set then they can proceed to bigger fish. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | That plan didn't work so well for Verizon, though- their patents crumbled as soon as they had to face a company that could afford competent legal aid. |
|
