That's the problem with the buyer beware libertarian crowd.
Fraud is against libertarian principles. "Buyer beware" is not a libertarian maxim. The situation you describe, the convoluted contracts and small print, is contrary to libertarian ideals.
I've been looking at prepaid for a while. It's probably what I'll eventually go with, since I will have a landline (not paid for by me). I won't be living on my mobile.
$51/month.... (whistles). In Japan I was on the White Plan. What is that now, $9/month? Less?
No, that's exactly how the textbook examples work.
And if you are paying for cell service, you are contributing to this "problem". If it's still worth it to you to pay these prices for these services, then you are getting what you pay for.
If it isn't, cancel. Go without. A cell phone is not a NEED. FOOD is a need; a cell phone is a WANT.
For the record, two companies don't have to engage in collusion to screw you over on prices. It is entirely likely that they are both trying to screw you on prices independently. Because that's how capitalism WORKS. If you raise prices, and people are still paying, the price was TOO LOW INITIALLY. Prices will rise to meet perceived value. If people, like yourself, see cell phones as absolutely essential, prices will continue to rise absolutely.
Technically true, but does not apply to this situation.
Is there a monopoly for cell phones? What is the name of this monopoly carrier? Oh, there's more than one? And they compete against each other? Hmm.
I understand what you are saying, but there is no near-monopoly. It's not super expensive to get into the business band and set up a private repeater (a la, Cricket). I mean, sure, it's not hobbiest-level, but with minimal financial backing you could put a service up for your town, and then charge what you want. Would you have national coverage like the big players? No, is that a requirement?
The current prices are what they are because people pay them. If people wouldn't pay them, they'd be some other price.
And, cell service is very rarely a "need". (In my family, we all earned our ham radio licenses. Even in remote areas, we could often find a repeater or autodialer. Of course, the conversations weren't private, but if there were an emergency, we could call for help. And of course, free to use.)
I think this is a great idea. I just moved back to the US from Japan. I actually never had a cell phone (gasp!) until I went to Japan. Now that I'm back, I'm looking for a local replacement.
So far, every plan I've seen is incomprehensible or misleading. Or both. As soon as I find a reasonable, understandable plan, I'll jump at it.
Slashdot Mirror
That looks nothing like me.
That's the problem with the buyer beware libertarian crowd.
Fraud is against libertarian principles. "Buyer beware" is not a libertarian maxim. The situation you describe, the convoluted contracts and small print, is contrary to libertarian ideals.
Just fyi.
It is nearly the definition of a free market.
What it is not is an efficient market (which is what I think you meant).
More regulation could make it more efficient, but less free.
I've been looking at prepaid for a while. It's probably what I'll eventually go with, since I will have a landline (not paid for by me). I won't be living on my mobile.
$51/month.... (whistles). In Japan I was on the White Plan. What is that now, $9/month? Less?
No, that's exactly how the textbook examples work.
And if you are paying for cell service, you are contributing to this "problem". If it's still worth it to you to pay these prices for these services, then you are getting what you pay for.
If it isn't, cancel. Go without. A cell phone is not a NEED. FOOD is a need; a cell phone is a WANT.
For the record, two companies don't have to engage in collusion to screw you over on prices. It is entirely likely that they are both trying to screw you on prices independently. Because that's how capitalism WORKS. If you raise prices, and people are still paying, the price was TOO LOW INITIALLY. Prices will rise to meet perceived value. If people, like yourself, see cell phones as absolutely essential, prices will continue to rise absolutely.
Technically true, but does not apply to this situation.
Is there a monopoly for cell phones? What is the name of this monopoly carrier? Oh, there's more than one? And they compete against each other? Hmm.
I understand what you are saying, but there is no near-monopoly. It's not super expensive to get into the business band and set up a private repeater (a la, Cricket). I mean, sure, it's not hobbiest-level, but with minimal financial backing you could put a service up for your town, and then charge what you want. Would you have national coverage like the big players? No, is that a requirement?
The current prices are what they are because people pay them. If people wouldn't pay them, they'd be some other price.
And, cell service is very rarely a "need". (In my family, we all earned our ham radio licenses. Even in remote areas, we could often find a repeater or autodialer. Of course, the conversations weren't private, but if there were an emergency, we could call for help. And of course, free to use.)
Nonsense.
If someone is willing to pay an amount for any arbitrary level of service (or even no service), that amount can (and will) be charged.
Businesses will always charge the highest amount people are willing to pay. That's capitalism.
"Must"? "Deserve"? These terms have no meaning when it comes to the free market.
I think this is a great idea. I just moved back to the US from Japan. I actually never had a cell phone (gasp!) until I went to Japan. Now that I'm back, I'm looking for a local replacement.
So far, every plan I've seen is incomprehensible or misleading. Or both. As soon as I find a reasonable, understandable plan, I'll jump at it.
Still looking...
Leave me the hell out of this!