6 ms·

You showed them that this tactic works, and have rewarded them for anti-competitive behavior. I wish I could say you've won in this situation, but at what cost

You showed them that this tactic works, and have rewarded them for anti-competitive behavior. I wish I could say you've won in this situation, but at what cost to the rest of us?

cdubzzz 10y ago
This. Reading this and the original comment is really weird. "They tried to lock me in, but I showed them by locking myself in _faster_!"
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  A big reason lockin is bad is because they can screw you on price, right? So getting a fair price is, to some degree, beating lockin?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    It depends on whether you only care about yourself, or think a little bit about others in your situation too. While the poster got himself a nicer deal, taking it only incentivizes the company to continue with this practice. After all, per one HNer who can negotiate a better arrangement, they'll have a hundred schmucks who will take the default. Now, I understand that in real life, it's not an easy, abstract choice - you have "only human" issues playing part, like being tired and wanting to get the Internet situation sorted out ASAP. So to be clear - I'm not blaming the poster for choosing this way. But it was a suboptimal decision - and the kind of decision that lets schemes like this exist in the first place, so I wouldn't call it "beating lock-in".
    - in_cahoots 10y ago
      I think that, for the vast majority of renters, getting a discount is about as much as you can hope for. We would all love to have the time and resources to take the telecoms to court and set a precedent, but 90% of us (probably more in SF and among Hacker News readers) don't have the luxury of doing without the Internet to make a stand.
foota 10y ago
It's certainly better than just going along with it and waiting for installation.
alexophile 10y ago
But there's nothing about this tactic that prevents future action against AT&T. If anything, gp now has more advantageous legal standing as a customer and denied them the added revenue which was the point of the monopoly in the first place - especially if they still have to pay off the landlord.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  GP's marginal cost to AT&T is probably zero, so they're still getting some free money over what would happen if GP fought a bit more. So in a way, it is a wasted opportunity - instead of dealing the enemy a powerful blow, GP only scratched them a bit.
joe_the_user 10y ago
It's not the job of the individual consumer to fight lock-in for other people. That is the job of the government. If we have regulation against this bs, I'll report problems. Otherwise, I'll deal with them.

You showed them that this tactic works, and have rewarded them for anti-competitive behavior. I wish I could say you've won in this situation, but at what cost to the rest of us?

cdubzzz 10y ago

This. Reading this and the original comment is really weird. "They tried to lock me in, but I showed them by locking myself in _faster_!"

sliverstorm 10y ago
A big reason lockin is bad is because they can screw you on price, right? So getting a fair price is, to some degree, beating lockin?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  It depends on whether you only care about yourself, or think a little bit about others in your situation too. While the poster got himself a nicer deal, taking it only incentivizes the company to continue with this practice. After all, per one HNer who can negotiate a better arrangement, they'll have a hundred schmucks who will take the default. Now, I understand that in real life, it's not an easy, abstract choice - you have "only human" issues playing part, like being tired and wanting to get the Internet situation sorted out ASAP. So to be clear - I'm not blaming the poster for choosing this way. But it was a suboptimal decision - and the kind of decision that lets schemes like this exist in the first place, so I wouldn't call it "beating lock-in".
  - in_cahoots 10y ago
    I think that, for the vast majority of renters, getting a discount is about as much as you can hope for. We would all love to have the time and resources to take the telecoms to court and set a precedent, but 90% of us (probably more in SF and among Hacker News readers) don't have the luxury of doing without the Internet to make a stand.

foota 10y ago

It's certainly better than just going along with it and waiting for installation.

alexophile 10y ago

But there's nothing about this tactic that prevents future action against AT&T. If anything, gp now has more advantageous legal standing as a customer and denied them the added revenue which was the point of the monopoly in the first place - especially if they still have to pay off the landlord.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
GP's marginal cost to AT&T is probably zero, so they're still getting some free money over what would happen if GP fought a bit more. So in a way, it is a wasted opportunity - instead of dealing the enemy a powerful blow, GP only scratched them a bit.

joe_the_user 10y ago

It's not the job of the individual consumer to fight lock-in for other people. That is the job of the government. If we have regulation against this bs, I'll report problems. Otherwise, I'll deal with them.