3 ms·
I dunno, it's not really "nice" or "mean". It's an amoral act. If a user automatically prepays for services and isn't under a more formal contract (as they wo
by mrkurt 16y ago
I dunno, it's not really "nice" or "mean". It's an amoral act. If a user automatically prepays for services and isn't under a more formal contract (as they would be with a cell phone provider, and possibly cable), opting not to pay is their prerogative. Just as opting not to provide services is the seller's prerogative.
Monthly services fees are a convenience for both the buyer and the seller, not just the seller.
- blasdel 16y agoNearly all cable services and most cell phone contracts are post-paid, not pre-paid. How else would they tack on fees for elective usages without a debit system? It's effectively a credit system. You owe them money at the end of the month for services rendered since the last bill.
- irons 16y agoThe existence of post-paid services seems to have no direct bearing on whether pre-paid services, like Zipcar, should feel entitled to rapidly go ape on your credit rating when the funding source disappears.
- blasdel 16y agoIt does absolutely have direct bearing on whether "opting not to provide services is the seller's prerogative" as the parent stated, when the services actually are under a formal contract and post-paid. The argument holds up for Zipcar but not any of his examples.