3 ms·

I hate fees as much as the next guy, if not more. But this doesn’t seem like it’s in the same ballpark: > We’ll make cable internet and cellphone companies sto

I hate fees as much as the next guy, if not more. But this doesn’t seem like it’s in the same ballpark: > We’ll make cable internet and cellphone companies stop charging you up to $200 or more when you decide to switch to another provider. If your cell provider gives you a subsidized phone and puts you on a contract that has an early termination fee, that seems fair. If cable companies are doing this sort of thing, then it would be more of an issue since they don’t provide expensive equipment that the customer keeps. But I mostly hear about cell providers doing this.

Retric 4y ago
A cellphone early termination fee tied to the discount provided on on a phone is one thing, but a 200$ fee on month 23 of a 24 month contract does not.
- dataflow 4y ago
  Is the latter still a thing? I feel like I haven't seen those recently, but I haven't dug deeply.
pxx 4y ago
The problem is that there are two separate types of regulation here, as the article alludes to (it admits that the airline seat thing is just a random subsidy). Resort fees and concert ticketing fees have the problem that you can never figure out what the prices of things are until you get through checkout (or sometimes even later!). Requiring early disclosure of those so consumers can make informed decisions is an easy sell. Random market distortions, like "no more ETFs on telecommunications plans" and "you can't charge for seats on the airplane if a child is involved", need a little more analysis. But by bundling these two things together, the whole initiative feels deceptive. "Here's a clear good along with some murky stuff, but the whole thing is good because we at least proposed the clearly good stuff!"
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
In a lot of cases it's to discourage people from switching providers. It exists in my country (NL) for e.g. energy companies - we have a fairly competitive market. People have to pay €125 if they want to break their contract (which is usually in 1, 2 or 3 year periods, sometimes 5). However, especially with the energy prices having gone up, the energy companies have just offered to pay this fine outright if someone wants to switch to them.

Retric 4y ago

A cellphone early termination fee tied to the discount provided on on a phone is one thing, but a 200$ fee on month 23 of a 24 month contract does not.

dataflow 4y ago
Is the latter still a thing? I feel like I haven't seen those recently, but I haven't dug deeply.

pxx 4y ago

The problem is that there are two separate types of regulation here, as the article alludes to (it admits that the airline seat thing is just a random subsidy). Resort fees and concert ticketing fees have the problem that you can never figure out what the prices of things are until you get through checkout (or sometimes even later!). Requiring early disclosure of those so consumers can make informed decisions is an easy sell. Random market distortions, like "no more ETFs on telecommunications plans" and "you can't charge for seats on the airplane if a child is involved", need a little more analysis. But by bundling these two things together, the whole initiative feels deceptive. "Here's a clear good along with some murky stuff, but the whole thing is good because we at least proposed the clearly good stuff!"

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

In a lot of cases it's to discourage people from switching providers. It exists in my country (NL) for e.g. energy companies - we have a fairly competitive market. People have to pay €125 if they want to break their contract (which is usually in 1, 2 or 3 year periods, sometimes 5). However, especially with the energy prices having gone up, the energy companies have just offered to pay this fine outright if someone wants to switch to them.