4 ms·
> Why is it then that the US cellular providers are the only ones that charge for incoming texts? Why would anyone care how their bill is sliced? Why do you ca
by spindritf 14y ago
> Why is it then that the US cellular providers are the only ones that charge for incoming texts?
Why would anyone care how their bill is sliced? Why do you care about anything beyond the total cost of owning a (smart)phone per month or year?
Incoming texts, outgoing texts, network upkeep... it's a meaningless line on the bill. Sure, some configurations will be a little better for you, some will be a little better for someone else depending on your usage pattern but in the end telcos have to pay their own bills, and have something on top for their investors, so they'll charge you somehow for something.
- manaskarekar 14y agoIt matters because not all users use all the services. The ones who use the services that bear the burden of 'paying the bills for the carriers' are the ones who are subsidizing other services for you.
- pyre 14y agoIt doesn't help when the telcos are dishonest about their pricing structures/rules. E.g. claiming that the early termination fees were 'to recover the subsidized cost of the phone' when the ETFs were a flat fee (no matter if you terminated the contract when it was 10% complete or 90% complete). You can say that it's 'their prerogative' to charge a fee for breaking the contract, and that's fine[1]. It's when they try to twist the truth to make it not sound so harsh that it really irks me. [1] The contracts also don't have to be so one-sided. If I need to be penalized for early termination of the contract, why isn't the telco also penalized if they terminate the contract early? AFAIK, there is something in the law about contracts needing to have equal consideration for both sides. If a contract is too one-sided, then it (or at least parts it) can be ruled invalid.