i am a criminal
well, let's just say I'm exploiting an opportunity for regulatory arbitrage. okay okay, how about instead we'll say I'm using this great new technology called VoIP! (that sounds so much better) but really, am I not secretly underming the support mechanisms for affordable universal available phone service??? That remains to be decided by the next administration. Until then, I'm a Packet 8 (aka 8X8) subscriber. 20 bucks a month gets me unlimited local and long distance but really, I'm getting it so I can call from Europe and have a sort of land line when I get back. It's really just an experiment in regulatory arbitrage but hey, I'm game. Now if only I can get my parents to sign up for broadband over power lines.
Before I act as a sales agent for packet 8 it totally sucked that they didn't explain until after I had given them all my information (including credit card number etc) that if you cancel before 12 months they charge 60 bucks. Is this bogus? not in itself but in all fairness they should not call their service a month to month contract if in fact it is a year long contract. That's just a lie. Maybe I'll sue them while I still have the chance under California law.
This whole thing reminds me of one other piece of dookie:
It should be against the law to charge a cancellation fee larger than the regular fees associated with the remainder of the contract. ATT mobile (AWE, now Cingular) tried this bullshit with me once, charging me 150 to cancel a contract with three months left. I called them on it and they said dem's da breaks, but when I simply changed my plan to the smallest voice plan available for the remaining three months it only cost me 60 bucks (and I got free voicemail!)
seriously. it should be against the law.
Before I act as a sales agent for packet 8 it totally sucked that they didn't explain until after I had given them all my information (including credit card number etc) that if you cancel before 12 months they charge 60 bucks. Is this bogus? not in itself but in all fairness they should not call their service a month to month contract if in fact it is a year long contract. That's just a lie. Maybe I'll sue them while I still have the chance under California law.
This whole thing reminds me of one other piece of dookie:
It should be against the law to charge a cancellation fee larger than the regular fees associated with the remainder of the contract. ATT mobile (AWE, now Cingular) tried this bullshit with me once, charging me 150 to cancel a contract with three months left. I called them on it and they said dem's da breaks, but when I simply changed my plan to the smallest voice plan available for the remaining three months it only cost me 60 bucks (and I got free voicemail!)
seriously. it should be against the law.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home