I get Consumer Reports magazine and they always tells customers to bicker for a lower price and demand more from a business but the industry is struggling and businesses will give you want you want just to make a sale. Customers are actually being taught to be jerks so they can get the best deal. Some people don't even need to save the money they just enjoy bickering and getting a deal. It's like a game to them and it sickens me. I guess I just don't like seeing people taking advantage of others and having no regard for anyone but themselves. I shouldn't judge though, I have been guilty myself from time to time.
Dish is not struggling, they are making a billion dollars in profits a year, and are always trying to buy giant companies like Sprint. Comcast makes enough that they bought NBC within the last few years and has a continuing line of income well into the future with their Internet service even if paid television winds up declining and hurting their original business model. I don't know what Directv's financials look like, but I'm guessing we'd all enjoy being their primary shareholder, financially speaking.
The stock market is actually at an all time high. It's
people who are struggling- with high unemployment, low wages, a lack of good benefits, etc.. That seems to, from all reports, include some Dish employees and contractors, but that's because of Dish's policies- Dish could afford to pay and treat them better, and doesn't. It's not the customer's fault.
I'm below the poverty line, if I can get a good deal on a service that I need or even that I want that makes my life a little less miserable, and it'll diminish the profit margins of some big corporation somewhere just a tad, I don't feel guilty. They probably aren't even losing money on me in the aggregate when you consider the majority of the time when I'm stuck paying full price- if they were losing money on me over all, they'd eventually just tell me to go elsewhere (In fact, Comast did decline to give me a break on their television after five years paying full price because I'd also had a discount for the previous six months- and I promptly cancelled. I told them to cancel service the next day. I rarely bluff.). In fact, I feel like they should be doing more for customers in tough situations, or for those in normal situations, for that matter. I don't know where it's written that corporations have the right to makes hundreds of millions or billions a year.
In fact, I don't feel a corporation has any rights- you've got to a human being to have rights (or at least an animal). But even if I
did believe corporations should have rights, which I don't, I don't think there's any problem with a customer playing corporations off each other and haggling to get the best deal. It's what corporations do with the other corporations they deal with
all the time (i.e. Dish, Direct, and cable negotiating with ABC/Disney stations or whatever). No one says a corporation has to make special offers to people to prevent churn, they do it because they feel it's a good business decision. Isn't one of the things people go to business school learn is how to bargain and negotiate? I think it's good that the customer has at least enough leverage to leave and go to the other guys or offer to stay at a reduced rate. I mean, it's bad enough that these companies, which are often monopolies or near monopolies have price hikes that well exceed the price of inflation and contracts with terms that are favorable to them that customers can't negotiate, and so on and so forth. I don't see a problem with a customer calling up and saying "Look, I can't afford this service anymore, I need $5 or $10 off or I'm going to have to discontinue it or take a better financial offer from a different provider.".
a person enters into the 24-month commitment because they want to take advantage of an incentive. what ever happens to that person does not excuse them from their commitment (i.e. home mortgage). the person needs to find the best way to deal with their situation if something happens.
I've never owned a home, so I don't know a ton about home mortgages. In the event of not being able to pay a home mortgage, though, aren't you allowed to call the bank and try to get them to refinance it or make some sort of deal with you
if they are willing? And, if all else fails, can't you walk away from the house and let the bank repossess it? People try to walk away from their dish or phone contracts all the time, and probably would be willing to mail the Dish or the phone back, but the companies won't play ball.
instead of complaining, customer like this should just go with the no contract option.....but they won't be able to get promotional pricing and that is probably going to make them complain.
The problem is that the no-contract option with Dish is prohibitively expensive- a ton of high equipment fees. And the equipment can only be used for Dish. So it's not like you can justify the cost of the equipment by saying "Hey, at least I have the flexibility to quit Dish and aim this dish at Directv's satellites, and there's that free satellite with limited programming if push comes to shove...", it's equipment that only works with one company's services. I think a no-contract option would be much more appealing if the equipment could be used in a variety of different ways. Like, if I buy a computer, it doesn't tie me to Comcast Internet- I could use it with any Internet service provider available in my area, I could even take it to the library or McDonalds and use their free wifi, or even use it without Internet access to listen to digital music I already have, do word processing, play some games that don't require the Internet, or whatever. Paying for something that requires the use of a particular service from a particular company
to do anything with it seems a bit odd to me.
But, you know, if they'd make their prices more reasonable, I'll bet even their single-use no-contract equipment would be more appealing. I bought a phone off contract from a prepaid no-contract provider at one point. They knew to reach my market, though, they'd have to bring their prices down to be about what other providers sell phones for
on-contract- the phone just doesn't have as good of specs as the subsidized ones on contract carriers. It was a year or two behind what you'd expect from the on-contract folks in some regards. Of course, even with a phone tied to one carrier, you could at least use it as a very small wifi-only Internet tablet and maybe even do voice-and-text-over-wifi with special apps (Don't know how that last part works, but I hear it's possible, you might have to pay for it) at your home or whereever wifi is available if you quit the service. I don't know what you'd do with an owned dish if you left the service other than try to sell the thing.
But, anyway, I think they'd make Dish equipment cheaper if didn't do contracts and subsidies. They'd have to. It might mean reducing their profit margins or making slightly less advanced equipment, but it'd be the only way they could stay competitive with cable and Directv where people didn't necessarily have to buy equipment.