August Abolins wrote in a message to Roy J. Tellason:

 RJT> Right,  except that you pay a "shipping" or
"handling" fee that
 RJT> probably actually covers the cost of the phone.  What else gets me
 RJT> is how all those cell phone companies seem to want to lock you into
 RJT> a 2-year "agreement" with a hefty penalty if you don't stick with
 RJT> them.  What other business can get away with this kind of crap?

 AA> Well..  it's up to the customer to read the fineprint!

I often do.  Which is why there are a number of companies that I *won't* do
any business with whatsoever.  Why does the phone company seem to feel that
I should want to give them my business for DSL,  when I have a choice about
it?  Particularly when they put all sorts of restrictions into place that
some of the other providers don't?  This is just one example.

 AA> Then, a penalty or a pre-mature termination fee won't come as a 
 AA> surprise.

Surprise or not,  why would I assume that it's okay to go for something
like that without having any idea about how it is to do business with that
company?  The only other thing that comes to mind for me with that sort of
time committment is signing a lease,  and you at least get to check the
place out,  first...

 AA> Some cell phone companies offer free shipping during 
 AA> telemarketing promotions - that has happened to me with 
 AA> Rogers/AT&T here in Ontario.  There are some 3rd-party cell phone 
 AA> companies in the USA that offer any phone and service and can 
 AA> often undercut the original "provider".  And example can be found 
 AA> at my link in the "Origin:".  Just look for the
"shark"   ;-)

Sure,  they do this promotional crap and then make it up for it in the
profits along the way.  And with that termination charge,  then they have
it made,  either way.  Even if you don't pay it,  the "bad debt"
counts as a business expense.

 MR>> Now to get my ISP to give me a free PC!

 RJT> Hey,  if you're willing to pay $59.95 a month I'm sure that one can
 RJT> be found!

 AA> Actually, this was already been attempted in the not too distant 
 AA> past!

I'm not surprised.

 AA> The deals looked "too good to be true" but the catch was that the 
 AA> buyer of the PC was locked into the ISP-deal for 3 to 6 years!

Not only that,  there is a constant stream of talk about "internet
appliances",  meaning that they're in effect giving you a computer
that's restricted to only one use.  That restriction makes it a lot easier
for them to leave out stuff that's "unnecessary" for their
envisioned uses,  and make it a lot cheaper to manufacture.  This also ties
in with people who envision "the 'net" as something where there
are a small number of "content providers" dispensing their stuff
to the masses,  which is not at all what the 'net is about,  not by a long
shot.  But those folks just don't get it,  not yet...

---