Today is Fan Mail Friday on Tuesday #9
It is true, Mr. Supreme Aglet, that Verizon services work for many people including, most likely, your contributor Richard T. However, a percentage of subscribers (that's an important word, I'll return to that issue in a moment) have one or more minor nuisance problems with their service(s) at any given time. Some have substantially degraded service.
Verizon has been rated by various groups, including Consumer Union (Consumer Reports' publisher) and ePinions as having the best cellular signal rate in Los Angeles while simultaneously having the worst customer service of any carrier. Thus the paradox: does one choose to use a company with poor service in the hopes of obtaining better
service? So long as a person is in the 85% (my guess) of users who have no substantial technical problem, Verizon's services are good...
I'm going to assume you left out the decimal, i.e that the number of users for whom Verizon's services work satisfactorily is something on the order of 8.5%--you know, with the decimal.
...If one falls into the 15% of users who have a problem, one has just fallen into the Verizon Abyss.
To correct your math, 100% minus the corrected 8.5% number equals 91.5% of customers who have problems with Verizon services and who should therefore switch services right this very minute. I have commanded it.
Verizon's reputation as a provider of poor customer service also comes atop a reputation of being a leader in the promotion of obtuse subscription models intended to mask the true costs of its services and deny consumers the ability to directly compare prices. Most cellular providers have followed suit.
According to Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, Verizon is a classic confusopoly. Further, Verizon and other cellular providers require a subscription to its service. Thus, a user in the abyss is unable to fix the problem owing to Verizon's poor customer service and is unable to extricate him/herself from the contract, compounding the frustration and expense.
This is anti-democratic, and I too am not a communist. For there is no good reason for the subscription. Once the phone is paid for, the expense to the cellular company is incurred only as you use its service. Just as with the water pumped to your home or electricity, no expense is borne by a company if you place no calls. Thus, you should be free to initiate and cancel the service at any time; but because the confusopolies are also an oligopoly, their wishes prevail over that of the marketplace as your choices are limited. This is also undemocratic. And consumers have not pressured their representatives to pass legislation making contract cancellation (without oppressive termination charges) easier once technical problems can be demonstrated (similar to the fair credit reporting act) thereby denying themselves the tool of democracy to bring about positive change; thus, cellular users who are happy with their service provider are also undemocratic. And these communist-leaning peoples are among us; they might even be your neighbor.
Well then, I think I'll go have a word with my neighbor.
Agleteer Roger, I couldn't have said it better myself, (well, maybe I could, for I am Supreme). If you, or any of my readership, would like to take the time to compose a sample letter than can be written to each Agleteer's local congressman specifically addressing the issue of cancellation fees (preferably a class fee refund of the retroactive persuasion), I will publish it here along with links to obtaining contact information and other advice.
I should mention at this point that, because I am not a communist, the thought of asking our government representatives to regulate the behavior of a particular business in this way bothers me intrinsically.
On the other hand, I'm so urinated off at Verizon that I'm ready to swing the hammer and sickle in the direction their sorry sitting surfaces, and the world of the Supreme Aglet is once again in perfect balance.

<< Home