I was very disappointed with a customer service agent I recently spoke with on the phone. He offered me 2 options with respect to a change I was looking at on my account: either make the change with a 1-year commitment but be subject to price hikes or accept a 2-year commitment with a fixed guaranteed price for 2 years. I asked him to confirm that for the first option, if the price increased I would no longer be locked into any commitment. He said no, I would still be obligated.
So if that agent is correct, it is Dish's opinion that they can have a contract with a customer that obligates the customer to make payments for a year and at any point Dish is free to change the price and the customer is still obligated to make payments. That Dish has the power to unilateral change the contract. If it wants, Dish can raise your price $1000 a month after 1 month and you the customer are obligated to pay it.
Let me clear. I have no problem with Dish retaining the right to increase their price. The problem is Dish thinking that a change in the price (the contract) does give the customer the option to terminate their service instead of paying the icnreased price.
Now here is where the agent disppointed me. Ok, so some morally bankrupt executive in Dish thought that kind of contractual relationship was morally (if not legally) acceptable. At least as a human being, the agent would surely understand how inappropriate it was for Dish to have such a unfair power. I was disappointed. Evidently the agent drank the same kool-aid and is as morally bankrupt as Dish managment.
Chadt4141, your post was not at all clear to me. It certainly did not address the points I was making.
I do not care what other companies in the "industry" may or may not do. "Somebody else is doing it" does not mean something is not a horrible practice, in fact it has been an attempted justifiction for many evil practices.
Your are correct in there is more than one concept involved here, but you seem to have confused those concepts.
First is the price one pays. Whether that price is achieved through a "discount rate" or a regular rate is irrelevant. The difference between paying $100/mo and paying $120/mo with a $20/mo credit is just a marketing gimmick. The conversation is about the price the customer pays, which in either case just mentioned is $100/mo.
The second concept is price committment, the length of time the price one pays cannot change.
The third concept is the service commitment, the length of time a customer is obligated to maintain his/her service with Dish.
With respect to the 3 bove, I agree with you Dish can charge whatever it wants and can change the price whenever it wants. Dish can service commitments for however long it wants. What Dish cannot do is have the power to unbounded price increases AND retain the ability to enforce a service commitement when it inacts one of those price increases.
You say "there is almost no chance of a price increase until January". Then there should be no problem with Dish having a policy of Dish saying to a customer you have a service commitment until january but if we raise the price before january you may opt out of your service without penalty. If what you say that would not cost Dish anything, right?
Chadt4141, if Dish and I agree on a service commitment until January and we agree I will pay $100/mo but with no price commitment, should Dish have the power to BOTH raise the amount I pay to $1000/mo AND retain that I am obligated to contine paying through January (they can do either one singly but should they be able to have both). And do not say Dish would not do that, that is not the question? Should Dish be able to have the power to do that, whether they exercise that power or not? Why is Dish trying to assert that power for themselves?
Chadt4141, why do you keep talkig about "credit", that has nothing to do with this situation (at least directly. And you avoding answering my question, stop dodging the issue.
First you say "you are committing". This is not about me, although what I experienced is an example (and because Dish wanted me to commit to paying 12-months of service at whatever price Dish decided it wanted to charge, I refused to commit). This is about should Dish be able to change the price one pays and still require the customer to continue with that higher price.
Why did you ignore my comment about "credits". SO lets address that directly, please answer this question. A starting price of $100/mo with no credit and a starting price of $120/mo with a $20/mo credit nets the cost to the customer right? There is no practical difference, right?
And yes, in either case, there is a commitment, the commitment of what the STARTING price will be. I agreed that there was no agreement that the net cost, in both examples $100/mo, would be fixed for nay length of time. Dish was free to increase as it wishes.
So when you say "You are committing twelve months", I assume what you mean is "a person is agreeing to a 12-month SERVICE commitment". And to clarify that further, you want Dish to be able to change the net cost to any amount at any time during that commitment. So what you mean more completely is "a person is agreeing to a 12-month SERVICE commitment where after the first month Dish can charge you any NET amount it so chooses".
So lets go back to specific questions.
1. Given two situations, paying a "base price" of $100/mo with no credit and paying a "base price" of $120/mo with a $20/mo credit, in both cases the "net cost" is the same, $100/mo?
2. Dish does ask its customers to agree to a 12-month SERVICE commitment where after the first month Dish can charge you any NET amount it so chooses? Again, this is not saying Dish will, but that it is retaining for itself the power to do so. No hedging, yes or no.
3. "There is nothing wrong with that being done". If you were renting a house, you would agree to a 12-month contract that REQUIRES you to pay say $500/mo the first month but the landlord would be free to charge any amount whatsoever after the first month and you would be required to pay it? That would be OK with you?
"You are either committing to a credit". (Again I choose to not committ to anything, I refused the offer).
No, no, no. Maybe you misunderstood what I was told. When you say the customer is being asked to "committing to a credit", that makes no sense to me as worded. In this case, the only "commitment" with respect to a "credit", is Dish's. That is, Dish was offering to commit to put a credit on the bill. The commitment asked of me was that I maintain, and pay in full for, my service for 12-months. Did you misunderstand the nature of what Dish offered me? Whether or not that is the case, do you now understand the commitment in this case for the customer was to maintain service for 12-months, at ANY price Dish wishes to charge.
The principle Dish is trying to push is this. There are two parties to a contract. One party provides a service in return for payment from the other party. There is a 12-month commitment, both parties must fulfill their obligations for 12 months (one party providing service the other paying for it in full). The payment amount is a base price minus a credit. But the service provider is allowed to change the monthly payment at anytime during the 12 months to any amount. Do you agree all those principle apply in the terms Dish offered to me? If one of those principles is not accurate, which one?
The landlord situation is exaclty analgus with the same principles A landlord offers to rent a house (provides a service) to a tenant (pay for the service). There is a 12-month commitment. The lease is for $500/mo minus a $20/mo credit. But during that twelve months, the landlord is allowed to raise the rent above $500/mo at any time to any amount and you are obligated to pay that increased rent for the remainder of the 12-year commitment.
Is that not analogous?
There is alternative, that is fair to Dish and the customer. There is no problem with Dish requiring a commitment to maintain service for 12 months. There is no problem with Dish retaining the right to change the price during that 12 months. The rub is Dish expecting that the price change does not void the 12-month service commitment.
I asked you simple question that could be answered with a yes or a no. You dodged them all. Whether you think parts of them are unimportant or not, you refused to answer them. That says a lot.