Cable lobby and Republicans fight proposed ban on early termination fees / Customers should be allowed to cancel cable TV without penalty, Democrats say::Customers should be allowed to cancel cable TV without penalty, Democrats say.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not the voters though.

        That’s the part that’s wild.

        Many Republicans have cable, and probably even complained in the past about being ripped off with something related to their cable (no one I know loves to complain about losing money more than the Republicans I know).

        And yet they vote for people that actively try to prevent that pain from going away.

        It’s like they are all masochists voting in as extreme sadists as possible so their representatives will hurt them more.

        “Ohhh Daddy, tie up the FCC and spank me with more monopolistic cable fees.”

        • tmyakal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          11 months ago

          For the last 40 years or so, Republican voters have mostly been single-issue voters. They care very passionately about one thing, and will let almost anything else slide as a result. Being in favor of cable fees doesn’t matter as long as they’re anti-abortion. Being in favor of cutting social welfare programs that those very voters rely upon is fine as long as they’re anti-trans.

          For the most part, each voter only cares about one or two specific things, and the whole picture doesn’t really matter to them.

        • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

          -LBJ

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            This is the main thing. They will never hear about this because the media they consume will never tell them about it.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          They don’t like paying the fee, but they’re willing to take one for the team as long as they know that it hurts poor people more.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    11 months ago

    Another example of a thing I figured 10+ years ago.

    Take a headline, strip it of political references. Just the facts in question. Ask yourself, “Will this initiative hurt people?” Doesn’t matter if you feel those people deserve to be hurt. Merely ask, “Will people be hurt?”

    And now you know who’s voting for it! I played this game with myself for years. Never got it wrong.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The problem with this is that with most initiatives, there are winners and losers. Someone is hurt, but someone else (possibly many people) is helped. Even a Robin Hood-like approach hurts the rich, however small and insignificantly.

      Can you refine that rule?

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’re right and I should refine it!

        How about; “Does this initiative hurt more people than it helps?”

        Fair question my friend!

        (And yes, sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many in the long term. Rare, but it can happen.)

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It cuts both ways though.

      In theory one could argue that eliminating ETFs would hurt the company owners and investors, who technically are people.

      So it does kind of matter which people are being hurt and if they deserve it or not.

      • Odelay42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Extremely bad take, lol.

        If the company isn’t financially sound without charging customers to no longer be customers, the business isn’t viable.

        What an asinine attempt to justify predatory, anti-consumer behaviour from corporations.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m not sure what part of my “technically are people” language (or comment elsewhere in this thread here) made you think I’m justifying it.

          But that is the fiscal conservative argument whether either of us thinks it is a good one or not, and thus a broad “it hurts people” needs greater specificity to scope it to main street concerns and not wall street concerns.

          • Retrograde@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            and there it is, the double down lol

            Gross, dude. Listen to yourself.

            The next time you get charged $200 for an early termination, I hope you think “I’m happy the shareholders didn’t get hurt”.

            Fuck’s sake.

              • Retrograde@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Any defense, devils advocate or otherwise, supporting early termination fees is disgusting and unacceptable. It’s not really important how they spin it.

                • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  No, the point is hurting the aristocracy is good, and I like doing it. This is just intellectual honesty. Taking your opponent’s chess pieces is an aggressive behavior, but it’s still a good thing if you want to win.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            This is some real ‘paradox of tolerance’ reasoning here. Clearly by ‘will people be hurt,’ they mean the average person, not the investor class.

    • AtariDump@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah, the problem is they really do believe the next line - even if they don’t know it.

      “Ignorance is strength”

      aka “Do your own research”

  • Scott@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cable providers are among the worst fucking crooks in the entire country.

    Just tried to take as much money from you as possible while providing ass tier service.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I find it hard to believe that anybody who hasn’t had a frontal lobotomy or isn’t a corpo ratfucker could ever be in favor of early termination fees as a legitimate and healthy business practice.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Strong disagree regarding it as a business measure in whole. Without penalties for breaking contracts, many business relationships will absolutely fall apart.

      Rather, this is an issue of consumer protection, and consumer rights should generally be given preferential treatment over contracts for the same reasons unions exist - it levels the playing field between entities of far differing power and means.

      I absolutely guarantee that lobbyists are pitching that first half at republicans and downplaying the everliving fuck out of the second.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        We’re obviously talking about consumer contract law here, so the point of business relationships falling apart is moot.

        If cable companies could prove to me that them pressing a button to cancel my service merits the exorbitant cancellation fees that they charge, then maybe I’d change my opinion.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I mean that’s why I said this

          Rather, this is an issue of consumer protection, and consumer rights should generally be given preferential treatment over contracts for the same reasons unions exist - it levels the playing field between entities of far differing power and means.

          “Early termination fees” do not solely apply to cable companies, and by and large are a good thing - this is how they shoved them past what should be common sense consumer protection legislation, which I also mention.

        • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          They usually can. Installing the wiring to your home and paying the wages of the installers is not cheap. It takes time for that initial cost to be recouped by a company.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Are you asking why contracts in general are important?

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Quick Trivia Question: When in history have conservatives ever been the good guys?

    Answer: Trick question! The answer is never.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ignoring any specific ideas about morality, conservatives (in the sense of people who resist change) and guaranteed to be on the wrong side of history, because their very nature is to cling to ideas that everyone else has decided are obsolete.

  • hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I wish they’ve finally just nationalize the entire infrastructure and then sell access to the ISPs like they did with British Telecom in the UK. Cable companies are scum and they shouldn’t be getting any further support or federal funding after the shit they’ve pulled.

    I didn’t need a new phone line when I wanted to change long distance plans 40 years ago. Why is Internet service any different? Mandate a line/conduit to each house and be done with it. See how they like it when they actually have to compete.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    But tell me how both parties are the same. The Right is literally punishing people for not wanting the product of a private company!

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Cable lobby and Republicans …

    Isn’t that a little redundant? Aren’t Republicans and big business lobbies effectively the same thing?

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Republicans handed over tons of government scratch to Pfizer and other big pharma companies.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I don’t remember mentioning Democrats. Oh, wait. That’s because I didn’t.

            Keep voting for fascists you dumb pig 🖕

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I know. I did. It’s in the title of the post, too.

              You mentioned Republicans. Then I mentioned Democrats. Fascinating.

              Anyway, the Republicans weren’t the only party that used government power to shovel money toward big business.

  • ohlaph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Holy fucking shit, what aren’t Republicans againt when it comes to the people. The party of pro life sure are against the people.

  • Reality Suit@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Got rid of cable T.V. a long time ago. I endorse pirating everything until the rich start to feel it.

  • Tosti@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    In the Netherlands early termination fees are not allowed, you sign up for a period and stick with that. After that initial period you can then terminate with 30 day notice, no auto renew per year, or you get a prorated refund of what you paid (in annual payment for example). A few exceptions apply but not many.

    This was done to avoid the fuckery of having a very small window on annual contracts where if you missed it, you would be locked in for another year.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      This was done to avoid the fuckery of having a very small window on annual contracts where if you missed it, you would be locked in for another year.

      Here in the good ol US of A that’s how some of my apartment leases worked.

      🎶 God bless America 🎶

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    where are people living that they have termination fees on cable tv? I am in Minnesota with Spectrum (previously charter (previously something else)) … I could call in tomorrow and drop the service and there wouldn’t be a termination fee. They would give me an option : use it for the rest of the billing period or just cancel it now and prorate the amount I’ve paid.

    I’m not saying fees don’t exist. I’m just curious what companies are charging them and where these people live.