Most consumers do have a choice. "Reasonable" is a pretty squishy word often used to kill discussion.
If a consumer is abused by their vendor and continues to fund their abuser, who should be blamed? Obviously the abuser is to blame for the abuse. But shouldn't the person funding the abuser also get some blame? Or is it all the government's fault? Blame the police.
It seems to be a common response to consumer abuse to blame the government while continuing to fund the abuser. That strategy has made Wells Fargo number one. And Century Link number one. And Facebook number one. And the list goes on.
If you can't live without their service for one week, maybe their service isn't so bad. If you're not willing to lift even the smallest finger the smallest amount, just keep belly aching to the wind. That will fix the problem.
No, most consumers in the US either do not have a choice at all, or they have a choice between two equally-shitty companies.
> If a consumer is abused by their vendor and continues to fund their abuser, who should be blamed?
If the consumer does not have a reasonable choice in vendor, then the vendor should be blamed. That's kinda the whole point of this thread.
> If you can't live without their service for one week, maybe their service isn't so bad.
That makes no sense. If you can't live without their service for one week, that says nothing about their service, it just means the product is indispensable.
> If you're not willing to lift even the smallest finger the smallest amount, just keep belly aching to the wind. That will fix the problem.
What choice do people have? If there's no alternative ISP you can use, or if the only alternative is just as bad as what you already have, then there's very little you can do except complain.
> Most consumers do have a choice. "Reasonable" is a pretty squishy word often used to kill discussion.
Fine. Let's define 5 options as the bare minimum to inspire healthy competition. Now we can decisively say that they don't have that many options, with no squishy words.
If a consumer is abused by their vendor and continues to fund their abuser, who should be blamed? Obviously the abuser is to blame for the abuse. But shouldn't the person funding the abuser also get some blame? Or is it all the government's fault? Blame the police.
It seems to be a common response to consumer abuse to blame the government while continuing to fund the abuser. That strategy has made Wells Fargo number one. And Century Link number one. And Facebook number one. And the list goes on.
If you can't live without their service for one week, maybe their service isn't so bad. If you're not willing to lift even the smallest finger the smallest amount, just keep belly aching to the wind. That will fix the problem.