Earlier this week, I received a home phone offer that was mailed to the attention of one of my college kids. It reads:
You’re currently enjoying Internet service from [us], and we’re delighted to have you with us. In appreciation, we’d like to extend a special offer on our new Home Phone packages.
The letter then describes packages starting at $14.95 per month and an additional $5 discount on a bundle of home phone and internet. At the bottom of the letter are 6 lines of micro-print that says (among other things) that the $14.95 rate is available “to customers who subscribe to home phone with a 2-yr. contract.”
However, there is another line that says “Bundle discount may be terminated by [us] upon 30-day notice.” In other words, we may decide to raise that $14.95 rate by 33% and you will still be stuck with us for the rest of your 2-year contract.
How can it be reasonable for the service provider – a major Canadian telco – to lock up a customer for 2 years, but be free to change the price substantially in the middle of the contract period? What exactly is the meaning of a contract if one side gets to change a key term, price.
This is reminiscent of the issue of system access fees being outside of the contract.
As I have said before, I’m not as bothered by system access fees as by the concept that some carriers believe that they can change fundamental pricing in the midst of a contract. If the service provider changes the rate, they should have to offer to release the customer from the contract.
Fair is fair.