On 19 Sep 2006 16:01:00 -0700, jgrove24@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>nas wrote:
>> So at 62 years of age the woman made the decision to keep renting her
>> phones. She was obviously happy with her service and the quality of
the
>> phones as she CHOSE to continue doing what she was doing.
>>
>> While I agree that it was unwise financially, it did appear to be her
choice
>> and she obviously wasn't on her last legs. I don't see much difference
>> beween this and people who chose to lease a car or buy a car on credit
or
>> buy insurance on depreciating consumer goods. I never do it, but that
>> doesn't mean someone else thinks it's worth their money. It's easy to
blame
>> companies for providing a service and making a profit. In this case,
Lucent
>> Technologies.
>
>Kind of like when gypsies go house to house offering to seal driveways
>with used motor oil.
No, not at all. The gypsies lie about what they are doing. They
don't send you a bill each month with their charge itemized. Apples
and oranges.
>For that kind of money, Carmela should have stopped by semi-annually
>and cleaned the widow's home.
>
From the article:
"From 1985 to 1986, customers who leased telephones were given the
option to continue leasing, buy them or opt out of their agreements."
So she chose to continue leasing the phones. Not a choice I would
make, but she either made the conscious choice to continue leasing or
paid the bills for all those years without looking at them and asking
questions. Hard to fault Lucent for that, since they provided those
"outdated" phones that still worked after 42 years. If there is any
blame to be placed, I put it on the family for not recognizing the
issue before now. Surely someone had to have visited her home and saw
the rotary dial phones. I know it would have caught my eye. Then
they put granny's name in the paper and try to make it look like a
phone company shook her down because of a decision she made.
Quite shameful.
|
