I wholeheartedly agree with this. The point for me isn't so much "protection" against unforseen expenses it's just that I want to know up front what costs money and what doesn't.
When I browse for a free app I don't want to see the crippled in-app-unlockable app next to the truly free app.
Strict rules for prices in marketing is a prerequisite for a functioning market, my other pet peeve is the contract phone. Not only do I think telcos should be required to market the total cost (which they are already at least here) , I want to take it one step further and completely ban the marketing of the small upfront cost as the price.
> The point for me isn't so much "protection" against unforseen expenses it's just that I want to know up front what costs money and what doesn't.
I also prefer to know up front what things cost or might end up costing. I guess the difference between us is that I make a distinction between my preferences and what policies I think should be forcefully implemented by governments.
Are you opposed to all legislation on pricing? We have quite a lot in the country I live in and I've never before considered it to be a negative thing. For example, if someone advertises something as "£1 per month" but then actually charges my credit card £10 per month, they could get in trouble. Are you opposed to that legislation and think that I should avoid such charges... well, I'm interested in knowing what you think I should do in absence of legislation.
I'm not exactly opposed to all legislation on price. I do think that unapproved credit card charges constitute fraud, but in-app purchases (as far as I have experienced them on Android and iOS) do not work this way. They all require explicit confirmation, after the "free" install.
So a better analogy would be a theme park with free entry (or some constant entry price) that then offers optional "in-park purchases" like food, special events, or expedited roller coaster lines. I wouldn't consider this fraud, but for non-free theme parks, I do think a court might eventually have to make a decision based on what exactly you're agreeing on when you pay for a ticket. To avoid legal ambiguity, I suspect theme parks could simply have a document describing what services are included with the base ticket (though not necessarily listing all optional services which cost extra).
That is far from "the American stand point." Most Americans ridiculed the moderately libertarian policies of Republican candidate Ron Paul. Even the broad ideas of fiscal conservatism and low corporate taxes is mocked by one major party and usually only given lip service by the other. The Libertarian Party, despite being the third largest party in the US, is at best a joke to the vast majority of Americans. And on top of that, the view that all government intervention is bad would be considered extreme even among these candidates.
But the upfront cost is the entire cost of the phone to the customer, as in the customer has title to the phone immediately they pay that cost. You're implying that you only want contract phones to be sold on a hire-purchase basis, which has its own problems.
the upfront cost is the entire cost of the phone to the customer
No, it's not. The up-front cost, plus the agreement to sign an x (x~=2) year contract is the cost to the consumer. The consumer would not have been induced to sign this contract without the advertised price of the phone so, clearly, the obligations in that contract are not ones that the consumer would be willing to undertake for free (i.e. without a subsidised phone).
the customer has title to the phone immediately they pay that cost
That may be the case, but let me share two examples:
1) If I get an iPhone from AT&T, at a subsidised price because I committed to a 2-year contract, that phone will be locked to AT&T until I request that it is unlocked. They will only unlock the phone if I have satisfied the conditions of the contract (i.e. paid my 24 months' bill). So, although I have title to the phone from day 1 (in the sense that I can throw it down the toilet if I want) I don't really own it in the sense of being able to do whatever I want with it (like use it on a different network) until 2 years' later. It doesn't seem that different from hire purchase.
2) If I buy an iPhone from China Unicom (the 2nd largest mobile provider in China), I pay a deposit up-front (roughly the unsubsidised price of the phone, less the advertised up-front price) and 1/24th of that deposit is credited to my bill each month for the next 2 years. The only practical differences vs. the AT&T example are (i) they don't lock the phone and (ii) they are more protected than AT&T are if I don't hold up my end of the bargain.
No, the cost of the phone is just spread out over 12 or 24 months. It's like saying a new car has the cost of a small down payment, it's completely absurd.
A contract phone is just a regular purchase with a payment plan over 24 months AND hopefully a rebate compared to buying the phone cash, since you are bound to the specific company for a period of time.
As an example, an iPhone might cost $1 when you sign a $50/mo contract for 24 months. If that contract would be $25 if I keeps my old phone, then the cost of the iPhone is 24 x $25.
The bottom line is: the total cost should be easy to calculate, specified on monthly bills (how much is phone payments vs. call costs), and obfuscating the phone payments by masking it as e.g more expensive pre-paid minutes must be outlawed as it makes it impossible to compare the contract to the equivalent contract without the phone.
Here in the UK, when buying vehicle insurance I have the option to pay for the year upfront, or to pay monthly. Paying monthly costs more as you effectively get a loan for the upfront fee and pay off the loan over the course of a year. So the documents often present it like so:
You get that in the US too, however I wouldn't call it a loan because if you sign for a 1 year term and then cancel or switch providers after a month you get your money back
It's more like a SaaS offering you a discount for paying yearly
When I browse for a free app I don't want to see the crippled in-app-unlockable app next to the truly free app.
Strict rules for prices in marketing is a prerequisite for a functioning market, my other pet peeve is the contract phone. Not only do I think telcos should be required to market the total cost (which they are already at least here) , I want to take it one step further and completely ban the marketing of the small upfront cost as the price.