6/13/2007

First Nets, then Starhub

Both have long standing contracts with their customers, more or less tying them down in a way. Then comes the increases. And according to Starhub, this is market practice and the contract allows them to change the terms and conditions. Sure. Can such a practice continue to be allowed to go on? An equitable contract should be one that ties the parties to terms that both agree to at the moment of signing the contract. How can another party conveniently include all the empowering clause to allow it to change the terms of the agreement to his advantage and the other party cannot walk away with it? We have a lot of such contracts being signed. Some may be justifiable, eg long term housing loan that are affected by changes in interest rates. But all these short term contracts, when the variables are quite predictable and can be built into the contract, should not be allowed to have all the freedom to change according to their whims and fancy. This will put the other party at the mercy of the one sided contract. Yes, Case is right this time to step into the fray. Rip Van Winkle has awaken after all the years of sleeping. I mean Singaporeans in general, to their rights and start thinking.

3 comments:

TuraiKiller said...

Boycotts all fee increases, all have learned from our $$$ sucking leaders, u got to increase our salary so inorder to have "exordinary ppl" to serve u .

But we got to tell them the fee increase is damn a dirty word so forget it just concentrated your service if can't get out of my unelite face.

Lost4ever said...

Cause its a monopoly...

U can only solve it by breaking the monopoly, SHENG SONG supermarket did a good showing, else we will all be slaughtered by NTUC fair price.

Why PM & all minister hv so high pay?? caused PAP monopolised.

Why SCV cable charges so high, caused its a monopoly.

Do u also happen to pay 100 bucks to the authority to have a chance to watch TV and listen to radio, anybody knows where this money go to??

Why NETS increase charges, no competition

Even others, Bus, MRT, all of them, as long as its a monopoly, u will be milked.

To de-regulate, probably start with Taxi... if the Taxi is owned by the driver, and not the cab company, they will not need to pay such high rental, and thus can reduce the charges and still make a good living... only FEW losers, the big CAB companies and TENs of THOUSANDS of winners, the cabby. Look at Taiwan & the US & major European countries, and recall the earlier days in SGP, cabby makes good living until NTUC comfort showed up 30+ years ago.

redbean said...

monopoly is bad. privatised monopoly is good.