Forum Discussion
poor lamb
MrBuster wrote:
gaines_wright wrote:Well, he was talked into getting Viasat in the first place by what was IMO deceptive marketing. I.E. telling him that he was going to be able to get rid of his satellite TV bill with a 10 gig data plan. This guy has zero interest in the internet other wise.
10 gig data plan!
I am behind the times!
Well, I probably misspoke. I think he actually told me it was a fifty dollar a month plan. I have no experience with Viasat, I just assumed it was 10 gig.
I considered Viasat shortly after my problems with gen5. I called my tech company, and they told me I already had the best deal that was available with Hughes.
gaines_wright wrote:Well, I probably misspoke. I think he actually told me it was a fifty dollar a month plan. I have no experience with Viasat, I just assumed it was 10 gig.
In that case, it's most likely the Unlimited Bronze 12 Plan, which is $50 for the first three months, then $70 after that. It's an okay plan, but one would do a lot better with HughesNet for the price, especially with the major speed issues on the big beams with the Unlimited Plans now.
Edit: I see MrBuster mentioned a Basic 25 Plan, as well.
gaines_wright wrote:No offence intended, but do you have any first hand experience with this happening? You seem so sure about it.
No, I do not have first hand experience with this, but I know those who do. And yes, I'm 100% sure about it, as that's what happens when a person has something go into collections. Credit rating agencies are nowhere near as lax as they were 40 years ago. Nearly everything that's negative affects credit ratings these days. Even late payments.
And I got your basic point, but what happened to your friend is more on the agent than the company, though I know that the company is ultimately responsible for what their agents say and do. The agents aren't supposed to do those things, though I'm sure they feel pressure to get the sale and sometimes lie in order to do so. It's very unlikely that ViaSat instructs their agents to lie, or even implies that they should. It's not at all to their advantage to have them do this, as the impact to them from doing this can be far worse than the profit made from the subscriber. Talking up the service is one thing, but flat out lying is another.
As for holding the ETF over their heads, this is true, but not when it comes to sales agents lying about something with the service, as we've seen with a few of the results of sales call reviews on here. I'm sure ViaSat has something similar in place. It may be a requirement by law, though that I'm not sure of.
The bottom line is, people should research what they're buying before they do so, especially if it's a service with contract. Unfortunately, too few people do.
You have to remember there was a period in the 'naughts' where banks were giving massive high-risk loans to anyone and everyone and got caught with their pants down when anyone and everyone defaulted. Think the more reputable banks are being a bit more discrete wrt credit ratings now, despite having the regs ripped away again. The less reputable banks and the new crop of smaller, legal loan sharks will still give short term, high risk loans at exorbitant rates.
