These arguments make it look like any tax increase would require the business to directly offset their tax expenses by cutting labor expenses.  Perhaps the company could consider cutting other expenses.  Perhaps they could find a way to sell additional product to recoup these small costs.  One way or another, the only way anyone will lost their jobs is if a vengeful company owner chooses to do it just to be vindictive.  Measure 67 will not cause anyone to lost their jobs.

On the other hand, if Oregon Ballot Measures 66 & 67 do pass, the direct result will be that it will save jobs at our company.  I will give you the specific effects of what will happen to myself and the people who work with me in a moment.  First, I will tell you what happens if these ballot measures do not pass.

A vote against these measures will cut funding to the services that receive funding through Oregon’s General Fund.  The vast majority of this money goes to pay for education, for public safety, and for human services.  For education, this means that we will be cutting funding and services for everything from our young children who deserve the best possible education, to colleges that will be training many of us for the jobs that we will take as the recession fades.  For public safety, this means that our overworked police, courts, and prisons will have less to work with to keep us safe.  For human services, this means that the poor and the disabled, the most vulnerable of our citizens, will have even fewer services available to them.

Since my company deals in something that would suffer if the human services part of the budget is cut, I will start there.  Certainly, similar arguments can be made in education and public safety.  But we will start here:

If the human services budget is cut, funding will be cut for healthcare for those who cannot afford it.  Those who are so disabled that they cannot function in society will suffer.  Programs that help the elderly continue to live independently so we don’t incur higher costs by institutionalizing them, will be left by the wayside.  This will mean that some number of the caregivers and other workers who keep these programs going will lose their jobs.  If Measures 66 & 67 fail to get a YES vote, these care-providing people will lose their jobs.

This is not a theoretical exercise where a $30 million corporation threatens to fire a worker because they had to pay $30,000 in state taxes this year, simply because they are not willing to admit right now that there are other ways to deal with it.  This is about the many people who will lose their jobs if these businesses do not pay their fair share in taxes.  Let me give you a specific example — my company.

At the moment, I am involved in a business that provides transportation services, and the majority of that business is something we call medical transportation.  Specifically, we transport people with disabilities to medical appointments, social service programs, and other places that they need to go.  A typical passenger, due to either age or disability, does not have the ability to get themselves where they need to go, and do not have the ability to use public transportation by themselves.

We do have many customers who pay for transportation themselves, occasionally their fee is paid by an insurance company or a charitable organization.  However, our largest customer is the State of Oregon.  Through Medicare/the Oregon Health Plan, the poor, the elderly, and the disabled have a way to get to the places that they otherwise cannot get to.

These trips are taken for a variety of reasons.  One of those is trips to the hospital, to a doctor appointment, or regular trips for things like chemotherapy or kidney dialysis.  Another is for trips to work or to training programs, so they can remain part of the community and continue to work.  Finally, for some selected people, the state provides assistance for trips to the grocery store or to outings that will help them to remain active in the community.  In this small way, keeping people independent keeps them from being more of a burden on the system that would otherwise have to provide a higher level of care.

If these ballot measures do not pass, one of the smaller budget items that will be cut is all of the non-medical trips under the Medical Transportation Program.  From the standpoint of the disabled person, they would now be essentially home-bound.  They would place needs on other parts of the system.  But if we think of this from the standpoint of the service provider, namely us, we will certainly have fewer drivers working for us.  If the state pays for fewer trips, there will be less work.  Either everyone’s income will be cut significantly, or there will be fewer drivers working at our company.

The number of positions lost will not be evident until the situation works itself out.  But I can promise you that if Measures 66 & 67 do not pass, there will be fewer people working at our company.  This is not a threat, rather, it is economics.

This is not only about myself or the medical transportation drivers.  It is about nurses and other caregivers.  It is about teachers and school employees.  It is about the police and corrections officers and court workers who keep us safe.  It is about many working Oregonians.

Please vote YES on Oregon Ballot Measure 66.

Please vote YES on Oregon Ballot Measure 67.

In these times of recession, this is what we can do to save jobs for Oregonians.

Share via email

In any case, thanks to the last 18 years of tax cuts and government tightening their belts, we are now enjoying the lowest taxes that we have seen in decades.  Federal tax rates are down.  Oregon State tax rates have not gone up in decades.  In both cases, our actual tax rates have decreased thanks to a myriad of additional tax deductions and credits that we now have at our disposal.

In these times of shrinking state revenues, during the worst recession we have had in 80 years, we still demand quite a few services from our government.  We demand law enforcement and prisons.  We want to keep our road, rail, and air transportation infrastructure in good repair.  Indeed, growth requires that we make further investments in these areas.  We still require social services for the neediest and most frail members of our society.  We need to continue educating our children and supporting the higher education system, that will allow us to continue to thrive in the future.

Actually, thanks to the poor economy, the need for these services is greater than ever.  We need education to prepare us for new jobs.  We need services to help get us through these rough times.  We need to maintain what we have, so that we do not have to spend more to replace this infrastructure later from lack of maintenance.  This is exactly the time that we need to fully fund the programs that we have asked our government to handle for us.

If we are to be responsible people in our state and our community, it is important that we do our share to continue the programs that benefit all of us.  This is why it is necessary to go the extra step and ensure that these things are properly funded.  It is necessary to vote YES on Oregon Ballot Measure 66.

The measure is designed to not affect those who could be harmed the most.  Only individuals making over $125,000 in income or couples making over $250,000 would be affected by this measure.  It is worth noting that this figure is the remainder after deductions from income are accounted for.  The people who can least afford to pay anything extra will not be asked to do so.  Those who presumably might have a bit to spare will be asked to dig deeper this time.  This measure does not take away the money that anyone will need to feed or house themselves.

I am not fond of paying higher taxes.  But I do understand that it would be irresponsible to stop paying for the services that some people need, just at the time that they will need them the most.  This modest proposal is what we need right now to maintain what we have at the state level,  especially during these times when we need all the help we can get.

Please join me in supporting this worthy proposal.  Please vote YES on Oregon Ballot Measure 66.

Share via email

The ferry M/V Coho started working the waters of the Salish Sea in 1959, and since the early 1970′s has been dedicated to the auto ferry run between Port Angeles and Victoria.  Today it is celebrating the 50th anniversary of it’s first run.  Arguably, it is the most important part of the tourism industry in Port Angeles and the Olympic Peninsula, and it is also an important part of the Victoria waterfront.

While the boat is 50 years old, it’s owners and crew has been able to keep it in much better condition than similarly old Washington State Ferries craft.  This is not a hit at WSF crews, they do a fine job (though the state could probably fund them a bit better).  No, this is about one private company that has put a lot of effort and cash into keeping this fine ship going.  They believe that it will be possible to safely get another 20 years of use out of her.

While business has been down lately, like it has been in the rest of the economy, the Coho and its crew still do their part to get visitors across the Strait of Juan de Fuca safely.  It is thought that the ship fills as many as 25% of the hotel rooms in Port Angeles, as well as bringing people from Seattle and beyond into Victoria to visit.  While there are other options for getting to Vancouver Island, the Coho lets you go there with a bit of style, a bit of history, and avoiding some of the busier border crossings on the mainland.

I recommend that anyone with the least interest in this part of Cascadia set aside some time for a trip on the M/V Coho sometime soon.  It is a practical way to get there and it is an important piece of our history.  Consider it a cheap sea cruise.  I believe that you will not be disappointed.

Share via email

We do these things as a group, not because we would be unable to do it for ourselves otherwise, but because it is much cheaper and much more efficient to do so as a total group of citizens of our city, region, or country.  We do this for important things. We even do it for smaller projects like community hospitals or libraries, among many other institutions.

Certainly not every single member of the public will directly use these resources.  A particular person may not use a highway, but they benefit from them when a shipper uses that road to get groceries to their local market.  A particular person may not have a child to send to school, but we all benefit by having all of our collective children educated.  But in most every case, we all, directly or indirectly, receive a benefit from the services that we pay for.

We do pay taxes to several levels of government to provide these and other services to us.  Yes, this is our hard-earned money paid out.  It also represents a savings of what we might ahve to pay if we each had to pay for these services individually.  It is with this background that I suggest that the United States should no longer be the only nation in the world not providing healthcare to its citizens.

Currently, our US Senate is working out the details of a bill that will make positive changes to our healthcare system.  It is imperative that they do what is necessary to ensure that healthcare is available for all, at a price that is affordable for all.  For those currently covered by a current medical plan, it will mean cheaper rates.  For those not covered, it will mean the ability to have their basic health needs taken care of.  Even for those who might “never get sick”, it means that there will be an operating healthcare system there if the need did actually arise, much in the same way that we might never have a fire, but we value having a working fire department, should the need arise.  Besides, even if we don’t use the system ourselves, there is an indirect benefit from not allowing those around us to remain ill.

Our Senate is working among themselves to pass a bill that will provide healthcare for all.  There is debate among them as to the best way to accomplish this.  A number of them seem to believe that there is no problem at all.  Certainly, the fact that in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world, we refuse to ensure that all people have access to basic healthcare, is truly a problem that needs to be addressed immediately.

Given the current state of the debate in the senate, I have no expectation that a complete solution will be decided on  this month.  I will hope that the Senate can build a great foundation that will get us started on the path to universal healthcare in the US. It looks like the current proposal is more of a start than a complete plan, but it is a good start.  It will begin to help those who will need it.

The plan will help to lower healthcare costs.  It will make services available to more people who do not have help now.  It will likely cost us some money in taxes.  But when it is fully implemented, we will save much more money in the long run that we now spend on healthcare costs than we will have paid in taxes.

Shame on those Senators who cannot support the continuing health of our citizens.  We will get to the point of having universal healthcare sooner or later.  Sooner would be better for all of us.  However, any progress toward this goal is welcome.  But shame on these Senators for prolonging the suffering for some of us.  The time to act is now.

Share via email

There are a few retailers that don’t want to welcome me, so I will oblige them by not bothering to go to their stores.  There are plenty to choose from, anyway.

My first irritation is retailers who want to charge me an admission fee to visit their stores.  The most well known of these is, of course, Costco.  The famous local non-wholesaler (despite having the word “wholesale” in their name) will not admit me to their store unless I purchase a membership from there.  Many people do, but at least for me, it doesn’t make sense to do so.  Even if it makes sense to purchase a large quantity of items selected from an inventory off items with inconsistent availability, it still doesn’t make sense to me to pay for the privilege of entering the store.  I feel more insulted by this than enticed to see what is inside today.

The same story goes for local company Bi-Mart.  Yes, the membership fee is only $5.00.  It is just the principle of the matter.  Perhaps I’m old fashioned.  Perhaps I want to be welcomed as a shopper, but not with a guard at the door asking whether I’m a member yet.  Frankly, it’s not even particularly clear what they sell inside their windowless stores.  It looks like I won’t be finding out soon, either.

I do not buy my groceries at the Safeway Club.  Historically, I do not have any particular bias against Safeway.  They have fine stores.  I simply find it insulting that they raise their prices much higher than their competitors, then say that they are willing to sell them to me at a “discount” if I use their card.  The discount brings the real sales price down to a more typical price for groceries.  I don’t particularly want to have my shopping tracked.  I also don’t want to be insulted by a company that plays card games instead of offering fair prices.  So I will shop elsewhere.  While I have periodically purchased an item or two from them over the years, I havent bought a cart full of groceries from them since 1998 or so.

Those who know me know that I do my grocery shopping at Fred Meyer.  Astute observers will tell me that Fred Meyer also has a Rewards Card program.  There is a big difference here.  The difference is that I am not required to use the card to get the best available price on groceries.  I am potentially missing out on several dollars worth of coupons in the mail every three months, but I am willing to make that very small sacrifice in exchange for not playing the card game.

In the end, many retailers are trying to lure me into their stores to spend my money.  There are plenty of choices out there without patronizing stores that require me to become a member of a club to shop at their store.  I would encourage my readers to avoid these retailers and others that play games with you rather than offering you free admission to their stores and fair prices to all shoppers.

Share via email

So, we have learned that the day after Thanksgiving in the US is a new holiday known as “Black Friday.”  This is not to be confused with Black Tuesday, the day that the New York Stock Exchange crashed in 1929 to start the Great Depression.  It is also not Good Friday, the Friday before Easter.  No, this Black Friday is the day that the populace is coerced into a frenzy of consumerism under the guise of gift-giving.  Are we really so blind?

>>> First off, Black Friday is so named because of the presumption that this is the day of the year when the company’s books “go into the black” or start to show a cumulative profit for the year.  Perhaps this is true.  However, for anyone out there who knows the basics of accounting, I presume that this assumes that the books are kept on a calendar-year basis.  It seems more reasonable that books are kept on a fiscal-year basis.  To translate for those who don’t know what I just said, if you were keeping track of a company’s books, you might start your year on February 1 1or July 1, so that the after Christmas returns in January are accounted for in the same year as the December sales.  Or, to make it simpler, most big company’s don’t keep the books from the first of January to the end of December. Whatever.

>>> Secondly, and more to the point, what difference does it make to me, the end consumer, that the company is making an annual profit sarting from this particular day?  Why should that make a difference to whether I shop at that store or not?  So, when we are attracted to a “Black Friday” named promotion, we are presumably doing it to celebrate making a profit.  Why should I care?

I might care that businesses, in general, do well enough to remain viable in this economy.  But I really don’t care about the details.

I would be attracted to a store because their merchandise has a fair price.  I would be attracted to a store because the quality of their merchandise is superior.  I fail to understand why anyone responds to a promotion that asks me to be attracted to a store because they expect to make a profit today.

>>> We are supposedly attracted to shopping on this particular day to get started shopping for the vast number of people for which  we might intend to purchase Christmas gifts.  If I am to believe the advertisements I see, we are purchasing a lot of electronics gear for one another.  We are buying cell phones, and other gear that would potentially require the recipient to take on a long-term contract.  Merry Christmas to them!  No, we are really buying things for ourselves.  It’s not bad to buy things for ourselves.  It just seems odd to me that we need an excuse like the upcoming holiday season to get ourselves things.

If you are going to go buy a gift for someone, just do it.  If you want to get yourself something, do that too.  If I ignore that the retailer is asking me to go to their store so that they can make a profit, forgive me for that.  I need a more compelling reason to make me shop there.

Besides, I have read all of those consumer warnings over the years.  They say that if someone tries to sell you a product, and they tell you that you have to buy it right now or the deal will be gone, that there is a good chance that it is a scam.  So, buy that expensive gizmo NOW or it will be gone.  See my point?

Go ahead.  Take advantage of some sales on some stuff.  Just don’t expect me to respond to this insulting promotion that the retailers have going right now.

Share via email

Many of these measures make sense to the uninitiated.  Some people who want to see taxes cut at any cost take advantage of this perception and our citizens, by passing these measures.  It seems reasonable on the face to limit taxation to certain levels, and even index the amount to gains in population, increases in inflation, or other matters.  However, once these measures take effect, most of them have restricted our government from making proper choices and making the economy much worse than necessary.

Initiative 1033 is one of these measures.  It is a creation of Tim Eyman, a professional initiative sponsor who is well known for his measures that have good-sounding titles but are potentially destructive in practice.  It is another product of the ultra-conservative “no tax” groups, who after 17 years of saying that taxes are too high and need to be cut, are not willing to open their eyes and see that our taxes are now as low as they ever ought to be without sacrificing necessary public services.

If they object to spending on a particular public service, they need to organize an effort to change funding for that service.  Cutting general funding to government in hopes that they will cut a particular program is proven NOT to work.  This measure will not work for that.

There are many things wrong with I-1033:

• It limits property tax collections to those of the current year, adjusted for population and inflation.  That might make sense, except that the current year budget is artificially cut low to account for the recession.  This means that our government would always be required to operate as if it were in a recession.  I, for one, would like our government to escape this recession at some point in the future.
• The indicator used for determining the rate of increase in costs is an improper one.  If we use a measure that increases taxes by the costs of services in general, it sounds good.  But the services a state provides are among the higher paid ones (i.e. teachers, nurses, firemen, and so on).  Using a percentage of increase in general labor costs just doesn’t accurately reflect the state’s costs of doing business.  This leaves less money available for services, thus cutting spending to less than recession levels.
• Funding for schools will be cut again.  At a time when education is becoming more and more important, this measure will further cut local education funding.  Even if a local area wants to raise taxes to provide adequate education for their district’s children, they will be prohibited from doing so.  This measure takes away the right for people to decide for themselves whether particular programs should receive funding.

If the citizens of Washington feel the need to cut funding to any state or local government services, it is easy enough to request that our elected representatives do so.  If we feel the need to tax ourselves less in any way, we already have the means to work with our elected representatives to do that in any way we see fit.  The means of adjusting our taxes in a responsible way is already available.  It is unwise to restrict our own ability to make these decisions for ourselves.

Click HERE to find out more about how we can only hurt ourselves for voting for this nonsense.

There is very little right about this measure.  Preserve your right to control Washington State government.  Preserve your right to pay for schools that have the ability to properly teach our schools.  I encourage you to vote NO on Washington Initiative 1033.

Share via email

The day that the Seattle P-I published it’s final newsprint edition forever on Tuesday, I admittedly had a fairly emotional reaction to the whole thing.  In fact, it took me until the next day to actually open it up and read it all.  Then I started to get curious:  Why did I feel that way?

I can (an will in the near future) talk about the future of newsappers and journalism in Cascadia.  My story today is about losing or taking for granted the things that we see every day.

I’m sure that my attachment to the Seattle P-I has a number of sources.  The P-I was the paper that I read and subscribed to while living in the Seattle area.  the P-I is the paper where I have read all of the news stories that shaped my life.  My personal political leanings are better represented by the P-I than my the Seattle Times.  I delivered the P-I to homes in my neighborhood as a youngster, back in the day when the paper was delivered by a kid on a bicycle riding around the neighborhood every morning.  Now, the P-I is gone.

I have always presumed that the P-I (and the Times for that matter) would be there forever.  I presume that The Oregonian (my daily paper today) will also be there forever.

When I look back now, I presume a lot of institutions would last forever.  They have lasted my lifetime, and the lifetimes of those before me:

• There are always ferries in Puget Sound.
• The Pike Place Market is always there.
• Portlanders always shop at Fred Meyer.
• Ivar’s will always sell me fish & chips.  And red chowder.
• We will always have fun at the Seattle Center.

But times are changing, and not just in ways that they would have changed before:

• Department stores The Bon Marche and Meier & Frank have been replaced by Macy’s.
• Newspapers are disappearing.
• TV and radio stations are no longer as much the local face of the city.
• The Sonics have disappeared from the Seattle Center.

Given enough thought, I’m sure the lists could go on and on.  Feel free to add in the comments institutions that will be here forever, or that we thought would be here forever.

The point is that life is ever changing.  Perhaps this is a function of getting old, but I am now seeing things disappear that I thought I would never see gone.  Seattle’s daily newspaper is one of those things.  In a way, part of our life has disappeared.

Share via email

I am not sure just what the most offensive thing is about this is.  Does he think that anyone who has done anything wrong should kill themselves?  Would it be easier for him if anyone who has opinions he doesn’t agree with kill themselves? Does he really think that a few reports of suicide among Japanese business people means that this is the usual solution for CEO’s who make improper decisions in that country? Or is it something else?

“And in the case of the Japanese,” he added, “they usually commit suicide before they make any apology.”  Really?  Does he really believe that?

Of course, in subsequent days, Grassley has told us that he really didn’t mean what he said. Yeah, I’ll bet he didn’t mean that.  I hope he can be more educated in the cultures of other people before he speaks again.  Or, if he were really going to be a leader, he could apologize to the Japanese people as well as to the American people.  Or, he could be a leader who follows his own advice and commit suicide himself.

It would be interesting to note here that Grassley is pro-life on abortion issues.  He states that believes that human life is sacred from the time of conception.  I think that I can also presume that, since Senator Grassley is such a proponent of encouraging medical options for end-of-life care, that he would be appalled at the thought of allowing physician-assisted suicide anytime soon.  So, just the thought that he thinks that anyone should be allowed to die prematurely, whether they be Americans or Japanese, seems pretty preposterous.

I truly think that we can solve our nation’s by killing one another, then we have something to learn about ourselves.  I can forgive Senator Grassley’s off-the-cuff remark this time.  People do say things they regret.  But I also believe that the kind of anger that would cause a person to say something like that is not compatible with a person looking for a reasoned solution to the nation’s problems.

Share via email

Since there were a great many advertisements touting the speed of this service, I decided to take a look.  Indeed, it appears that under many conditions, the service speed is indeed similar to my DSL connection that I presently have.  Like cable internet, it appears to be to be dependent upon the number of people using the service at any given time.  It seemed that it might be useful for me as I use my laptop, although it might not be so useful to my family who likes to play their online games.  Also, I happen to live in a particularly hilly part of town, where TV and radio signals have sometimes been an issue.  Logically, I though I might give it a try on a trial basis, to see of I could use it as my primary Internet service.

Let me also say that I have no love for some of our monopolistic utilities who we have been forced to do business with over the years.  I have been frustrated with the customer service folks at Qwest, my telephone and DSL provider, just enough times over the past decades that I might be inclined to do my business elsewhere if the opportunity came about.  As someone who has moved several times over the years, and as an operator of assorted businesses over the years, I have had plenty of opportunities to deal with customer service over the years.  So the level of customer service a company provides does have is a component of making my choice.  I would like to describe some of these experiences briefly:

• First, I have dealt with many electric utilities throughout Cascadia.  Portland General, Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light, Pacific Power, and others have always been appropriately responsive to my issues.  None have any competition, but I have never had a problem with any matter under their control.  It is easy and businesslike to start or stop service, or to get billing questions answered.
• I have mixed feelings about Qwest.  Getting service started or stopped is usually fine, although there was one incident where a CSR took liberties and signed me up for a suite of services I didn’t request.  When I called back after the first bill, though, all was corrected quickly and efficiently.  Their billing people have been only average to deal with sometimes.  I am quite irritated over their Yellow Pages folks, who twice failed to get a business of mine into the phone book, even with plenty of time to deal with it.  In all, average service, but I have no loyalty toward them.
• I need to do a shout-out for my ISP here, Infinity Internet.  I have been with them for ISP services since 1995, forever in the Internet business.  But the level of customer service is impeccable.  I pay extra to keep them as a “third-party” ISP provider now, because I am totally loyal to them.  Their tech support has even called Qwest’s tech support for me, even when the problem is clearly on Qwest’s side of things and not theirs.  I will be with them forever, unless they give me a reason not to.  In fact, give them a call!
• My longtime cell phone provider, Verizon Wireless, has been generally good to me over the years.  Yes, they have sometimes surprised me with some “policy changes” from time-to-time that have caused problems.  But in most cases, they have “made it work” and have done what was right to keep me as a customer.
• One issue I had with my cell phone service is that, for a couple of years, I had a business where I used an average number of minutes much of the year, but thousands upon thousands of minutes during a 3 to 4 month busy season.  This caused a problem with my Verizon service, who at the time was somewhat inflexible about their plans.  A recent arrival to Portland, Cricket Communications, had been offering unlimited service with no contracts for about $45 per month.  Sure, I had to spend $200 upfront on the phone, but at the rate I was using the phone during the busy season, It would pay for itself the second month.  So I tried them out.  The problem started when I tried to get the service stopped during my off-season.  In short, it took four calls over two months to get the service cut off, and then it took a while for the billing credit to appear.  They tried to tell me that I had called, but not told them to stop the service.  The following year, I managed to negotiate a deal with Verizon to get the minuted I needed for a fair price.  Cricket lost my future business, as I will hesitate to go to them again when I need their service, because of the customer service experience.
• Finally, I have a VOIP telephone at home with Vonage, and I have had no problems with them.  I also had several lines with them for a business that I sold.  While my business had been a customer of theirs for three years, and my issues during that time had been solved well, it was impossible to close my account.  The buyer of my business wanted to use all landlines, and I needed to close out my business accunts in a timely manner.  I was told that I could not close my account unless I spoke to the “retention department”. Presumably, their purpose is to keep me as a customer.  At a basic level, I would expect that, except that in this case, I needed to simply turn off some lines I ddin’t need anymore.  I still had another account with them.  I might have new business service with them in the future.  When I had called Qwest, this was a simple matter.  With Vonage, I had to convince them for almost an hour that I really needed to end the service on this account.  Eventually they did.  Of course, I was on the phone with them next month to have the charges reversed when they billed me for another month anyway.  So, tell me, why would I ever go back to them.

This all brings me back to Clearwire.  I am told that their sales people are great at telling me about their service.  I am told there is an option to try out the service on a month-to-month basis with no obligation to continue.  So, I though I just might try the service.

Before I did, I took the time to do a bit of research on the company.  Like every such company, there are reviews of their customer service.  Of course, there were both positive and negative reviews.  I have learned that many negative reviews have as much to do with the customer as with the customer service, and take such posted complaints wit ha grain of salt.

But one thing caught my eye.  It seems that, in markets where Clearwire has already been providing service, that some of the people who needed to cancel their service (even within the terms of their contract) were having to call a “retention department” to get their service stopped.  In short, just the fact that Clearwire has a retention department is enough to deter me from ever using their service. I may like the service, and I might not.  I need the service to stand on its merits, though.  The presence of a retention department, in itself, tells me that this company does not work for me.

If anyone from Clearwire or a user of the service would like to convince me that I am wrong, my ears are open.  So is the comments section below.  Otherwise, for my Internet services, “The choice is clear”.  And in this case, the choice is not Clearwire.

Share via email