Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: October 2013

Bell is recently facing a lawsuit because the company has a practice where they put an expiry date on its pre-paid wireless plans. People have been arguing that pre-paid wireless services fall under the same section as gift cards. As to this comparison, Gift cards do not have expiry dates; hence, people argue that this service should not either. As many people lose money from the expiry date, is this ethical?

I personally think this is ethical because it is how pre-paid services work. You are given a date to use it by, a clear warning. If a consumer fails to comply and react to this expiry date, Bell is not to be put at fault. Even though it is popular with low-income households and that stealing from them is bad, I still do not think that this is unethical. If consumers do not want their services to expire, they just have to reload the card for an extension. It is not Bell’s fault because the consumer itself forgot to reload and lost their money. Bell will suffer loses if there is no expiry dates. It is how providers like Bell stay in business.¬†Prepaid services have its benefits and flaws. This is why these plans are significantly cheaper as opposed to long-term contracts and other cellphone plans. When you buy the pre-paid wireless services, you are agreeing to the terms and warnings stated by Bell.

However, I can see why there is a lawsuit against Bell as people see this as an opportunity seized by Bell to steal from customers. It is also unfair as pre-paid represents a certain number of minutes over a certain time frame, with the only difference is that you prepay your bills as opposed to regular plans. Since the consumer prepaid for it, how is it that they expire? Either way, in my opinion, Bell Mobility’s expiring pre-paid services is ethical because its what distinguishes pre-paid from regular plans. If the consumer does not like it, then they definitely have the option of changing companies or plans. By purchasing it, they are agreeing to the terms and warnings; therefore, Bell is not at fault.


Twitter announced on October 3rd, 2013 that it plans to raise $1 billion US through its public offering. However, the timing and the price shares are not released yet. Every year, Twitter has been in a deficit as in the early months of 2013, it had a lost of $69.3 million. This meant that the company has accumulated $418.6 million of deficit in between last year and this year. Is Twitter doing the right thing? Will it receive its desired results from this plan?


Twitter seems to be doing something very unusual. It is expecting people to buy its shares when its company has been in deficit ever since it was started up. This company has never made money and is in debt. The question is, will people buy shares for a company that doesn’t make money? Maybe people will; however, it is not rationale. According to an economics theory, people aim to maximize their benefits or in other words, utility maximization. I personally do not think people will buy the shares just because the company is in some financial problems. People want to make money; they want to feel stable and Twitter just does not seem to give off that vibe. There is no incentive for people to buy the shares that it will soon offer to the public.

Despite what I think, there has to be some reason as to why Twitter is coming up with such a plan. There has to be some kind of a hidden profitable plan that I do not see or understand. Perhaps, Twitter is trying to overvalue itself to attract people to its shares or trying to make shareholders feel safer; either way, I personally think that Twitter’s upcoming plan seems unreasonable.


Spam prevention powered by Akismet