dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-03-19 11:47:32: Verizon's tendency to bury information in their novel-sized terms of service revisions have been a sore spot for some time. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Nothing new

Just about every contract these days have arbitration clauses.


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
said by Dogfather:

Just about every contract these days have arbitration clauses.
Of course you usually agree to that BEFORE you sign up not after they have you locked in with your money and then tell you "oh by the way...". I am sure it does work well for Verizon this way.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

kherr
Premium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL
reply to Dogfather
Wasn't that clause struck down by the courts when other telcos (ATT anyway) tried to sneak it in ???


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to Dogfather
True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to Dogfather
True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shorter than a few thousand pages.


rit56

join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
reply to Dogfather
so you're saying it's ok for corporations to screw customers or are you just commenting that everyone does it these days which would seem that a return to regulation would be a welcome thing for consumers especially now that the economy is collapsing, the dollar is about worthless and inflation is pretty bad.... with the recession we are now in maybe the corporate apologists on this site are ready to admit that some government regulation and over site is good. Alan Greenspans deregulate and let the market regulate itself sure was a good idea. did anyone here notice last week we officially became the number 2 economy in the world ? the EU is now number one.


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

Software

Software does this all the time. You go to the store, buy X software, come home, and then you have to agree to whatever.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
reply to rit56

Re: Nothing new

How are customers getting screwed? By not being able to get titanic and totally unjustified jury awards? And Verizon's arbitration clauses have zero to do with our horrid trade policies, Chinese currency manipulation and people borrowing more to buy a house than they could afford to pay back.


cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

Bingo!

karl, you put it right: "...truly exceptional technical service, marred by typical incumbent phone company contract legalese and sub-standard billing support."

Class action suit coming up.

Verizon's "non-arbitrating" clause opens that door. You can't provide a service, install it and then qualify the bundle price AFTER without full disclosure.

"our way or the highway" is narrow-dysfunctional thinking. And yes, their billing system is the ultimate bureaucracy!


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit
reply to ptrowski

Re: Nothing new

said by ptrowski:

True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages.
Where are you getting that the agreement is a few thousand pages?

A 2,000 word service agreement isn't unusual in the slightest and has to be there, like arbitration, to combat the litany of bloodsucking ambulance chasers.

Blame the bloodsucking lawyers for these hoops, not Verizon. Hell, I have to wait 30 seconds to get to my Acura's navi screen because of blood sucking lawyers who would sue Acura if some dumbass drove into a lake.

Meanwhile she was told ahead of time that to get the deal she would have to go online and read the agreement.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to Dogfather
Wait, so you're saying it's OK for a company to not disclose a contract that you have with them until after you've agreed to it? Contract law generally requires you to know what you're signing for the contract to be enforcable.


hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1
reply to gatorkram

Re: Software

said by gatorkram:

Software does this all the time. You go to the store, buy X software, come home, and then you have to agree to whatever.
Still doesn't make it right.
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people.


rit56

join:2000-12-01
New York, NY

1 edit
reply to Dogfather

Re: Nothing new

Verizons corporate policies of "it's ok" to screw customers and deny them due process contributes heavily to the overall problem of commerce here in the United States and the overall problem of the "greed is good" philosophy. it's not good when it wrecks an economy like it has done here. how can you say it's ok for a corporation to screw customers? why are they afraid of full disclosure prior to signing up customers? you don't think that's wrong and after locking the customer into an unfair contract they should not be allowed to sue the corporation or ask for their money back without a termination fee? you obviously either work for Verizon or a lobbyist. a telecom company is no different than a lender if it screws people.


dispatcher21
911 Where is your emergency?

join:2004-01-22
united state
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit
reply to kherr
I also thought that a federal court stated that arbitration clauses were invalid.

Edit: Here is one story I found on the court case »www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2···ion.html I am sure there are more.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to Dogfather
This isn't anything new, however, you typically have

A) Blood/money thirsty lawyers "for the consumer"
B) Greedy corporations that want to have their cake and eat it too.

I see this more in the health insurance industry than telco.
Eg. Kaiser Permanente (probably others as well) have arbitration clauses.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Dogfather
Lets get some facts straight.

First and foremost it is the courts that should decide if a case has merit or not. If it doesn't, then it should be tossed. EVERY lawsuit should be reviewed by a panel and have the "Duh!" factor applied to it before even considering any evidence to allow it to proceed.

Second, if a company wants to do it then there are 2 things for sure. First, it hurts the consumer more than them. Second, it adds to their bottom line.

Third, companies like Verizon have a full time staff of lawyers that are paid regardless of whether or not they are sued.

Fourth, companies like Verizon use arbitration because it restricts the consumer's right to bring a true hearing against them which would be public record and put the consumer on a somewhat even playing field.

Lastly, companies like Verizon use arbitration because they know without question they will win virtually every case.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to Dogfather
Sorry, I meant words, my bad.
2000 words I think is a bit long as is 7000.

You have to wait 30 seconds? Mine in my Nissan comes up in 10 seconds.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
reply to vpoko
said by vpoko:

Wait, so you're saying it's OK for a company to not disclose a contract that you have with them until after you've agreed to it? Contract law generally requires you to know what you're signing for the contract to be enforcable.
You can't agree to a contract you haven't agreed to.


jimbo48

join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA

Verizion et al

A single client could not afford to bring a corporation like Verizon to court to sue because of the massive legal fees involved and the endless ability of lawyers under retainer or on staff at Verizon to file delay after delay wearing down the individual. A Class action or a suit brought on by a State AG would be more successful as it would benefit the public. Forcing a client to sign a contract without revealing the complete terms of the contract or hiding the terms of the contract by deception is illegal and any terms are unenforceable.Problem is you can't get a Verizon rep to sign a complete contract when its on-line or over the phone and its all to easy to alter the facts electronically to cover up the illegal business practices. Corporate America has sunk to a new low in terms of ethics and legality. They just "assess the business risk" and make decisions on the risk of negative revenue flow and to hell with it being legal or not.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 edits
reply to Skippy25

Re: Nothing new

Let's get some facts straight, juries, not courts decide awards and that is why corporations have to have arbitration.

Arbitration doesn't mean immunity or automatic victory for corporations. It just means that the chances of avoiding a multi million dollar payout for something stupid like losing a notebook is far less likely.

To some here at DSLR, anything short of $50 million for a fried laptop is the corporation screwing over the customer.

This »www.informationweek.com/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
reply to ptrowski
Sure seems like 30 seconds but if I counted it off it's probably 15 or 20. Damn lawyers. They're the scourge of the Earth.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to Dogfather
How about that study that showed that Comcast wins 97% of their arbitration cases? Remember, the arbitator is NOT neutral, they're hired by the company. If a high enough percentage of cases don't go their way, they can be replaced. That's not what arbitration is supposed to be.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
Just because Comcast won doesn't mean they weren't justified in winning 97% of the time and it depends on what is defined as winning. I would like to see that study if you have a link to it.

And arbitration is a far better solution than having a subscriber funded bottomless trough for the bloodsucking lawyers.

I'm no fan of corporations, I just hate the blood sucking vampire lawyers who are ruining this country.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
The study is here »www.citizen.org/documents/Final_wcover.pdf and it was 94%, not 97 - my mistake.

I have no problem with mandatory arbitration - if the company handling the arbitration doesn't have a relationship with either party.


CConverse

join:2006-01-31
Syracuse, NY
reply to dispatcher21
Who cares if there are arbitration clauses anyway? Most ISP TOS basically remove all responsibility from the companies as far as honest service provision and billing goes. Even if you tried to sue them, you'd lose because the companies' TOS states that if (insert complaint here) occurs, It's not their fault and the end user is responsible. If there even is an anti-arbitration clause, it's probably put in there to stop the whiners from wasting everyone's time and money.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
reply to vpoko
I wonder who funds that think tank.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
Why don't you spend some time wondering who funds the arbitrators? And how can an arbitrator that's paid BY a company be neutral when handling that company's disputes?


HarleyYac
Lee
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2

Hummmm

I'll sue for the No Sue

Lee

KraziJoe

join:2006-09-08
Limington, ME
reply to Dogfather

Re: Nothing new

said by Dogfather:

This »www.informationweek.com/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.
Verizon will fix my notebook?


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

3 edits
reply to vpoko
said by vpoko:

Why don't you spend some time wondering who funds the arbitrators? And how can an arbitrator that's paid BY a company be neutral when handling that company's disputes?
Cause I know who funds them (arbitrators) and its' easy to be neutral.

In my business I pay my worker's comp auditor, ISO auditor, and a few others and they tell me to fix stuff and I don't fire them for it.

Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story.