Re: Nothing new in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20190241 en Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:28:58 EDT Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:28:58 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20204605 Unreasonable : Wow.

You really have NO knowledge of contracts.
I'm no lawyer, but we all have to deal with contracts.

The stuff in the TOS is the company's stated position.

It has zero force of law unless and until it's vetted through the courts. And it's a guaranteed fact that most clauses in these formula contracts would never ever be upheld by any court.

The arbitration clause is just a scare tactic to try to dissuade you from more formal legal remedies where the balance of power shifts to the weaker party.

Your best protection is to agree without ever reading the documents.

Since this is common practice, and the writers of these contracts know this, and take steps to promote keeping the other party in the dark, the odds of them ever being able to enforce any of it are remote.

Having the contract online further advances the consumer's position. Normally, both parties would have the opportunity to edit the contractual documents until a satisfactory 'meeting of the minds' is reached.

With an after the fact 'agreement' presented in a way to make negotiation impractical, I have no doubt that any court would toss it with a quickness.

If I were ever in a dispute, I would simply take the position that the agreement was entered into under duress, there was no meeting of the minds, and that it's null and void.

I would decline any arbitration attempt and proceed with civil action unless the other party were to make me whole.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20204605 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:15:30 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20194937 Cheese :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

said by ptrowski See Profile :

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.
"This was the first time she was being presented with the full contract for her new FiOS setup, and the service had already been installed and activated."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20194937 Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:53:06 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20191746 Dogfather : I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20191746 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:38:08 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20191434 vpoko :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem.
Sure it's a problem, remember Arthur Anderson? That's why we have the Sarbanes-Oxley Act now, to try to prevent auditors from getting in bed with the companies they're hired to audit. We need the same thing for arbitration.

Would you be opposed to the consumer choosing the arbitrator, with the loser paying the costs?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20191434 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:36:44 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190831 Dogfather : As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem.

No double standard. I always follow the money. Arbitration is far better that subscribers giving millions to greedy bloodsucking lawyers because the ISP blows up a notebook.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190831 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:45:05 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190760 vpoko :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story.
No, you're obviously not following the money going to arbitrators. Why can an arbitrator remain neutral, even though it's in their interest to rule towards the company that hires them, but a think tank must have an agenda influenced by the source of their funding.

Sounds like you have a double standard when it comes to following the money.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190760 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:32:26 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190660 Dogfather :
said by KraziJoe See Profile :

said by Dogfather See Profile :

This »www.informationweek.com/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.
Verizon will fix my notebook?
If they're responsible for destroying it. »www.macwork.com/2006/11/28/pics-···inferno/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190660 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:13:44 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190653 Dogfather :
said by vpoko See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190653 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:13:00 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190647 KraziJoe :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

This »www.informationweek.com/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.
Verizon will fix my notebook?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190647 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:11:17 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190603 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190603 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:00:30 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190597 Dogfather : I wonder who funds that think tank.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190597 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:59:24 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190595 CConverse : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190595 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:59:00 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190584 vpoko : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190584 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:56:13 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190513 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190513 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:42:24 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190500 vpoko : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190500 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:38:45 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190412 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190412 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:24:53 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190406 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190406 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:23:41 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190397 Dogfather :
said by vpoko See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190397 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:21:52 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190357 ptrowski : 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. :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190357 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:15:21 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190293 Skippy25 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190293 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:04:14 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190279 en102 : This isn't anything new, however, you typically have

A) Blood/money thirsty lawyers "for the consumer" :uhh:
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190279 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:01:13 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190241 dispatcher21 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190241 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:22 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190225 rit56 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190225 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:50:04 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190216 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190216 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:49:19 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190197 Dogfather :
said by ptrowski See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190197 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:46:40 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190177 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190177 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:42:49 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190157 rit56 : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190157 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:38:45 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190148 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 shorter than a few thousand pages.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190148 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:36:59 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190146 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190146 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:36:38 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190131 kherr : Wasn't that clause struck down by the courts when other telcos (ATT anyway) tried to sneak it in ???]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190131 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:31:02 EDT Re: Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190075 n2jtx :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20190075 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:46 EDT Nothing new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20189935 Dogfather : Just about every contract these days have arbitration clauses.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20189935 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:54:39 EDT