republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Exposing Verizon's FiOS Fine Print Trickery » Nothing new
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
« Verizion et al  
AuthorAll Replies

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

reply to Dogfather
Re: Nothing new

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.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP


2 edits
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.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA

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
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP

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
Jamaica Plain, 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.


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


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, 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?

KraziJoe

join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA
·Comcast

reply to Dogfather
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?


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP


3 edits
reply to vpoko
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.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP


1 edit
reply to KraziJoe
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/


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA

reply to Dogfather
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.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP

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.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA

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?


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling.
Forums » Exposing Verizon's FiOS Fine Print Trickery« Verizion et al  


Wednesday, 02-Dec 11:28:33 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [159] Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
· [71] Latest Consumer Reports Survey Not Kind To AT&T
· [69] Baltimore To Ban Lazy Cable Installs
· [60] Broadband Killed The Game Console
· [52] Rogers Unveils The ISP Dream Model
· [45] ACTA: Global Three Strikes
· [41] Rural Carriers Quickly Embracing Fiber
· [36] Graduate Student Unveils Sprint's GPS Sharing With Feds
· [35] Charter Exits Chapter 11
· [33] AT&T Top Lobbyist Cicconi Has His Feelings Hurt
Most people now reading
· Am I the only one that loves to work in IT? [No, I Will Not Fix Your #@$!! Computer]
· So I found a gold mine... [World of Warcraft]
· Data Usage Meter Launched [Comcast HSI]
· Options if ACTA is ratified [TekSavvy]
· Need a better layout.. [Home Repair & Improvement]
· LFM Overkill [World of Warcraft]
· [Newsgroups] Newzleech down? [Filesharing Software]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· A little freaky, not sure if its legit. [Spam, Scam and Phishbusters]
· PVP in wow today [World of Warcraft]