dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31
share rss forum feed
« This guy is an idiot
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next
This is a sub-selection from O.k. stuff like this has to stop


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 recommendations

reply to moonpuppy

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

said by moonpuppy:

Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.

The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/

Expand your moderator at work


DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·ViaTalk

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

said by FFH:

said by moonpuppy:

Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.

The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.

It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS.
--
They Live... We Sleep...

“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.


chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA
reply to FFH

I support that. Moreover imagine I am unfairly suing you for molesting mr in court which I loose . Then imagine u can't sue me back for frivolous litigation.

Or maybe something more in line with AT&T, I stop providing tutoring to your kids because u sued me for dog bite when u taunted him. Fair and square and I don't see anything wrong with that!


moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to DaveDude

said by DaveDude:

said by FFH:

Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.

It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS.

BINGO! It is retaliatory and strong arm.
Expand your moderator at work


pjcamp

@comcastbusiness.net
reply to FFH

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

The difference is that negotiations are over. The court has already issued a decision and the case is therefore settled unless the guy voluntarily wants to reopen it. AT&T can appeal the decision but until an appeal is granted, the decision stands. This sort of thing does happen all the time in legal proceedings PRE-TRIAL. This is post trial. I agree. This action crosses the line into extortion.

Expand your moderator at work


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to FFH

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

They can probably cancel his service, either at the end of his contract or because he admittedly violated the TOS by tethering, but "meet with us or we'll cancel your service" might well fall under the crime and tort of extortion.

What's more serious for them is the PR hit. They obviously did not want him going to the AP with their threat.



Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3

said by vpoko:

What's more serious for them is the PR hit.

Like they ever cared about that.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

Of course they do, else they wouldn't have asked him not to disclose the letter.



Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3

said by vpoko:

Of course they do, else they wouldn't have asked him not to disclose the letter.

No, that's standard procedure.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

It's standard procedure that exists due to PR reasons.



doghob3

@comcast.net
reply to Anon

He never said anything useful to begin with smart one! READ!



Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3
reply to vpoko

said by vpoko:

It's standard procedure that exists due to PR reasons.

I think it's more for legal and not PR.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH

I think their liability would be limited to any consequential damages stemming from the disconnect, such as if the cell phone number were used by a salesperson and the disconnection precluded porting to a different carrier (the lost revenue of sales).

As we all know, just because some escape clause may be buried in a contract doesn't mean it would be enforceable.

And all AT&T needs is to get a judge who has crappy AT&T service to refuse to enforce arbitration and get it get in front of a jury of people with crappy AT&T service.



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Anon

No it doesn't. People getting pissed about AT&T (like I did) but staying with them anyway (like I did) are the ones who propagate these practices. I can cry until I'm blue in the face, but so long as I keep cutting checks I have no one to ultimately blame but myself.

If EVERYONE who complained would cancel for change in terms of service (thereby avoiding the ETF) they wouldn't pull this crap.

Simply put, AT&T will do this stuff so long as subs tolerate it.



Kristopher
Tarquin
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tyrinaria
kudos:4

3 recommendations

But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.
--
Play DSLr Mafia: »Pub Games



Rambo76098

join:2003-02-21
Columbus, OH
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
reply to FFH

Threatening to breach a contract IS NOT just doing business. Just because they're mad that he won in small claims court (which he has the right to take them to BY LAW), does not give them any legal reason to not meet their obligations under the contract. In fact, if they did terminate, he would have grounds to sue for breach of contract and seek recoupment of damages.



Steve B
Premium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA
reply to Kristopher

said by Kristopher:

But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly it! Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either. Its easy for the corporate kiss asses to make such judgements because they don't feel affected the way regular consumers do.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to FFH

Exactly. They should have disconnected his service for just going to small claims court. He was trying to sue them, against what he signed in a contract with AT&T, and thus, he doesn't deserve AT&T service.



vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

I assume you're being sarcastic, but suing AT&T in small claims court is expressly allowed by the TOS.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

I'm not. In the contract that HE SIGNED, AT&T has the right to manage their network. He has no legitimate complaint against AT&T. If he didn't like the contract, he shouldn't have signed it, and should have gotten service with another carrier.



vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

In the contract he signed, AT&T explicitly gave him the right to file grievances in one of two ways, at his discretion: arbitration or small claims court. Whether he had an actionable claim was up to the court to decide. Incidentally, it decided that he did.


en103

join:2011-05-02
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to skeechan

Well... if he left, he'd have to pay AT&T ETF. So either way, he could do ok.

1. AT&T cancels service (leave without paying ETF)
2. AT&T goes to court and makes a media spectacle - it may cost him, but I'm sure that a Gloria Allred or other public defender would assist in smearing AT&T.


etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
reply to skeechan

said by skeechan:

And all AT&T needs is to get a judge who has crappy AT&T service to refuse to enforce arbitration and get it get in front of a jury of people with crappy AT&T service.

Which is more than 97% of their subscribers.


TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD
reply to Kristopher

+1. Add to that the fact that unless you jump ship from ATT to Tmobile, you'll have to dump your cell phone hardware and get butt-humped long term when you sign a new 2-year agreement or get butt-humped short term and buy one unsubsidized.
--
"My weakness is that I care too much"



FutureMon
Ach Du Lieber
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA
reply to FFH

It would be interestingly funny if it is his only phone service; so they'd effectively be cutting him off from emergency 911/lifeline services by cancelling his service.

- FM


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Steve B

said by Steve B:

Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either.

Sure it is; nobody NEEDS a smartphone. People WANT them. When did we forget the difference between NEEDS vs. WANTS? Hell, plenty of people manage to scrape by with no cell phone at all while managing to live meaningful and productive lives without being reachable 24/7.

And before you say that some people NEED them for business, well in that instance your employer really ought to be paying for your service. If they are then you don't really have any grounds to complain about the carrier. My best friend is on AT&T and loathes them but given the alternative of paying for his own service vs. his employer picking up the tab he's happy to be with AT&T.


FLATLINE

join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY
reply to vpoko

I don't believe its att's call whether or not he can sue. People have rights and its your right to sue. Only the Judge can decide if the suit is worthy or not. Att can put whatever they want in their TOS. But that doesn't necessarily mean squat.