Why Comcast, AT&T Want Arbitration New report finds outfits almost always rule against you... As we've recently mentioned, both AT&T and Comcast were slapped down by the courts for trying to include language in your terms of service that would limit your legal rights. Both companies tried to force consumers to take place in arbitration instead of having their grievances heard in a court of law. Why? Obviously the arbitration companies are going to be more loyal to their clients than to you, but a new report by Public Citizen shows just how loyal they are. The report shows that one arbitration outfit frequently used by credit card companies ruled in favor of its corporate clients 95% of the time, if not more: 
The report focuses on the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the go-to arbitration forum for the credit card industry and a major player in the California arbitration business. Between Jan. 1, 2003, and March 31, 2007, arbitrators working for the Minneapolis-based NAF ruled for businesses in 95 percent of the California cases examined. In fact, 90 percent of the NAF cases were handled by just 28 arbitrators, who awarded businesses $185 million. One arbitrator handled 68 cases in a single day – an average of one every seven minutes, assuming an eight-hour day – and ruled for the business in every case, awarding 100 percent of the money requested. Of course, that's not what the National Arbitration Forum website tells consumers who are trying to understand the process. The site soothes consumers by noting that "a 2003 American Bar Association study of employment arbitration found that claimants prevailed more often and received larger awards in arbitration than in litigation." Sure thing. The complete report can be found here (pdf).
|
  Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | What did you expect? Is anyone really surprised? They find in favor of the company that's paying them. Who would have thought? | |
|  |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: What did you expect? Kaiser Permanente of CA has the same thing in their health insurance.
And they get _much_ more $$$$ per year out of you and the company you work for, even if you never step foot inside.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | No surprise here.... "A new report by Public Citizen found that one arbitration company frequently used by credit card companies ruled in favor of its corporate clients 95% of the time or more"
No surprise here. The companies are paying for the arbitration. They know who butters their bread, so to speak.
Kudos to Public Citizen for putting it out in the open, and good news story.
Someone needs to put these so called arbiters into the public eye, and kill their credibility....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | Wait for it...... Soon the pro-business fanboys (Comcast and ATT) will be here claiming this keeps costs down and if you don't like it, go use someone else.
I can tell you arbitration means NOTHING. My parents tried to go to arbitration with some guy over the sale of their house. Guy put down $3000 deposit and has still not bought the house. He was in default of the contract and we requested the deposit as stipulated in the contract. He signed for the certified letter telling him about the arbitration but simply ignored it. Now we have to get a lawyer and sue him the old fashion way.  | |
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Wait for it...... said by moonpuppy:I can tell you arbitration means NOTHING. He signed for the certified letter telling him about the arbitration but simply ignored it. Now we have to get a lawyer and sue him the old fashion way. So, why the big problem with arbitration. Don't like it, then sue anyway. Of course your chances in court are even less than in arbitration.
»www.adrforum.com/rcontrol/docume···oung.pdf
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Wait for it...... said by Linklist:So, why the big problem with arbitration. Don't like it, then sue anyway. Of course your chances in court are even less than in arbitration. So now you are a lawyer?
Explain your position?
Now that you edited your post, care to explain the differences in a 2004 study you posted and the 2007 study posted in this news item. | |
| | | | | You say what is the big deal, the process is supposed to be fair and unbiased. When you have the arbitrator getting paid by the corp then it is a big deal. When will people realize that more things i.e. utilities (and yes that includes cable internet and telecom industry) should be nationalized. Anything that becomes an integral part of the social system gets taken over by the society it is serving. There are a few companies controlling all the information telecoms, cable, satellite, paper media, and radio. We should have heavy regulation at least. | |
| | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Sure, but if the companies had their way you'd be barred from suing. I guess for once you're in agreement with consumer advocates and in disagreement with the companies that are trying to take away the right to sue? | |
| | |  HFB1217The WizardPremium,ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-26
Camelot
kudos:2 | Can't take it to a lawyer the contract for arbitration with the company has you sign/agree to is that the only recourse is the arbitration and prohibites law suits and class action suits as well.
If you decline to/sign or agree they terminate your account or service for failure to accept the contact's TOS.
--
****aka The WIZARD **** A Founding member Seti BBR Team Starfire**** | |
|
|  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | That's different because you still have access to the courts. What the big businesses put in their consumer contracts is a provision for binding arbitration with no other option. Any access to the regular judicial system is explicitly removed, even to dispute the arbitration clause itself.
First it was credit card companies, now cable and telephone companies, tomorrow all kinds of businesses. The contracts are non-negotiable. So anyone who's not rich enough to have alternatives is subject to whatever terms they want to impose. | |
| | | | | Re: Wait for it...... said by swhx7:First it was credit card companies, now cable and telephone companies, tomorrow all kinds of businesses. The contracts are non-negotiable. So anyone who's not rich enough to have alternatives is subject to whatever terms they want to impose. Soon, it will be every company will demand mandatory arbitration. There will be no alternatives and this will set a dangerous precedent.
My guess is most people don't realize that ALL the court TV shows (People's Court for one) are NOT courts but binding arbitration. There is no appeal. There is no recourse. You lose, that's it. | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you.
For example, wrongful termination, harassment, violations of labor laws, etc etc they make you sign a document agreeing you will never ever sue and will always use binding arbitration.
Tell me, when a citizens legal rights to remedy have all been removed, what is left? Only the illegal ones. And of course those make the person a "Criminal/Terrorist."
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Wait for it...... said by KrK:My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you. Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review.
I.E. Civil contracts are null and void when the conflict with codified laws. | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Wait for it...... True. I've heard somewhere you can't sign your legal rights away. Sorta. I think it would just make the case more expensive, and a larger legal bill, because you'd have to not only prove your case against the employer, but overturn their arbitration agreement as well.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Wait for it...... said by KrK:True. I've heard somewhere you can't sign your legal rights away. Sorta. I think it would just make the case more expensive, and a larger legal bill, because you'd have to not only prove your case against the employer, but overturn their arbitration agreement as well. DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!!!!!!!!!
It's only a mere roadblock to those companies that have deep pockets and lawyers on retainer.  | |
|
| | | | | | "Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review."
Actually, this is not wholly correct. Enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements in employee contracts can typically survive judicial review, and has been enforced in cases of discrimination, including age, sex, and disability.
It depends more on the wording than anything else, as well as state where the suits are filed. See this article for more detail.
The arbitration companies will say that the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supports arbitration. What the EEOC supports is post-dispute arbitration processes, willing entered into by both parties after the fact, and with protections in place to ensure the process is fair and impartial.
The EEOC does NOT support binding mandatory arbitration agreements, which is what the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 would eliminate.
| |
| | | | | | | said by tkdslr:said by KrK:My employer has already forced all employees under duress (Think Choice: You choose to agree, or you choose to find yourself another job) to agree to binding arbitration for every possible dispute and violation they commit on you. Those contract terms are unlikely to survive judicial review. I.E. Civil contracts are null and void when the conflict with codified laws. Tell that to the guy who tried to sue Gateway over a non functioning computer. The courts upheld their arbitration clause that required him to send his case to an arbitration company in Paris France (!!!) with a $2000 payment.
The arbitration clauses usually also forbid you to join or file a class-action suit so if the company cheats everyone out of a relatively small amount, you have no recourse whatsoever.
I remember the AT&T Wireless arbitration clause ... you are forbidden to sue or join a class action but AT&T had the right to choose whether to sure or use arbitration. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Wait for it...... said by TheBigCheese:Tell that to the guy who tried to sue Gateway over a non functioning computer. The courts upheld their arbitration clause that required him to send his case to an arbitration company in Paris France (!!!) with a $2000 payment. O.k. post a link to this case. This would almost certainly not hold up since the arbitration is in another country. | |
|
| | | said by moonpuppy:Soon the pro-business fanboys (Comcast and ATT) will be here claiming this keeps costs down and if you don't like it, go use someone else. I can tell you arbitration means NOTHING. My parents tried to go to arbitration with some guy over the sale of their house. Guy put down $3000 deposit and has still not bought the house. He was in default of the contract and we requested the deposit as stipulated in the contract. He signed for the certified letter telling him about the arbitration but simply ignored it. Now we have to get a lawyer and sue him the old fashion way. i haven't heard that before about selling a house, what i do know is the deposit he left would be forefitted (you keep it), why waste the time and money on someone when you know your not going to get it. keep the 3000 and be done. But then again it does depend if he signed the papers and everything, but then agian most contracts give the buyer a certain amount of time to get out but they won't get there deposit back | |
| | | | | Re: Wait for it...... said by LowRider:i haven't heard that before about selling a house, what i do know is the deposit he left would be forefitted (you keep it), why waste the time and money on someone when you know your not going to get it. keep the 3000 and be done. But then again it does depend if he signed the papers and everything, but then agian most contracts give the buyer a certain amount of time to get out but they won't get there deposit back The problem is the buyer still has to sign a paper "releasing" the deposit. The buyer doesn't want to lose $3000 so he won't sign the release and his agent can't release it without his consent. He can hold it until arbitration rules or a court rules. He already offered $2000 but we said no. Now his agent is going after him for $6000 because of the time and effort spent on getting him financing we he never completed. | |
|
 CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
 ·Suddenlink
| There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less Most of these cases (and I've looked over quite a few in my years) are people who won't pay their bill or back fees owed and figure they can get some money knocked off it in arbitration. They don't.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | | | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less How many of them actually show up? I wonder how many of these cases did the people actually bother and show up? | |
| | |
2 edits | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less None moon. 100 percent of people want to lose their case. Hence, it's safe to assume no people showed up in order to allow the companies to prevail every time.
As for arbitration, these companies have to give you the ability to opt out I imagine. It's called reading the contract. Therefore, if you sign up for one of these, be sure to make it known in writing you do not wish to be obligated to use arbitration. You'll know the result, before it happens, obviously. | |
| | | | | | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less said by jc100:None moon. 100 percent of people want to lose their case. Therefore, we all know your logic and inability to reason. Hence, it's safe to assume no people showed up in order to allow the companies to prevail every time. Give me a break. No one can ever take moon seriously. His comments are beyond the realm of reality. Your cluelessness never ends.
What I proposed was a valid question. Many people don't show up for court when they have a traffic ticket. They don't think that a bench warrant will be issued but it does happen. Judge went through cases like that many times and it would be the same sentence; "Defendant is FTA, bench warrant issued. NEXT" Happens in civil cases too.
said by jc100:As for arbitration, these companies have to give you the ability to opt out I imagine. It's called reading the contract. Therefore, if you sign up for one of these, be sure to make it known in writing you do not wish to be obligated to use arbitration. You'll know the result, before it happens, obviously. Try again. Comcast only allowed you to opt-out IF you were already a customer and you only had one month to do it. New customers are opted-in automatically. Don't like it? Don't sign up for Comcast.
Take a peak at your next new car contract. They won't let you sue them either. »www.remarsuttonassociates.com/el···tion.htm
Maybe you should read what I say instead of making your baseless assumptions as you usually do. Nice to know I live rent free in that empty skull of yours. | |
| | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less It does NOT happen in civil cases, the defendant is not compelled to appear in a civil case, they will just have a default judgement issued against them. Same with a speeding ticket, if you don't show you automatically fail to prevail. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less said by vpoko:It does NOT happen in civil cases, the defendant is not compelled to appear in a civil case, they will just have a default judgement issued against them. Same with a speeding ticket, if you don't show you automatically fail to prevail. My point exactly. If these people don;t show up for arbitration, the arbiter can get rid of cases in 7 minutes simply by default.
And people are compelled to show up for civil cases. Subpoenas are issued for a reason.  | |
| | | | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less said by moonpuppy:My point exactly. If these people don;t show up for arbitration, the arbiter can get rid of cases in 7 minutes simply by default. Didn't your point have something to do with bench warrants, which aren't issued for defendants in civil cases?
said by moonpuppy:And people are compelled to show up for civil cases. Subpoenas are issued for a reason. Witnesses can be compelled to testify and brought to court on a bench warrant if need be, but parties involved in the case (even if they're also witnesses) are not, they would simply have a default judgement issued against them. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less said by vpoko:Didn't your point have something to do with bench warrants, which aren't issued for defendants in civil cases? What I meant was people that do not show up for civil cases or arbitration have their cases decided immediately and the judge can dispose of the case quickly. When a person doesn't show up for traffic court, the judge issues a bench warrant and is done with the case rather quickly. The article was stating how a judge could go through cases at a rate of 1 every 7 minutes.
said by vpoko:Witnesses can be compelled to testify and brought to court on a bench warrant if need be, but parties involved in the case (even if they're also witnesses) are not, they would simply have a default judgement issued against them. So can claimants to a case since they themselves are witnesses. If you intend to sue someone, and intend to question them, you can make them show up. | |
| | | | | | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
2 edits | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less said by moonpuppy:said by vpoko:Didn't your point have something to do with bench warrants, which aren't issued for defendants in civil cases? What I meant was people that do not show up for civil cases or arbitration have their cases decided immediately and the judge can dispose of the case quickly. When a person doesn't show up for traffic court, the judge issues a bench warrant and is done with the case rather quickly. The article was stating how a judge could go through cases at a rate of 1 every 7 minutes. said by vpoko:Witnesses can be compelled to testify and brought to court on a bench warrant if need be, but parties involved in the case (even if they're also witnesses) are not, they would simply have a default judgement issued against them. So can claimants to a case since they themselves are witnesses. If you intend to sue someone, and intend to question them, you can make them show up. You cannot. The best you can do is win the case by default if they fail to show.
Nobody is required to put on a defense, you can simply agree with the claims and pay out. If you don't show, the judge does it for you. | |
|
| | | | | | Moon,
Please read this carefully. When you sign a contract, you have every right to disagree with a clause. If they don't let you opt out, you can go elsewhere. However, I can't fathom them telling you no on their service, If they do, it's their loss. Still, I would take a wild guess ANY person saying they wish to opt out and sign up for the service will be taken. Care to give it a try? | |
| | | | | | | | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less said by jc100:Moon, Please read this carefully. When you sign a contract, you have every right to disagree with a clause. If they don't let you opt out, you can go elsewhere. However, I can't fathom them telling you no on their service, If they do, it's their loss. Still, I would take a wild guess ANY person saying they wish to opt out and sign up for the service will be taken. Care to give it a try? Read what krk said.
To opt-out of a clause, you need to drop service.
Let me try and sign up for Comcast cable modem service and see if they let me drop some of their TOS sections that I don't like. Yeah, good luck with that. | |
| | | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by jc100:As for arbitration, these companies have to give you the ability to opt out I imagine. It's called reading the contract. You're so called "Opt-Out" privileges go like this. "To get the services you want/need, you agree. You can opt-out: As in opt-out of the entire contract. No Telephone/Wireless/Cable/Internet/POTS for you."
Sure you have a choice. Their way, or the highway.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| |  ArgyleDSLCute and CuddlyPremium
join:2002-07-04
Flushing, NY | said by moonpuppy:How many of them actually show up? I wonder how many of these cases did the people actually bother and show up? In many cases the arbitrator is located in a place that makes it difficult for a consumer to get there. There was one company here in NY whose arbitration firm was in Albany NY. That is a good 3 - 4 hour drive from NYC. So now, if you want to appear, you have to take a day off work and then obtain transportation to the location.
--
My heart is old, it holds my memories, my body burns a gemlike flame. Somewhere between the soul and soft machine, is where I find myself again | |
| | | | | When a case if filed in court, the individual has to be notified by a process server of the action. They don't have to appear in court, in which case the judge will make a default judgment. However, they have to be notified of the court case.
Arbitration doesn't require proof that the person has been notified of the arbitration proceedings. All that's required is that they send the notice certified or return notice receipt. This means anyone can sign for the mailing, or they don't have to sign at all -- the delivery person drops off the notice and returns a receipt that it has been delivered.
Many people aren't even aware of an arbitration proceedings until they're notified that the company is moving to compel the arbitration award in court. By that time, it's extremely difficult to get the award vacated.
Many of those '7 minute' cases are against people who didn't even know about the proceedings.
For others, they'll respond by rejecting the proceedings, under FAA law, stating there is no valid arbitration agreement. I'm not aware of any case where the arbitration company (especially NAF) has halted the proceedings until the arbitration agreement is proved in court. They continue with the proceedings despite the objection.
Many cases are brought by debt buyers, who make little effort to determine the validity of what they bought, or even if they have the correct individual. They file arbitration claims in bulk, providing data streams to the arbitration company, in a sort of shotgun approach -- more to intimidate the individuals than because they believe they will end up with enforceable arbitration awards.
All of this is covered in the report. I suggest reading it, and then consider commenting afterwards. | |
|
|  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | I was thinking something like that. You'd expect to see a very high company win rate, if for no other reason than they have proceedures in place to make sure they are following rules and agreements to the letter. The consumer/customer on the other hand doesn't, and MOST of the time is filing the dispute based on a lack of understanding of the agreement. (ie, they shouldn't have to pay charge x because it's not valid, even though it was clearly laid out in the fine print) And that's before you take into account those who just don't want to pay their bills.
There are some nasty credit card terms out there. And I'm sure these people see claims based on the same charges over and over again with them. So if they already know that the clause was followed, and that the charge is valid, I could see it only taking 7 minutes to look it over and make a ruling.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less Camelot,
While that might be true fifty percent of the time, I highly doubt EVERY PERSON in EVERY CASE is ill prepared. We all know how it works. ATT and Verizon want arbitration with a company they cherry picked to mostly rule in their favor. Seriously, give me a break. I don't k now any company that's 100 percent right and any person that's always 100 percent wrong. I could understand if it was skewed towards the company, but not this bad. | |
| | | | Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less said by jc100:Camelot, While that might be true fifty percent of the time, I highly doubt EVERY PERSON in EVERY CASE is ill prepared. We all know how it works. ATT and Verizon want arbitration with a company they cherry picked to mostly rule in their favor. Seriously, give me a break. I don't k now any company that's 100 percent right and any person that's always 100 percent wrong. I could understand if it was skewed towards the company, but not this bad. But it's not 100%, it's 95%. That would mean that 5% of the people actually won. My guess is this particular arbitrator spent the entire day looking at cases against one particular credit card company, with all of the complaints claiming the same thing. Have you seen some of the crap credit card companies put in their fine print? Just how many people do you think get screwed by the "make 1 payment 1 day late and your interest rate goes from 8% to 29%" clause? How many of them do you think file for arbitration, and how many of those claims get denied? Well, 95% of them.
All I'm saying is that credit card companies have legal departments that go over what they can and cannot do, and unless you find yourself in the odd situation where they haven't followed their own fine print, however ridiculous the fine print terms may be, you are going to lose in arbitration. (and in court, unless you can show the clause violates the law) So with that in mind, 95% sounds about right.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | | | Re: There's a reason it takes 7 minutes or less 5 percent of people winning is a very low number. I highly doubt all the cases were that cut and dry on the same issues. It seems to be that it is very well skewed. In the business world, 95 percent is a very high number. I hate to burst your bubble but, that's too high. I am sure more than 5 percent of customers had complaints that varied. Are you seriously trying to tell me that most customers had the same complaints, so they were all dismissed at once? I find that hard to believe. I don't think this service is well balanced. My opinion. | |
|
| | Comcast/AT&T One of the absolute biggest scams is how the telcos and cable companies have a stranglehold on Internet access.
They charge whatever they want. $46 a month including modem rental? No problem. It costs them a buck to deliver the service and $15 to buy the cable modem.
They make whatever rules they want up about limits on downloads.
Next, they will try to control access to websites based on payments from those websites.
The Internet is a necessity for work and for school. It's very hard to even access some government services without it. But, because of a historical phone monopolies and cable TV monopolies, congress has lined their pockets with donations and allowed this Internet duopoly that is absolutely horrible for consumers. | |
| | | | Re: Comcast/AT&T "It costs them a buck to deliver the service and $15 to buy the cable modem."
It's a thought that you're being screwed over that badly by the man, but you seem to have forgotten that Comcast and At&t are publicly traded companies and you can go look at their numbers any time you want. Upon looking up Comcast's financial highlights, their profit margin is 10.62%. (15+1)*1.1062=$17.70 Sorry, but it costs a lot more to support and deliver that internet that you use, or their numbers would be vastly different. If they're charging you $46, it's costing them 46/(1.1062)= $41.58 to provide it. This is on average, of course. The key is to remember that these are for-profit companies, and it's their duty to their shareholders to make money. In fact, if you call up your bank, you can even be one of those shareholders, and get some of that money back. | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Comcast/AT&T Of course you're basing this off of bottomline accounting, which is horribly smooted, and certainly obsfucated.
I mean they have $36B of depr fixed assets, but only 163m undepr'd? Wtf is that? They have a $1b non-op Loss, and their SGA exceeds their COGS by $3B! Just assuming those are accounting mechanisms their margin is suddenly 30%. Should it cost $1 of overhead to sell $1 of goods, ESPECIALLY when you're in a duopoly?
Lets take a look at what it costs walmart to sell ACTUAL PHYSICAL GOODS. For every $1 of "everyday low price" goods they sell, it cost them .24. Lets extrapolate that to Comcast. Their SGA by this method should be ~$2. So that adds $9B to their bottom line. Now add back the non-operaing loss, and you have $12.5 billion of profit for 2006. Which is a 50% margin. Now what is their REAL COGS. I mean, they have very little physical product. It's all 1's and 0's. I don't know how they determine that, but it sounds awfully like a software company to me.
Lets take a look at Microsoft. Now their SGA expense would support Comcasts, BUT they actually create things, which they have to pay millionaire engineers to create. Maybe it's a justification for Comcast, I dunno. The point being, that THEIR 1's and 0's cost them .25 cents per $1 of sales. Comcast's 1's and 0's cost them .38 cents per $1. So again, is it overstated.. I don't know, but scaling it back to .25 cents add's ANOTHER $3B o the bottom line. Now you have $15.5B in Net Profit, which is a 62% margin. The point being that Exxon also reports a 10% unadjusted profit margin; you know that's bullshit, and you should know this is too. | |
|
| | Verizon Wireless doing the same thing I got an updated "ToS/contract" the other day that had the same "arbitration only" garbage. They gave me until the end of the current billing cycle to cancel my accounts with no penalty if I don't agree.
I'm half tempted to do it just out of spite. | |
|  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | This is legal why? When you have little choice in the services you buy and they all contractually require arbitration, and the deck is stacked against you, how is this even legal?
--
Dogma is the problem. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | I can see the need for Arbitration The problem I see is legal cost and the need to weed out frivolous lawsuits. Unless Comcast Blew up ones house why one need to go to court. The contract is plain as day If one does not like it do not subscribe | |
| |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ | Re: I can see the need for Arbitration said by Scatcatpdx:The problem I see is legal cost and the need to weed out frivolous lawsuits. Unless Comcast Blew up ones house why one need to go to court. The contract is plain as day If one does not like it do not subscribe Except it is not "plain as day" as you'd like to believe.
These contracts are drawn up with the express purpose of confusing and befuddling anyone who doesn't have a law degree. | |
| | | | said by Scatcatpdx:The problem I see is legal cost and the need to weed out frivolous lawsuits. Unless Comcast Blew up ones house why one need to go to court. The contract is plain as day If one does not like it do not subscribe Why pay a lawyer to argue your case when you can buy the judge. | |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | I can see both sides I can see both sides... However, I bet if you had a truly independant 3rd party to do the arbitration (someone that knew all the rules, fine print of what you agreed to, etc), I bet it would still be pretty damn close to 95%. Just because the vast majority of claims would be from people not paying bills, not knowing the terms of the agreement, etc.
I've been in the shoes of the couple days late and see the interest go from 8 to 30%. This is why I tend to stay with the same company. I've had the same CC company for about 8 yrs. When this happened, I called, explained why the date was missed, talked about how long I have been with them, and it was changed back with all extra interest refunded. | |
| | | | Re: I can see both sides said by mglunt:I can see both sides... However, I bet if you had a truly independant 3rd party to do the arbitration (someone that knew all the rules, fine print of what you agreed to, etc), I bet it would still be pretty damn close to 95%. Just because the vast majority of claims would be from people not paying bills, not knowing the terms of the agreement, etc. I've been in the shoes of the couple days late and see the interest go from 8 to 30%. This is why I tend to stay with the same company. I've had the same CC company for about 8 yrs. When this happened, I called, explained why the date was missed, talked about how long I have been with them, and it was changed back with all extra interest refunded. Yeah, and didn't you just love having to beg the sonsabitches for a reprieve for being two days late in making payment to them, and being threatened with a 24-30% interest rate. Smacks of the mafia to me...BTW, you are aware that another common clause in credit agreements these days is that the late payment you make doesn't even have to be to the credit company; it can be a late payment on anything you purchase by any means whatsoever from anyone whosoever and your credit card company (all of them) can treat you as if you are in default to them and raise your interest rate to the default rate (often without a legal ceiling/cap). So, say your HMO receives your payment late, and/or doesn't post your timely payment promptly and the payment gets flagged as late. Your credit card company, totally unrelated to the HMO, can raise your interest to the highest default interest rate tier they have immediately upon finding out about the late payment to the HMO.
Many states, like California, have laws that make it illegal for a person to be required to give up their legal rights, especially when they do not know what unknown future consequence may result, to obtain lodging, goods or services, etc.. The problem is the courts have ruled that a person may VOLUNTARILY WAIVE THE PROTECTION OF SUCH STATUTES, thus defeating the purpose of such statutes altogether. In the case of most business/consumer relationships, the contract is written by the business, outrageously favors business interests, and requires the consumer to waive any rights they have under law to be protected from such egregious contract provisions as usurious interest rates, right of access to the courts, etc.. The "opt" choice is to either agree to draconian contract terms, and surrender all legal defenses available, or to do without whatever the subject of contract is; e.g., credit, lodging, telephone and/or television services, etc., etc., ad infinitum. The point of removing the ability of the consumer to seek redress from the legal system is to eliminate class-action lawsuits, and their right to punitive damages in egregious cases of business misconduct, etc. | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: I can see both sides Maybe if your credit card is from Sir Shady's Kredit Corp down the street.
The worst the majors did was called universal default (now outlawed by the fed earlier this year) in which if a credit you had WITH THE BANK was delinquent, they would flag you as delinquent with all your accounts, including your credit card.
It's not like people don't abuse the credit card companies right back anyway. These companies generally write-off 4-5% of their portfolio's EVERY YEAR, and that's on the prime portfolio's. That's probably close to $20B each year from people who abuse the system. You shouldn't be carrying a balance on your credit card anyway. If you can't afford it, and it's not an appreciating asset, you shouldn't be financing it. You're renting your productive life away for immediate gratification. | |
| | | | | | Re: I can see both sides Thanks for the unneeded, and unwarranted, credit lecture.
I have high limit credit cards with several major banks. Some I carry a balance on, others not, but none are unmanageable, nor do they carry high interest rates.
I'd be interested in your source for saying universal default has been outlawed. Last I heard, it was still in effect with most, if not all, credit card companies. If it is truly gone, hallelujah! It was a true abomination.
In any case, it is the lax and profligate policies of the credit card companies that is responsible for credit card abuse. It is their policies that cause the cost of credit to be as high as it is, because they encourage the use of credit by people who cannot afford it, or handle it responsibility. The defaults of the non-creditworthy are paid for by increased fees and interest rates to responsible borrowers. If the credit card companies would stop handing out cards to every Tom, Dick and dumb-fuck whose only qualification for credit is that (s)he has a pulse, things would be better for all.
Attached is the latest six page notice I received re a credit card account I have, but never use. The bank has bought out a few other banks in the last few years, and are now attempting to make all the various terms of account from these formally independent vendors the same for all credit card account holders. The text is self-explanatory, and illustrative of the issues under discussion.
Notice the "Default Rate", and the choice of arbitration outfit under the MANDATORY, SINGLE ARBITER arbitration clause, and the prohibition against participation in "class action" lawsuits. | |
|
| | right to sue if i had the right to sue my company i would be a multi-millionaire,that's no lie.my company was using recapped and faulty tires and the tire came off sending me and a coworker crashing 100ft off an embankment and rolling three times.i'm blessed to be alive,what did all this get me?two years of shitty workers comp and and a bad back,replaced shoulder,and defective right foot.yeah the company saved a whole lot.by the way the company was the state of California. | |
| | | It will get an overhaul... ...when hospitals start doing it. If hospitals are excluded from doing so, private practice docs (essentially sole proprietors) will start doing it. Other options include dentists, construction contractors, airlines, etc. Then the outcry will be loud enough for things to change.
The problem is that when every business I the industry does this, there is only one choice left for the consumer…submit or don’t use the entire industry. They are very well aware that uniform inclusion of arbitration provisions throughout the industry helps each and every one of them. I don’t doubt there is some collusion to move in that direction. If not, it shouldn’t take long for everyone in a given industry to realize the benefit of including such provisions. This is particularly apparent when there are few choices in an industry to begin with, such as phone and cable.
The trend is very clear. I have seen mandatory arbitration clauses in everything from credit cards, to vacation packages, to furniture companies, and it will just continue. The businesses don’t have to worry about you “going elsewhere,” once everyone else is doing it too. After all, it’s in their inclusive best interest.
There really needs to be some change in the federal arbitration act to give back some protections to consumers. Again and as will most things, this may not happen until it gets absolutely ridiculous. | |
| | | Arbitration There are assumptions about what rights you can sign away that get consumers into trouble. You can sign away a lot of things and the courts will uphold it, it just depends. Increasingly, the courts are ruling in favor of arbitration even in extreme cases where the average person would be appalled that the clause was deemed enforceable. There are far too many ways companies manage to do this, and I'm not a lawyer, so I can only comment in layman's terms.
The arbitration clause is common in all kinds of purchases, and is usually so widely used in an industry that it "should" be a contract of adhesion and unenforceable but that's not how it is working out in reality. Arbitration is very common in real estate contracts, particularly home builder contracts and home warranties. Some real estate agents also use it, etc. The trade associations promote it so for example all the builder members will use it. There are so few exceptions that consumers have little if any choice.
Another example is arbitration notices that you get after purchase which you didn't sign, see, or agree to, but they are enforced. Home warranty policies, computer/software, sports event tickets, and so on. MOST of the time the consumer will never have a dispute, so most of the time people never find out how hard it is to get out of arbitration, or how biased and expensive it can be.
Assuming a consumer is one of the tiny fraction who gets out of arbitration, then they still have to fund the lawsuit they wanted to file in the first place. Consumers just do not have a legal dept and deep pockets to fund this kind of battle.
Since arbitration is private, complaints about companies are hidden. Though CA was the exception, the other 49 states do not report, so consumers are missing a lot of important info that could help them choose more reliable companies in the first place. Gag orders in arbitration are common, too, so even the consumer with a story to tell is silenced much of the time.
There are many legal/other theories as to why you should be able to opt out, shop elsewhere, or sue anyway...and most of them aren't working anymore. Definitely opt out any time you have the chance. | |
|  shortcktWatchen Das Blinken LightsPremium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell | Re: Wait for it...... said by moonpuppy:My guess is most people don't realize that ALL the court TV shows (People's Court for one) are NOT courts but binding arbitration. There is no appeal. There is no recourse. You lose, that's it. Not a good analogy. "plaintiffs" and "defendants" on People's Court are both paid to appear on the show. Win or lose, that takes the sting out of the money part of it for both sides. In real-world arbitration both parties pay half the arbiter's fees and their own expenses up front, then the loser pays the winner's expenses after hearing, as determined by the arbiter.
said by moonpuppy:It's only a mere roadblock minor inconvenience & SOP to those companies that have deep pockets and lawyers on retainer. fixed it for you  | |
| | | | Re: Wait for it...... said by shortckt:said by moonpuppy:My guess is most people don't realize that ALL the court TV shows (People's Court for one) are NOT courts but binding arbitration. There is no appeal. There is no recourse. You lose, that's it. Not a good analogy. "plaintiffs" and "defendants" on People's Court are both paid to appear on the show. Win or lose, that takes the sting out of the money part of it for both sides. In real-world arbitration both parties pay half the arbiter's fees and their own expenses up front, then the loser pays the winner's expenses after hearing, as determined by the arbiter. Analogy still stands. Those TV courts are not real courts but arbitration dolled up for TV. Yes they get paid but they can lose real world stuff like engagement rings (saw that on People's Court years ago.) Unlike criminal court, you have to convince people to show up for arbitration.
said by shortckt:said by moonpuppy:It's only a mere roadblock minor inconvenience & SOP to those companies that have deep pockets and lawyers on retainer. fixed it for you Mere roadblock = minor inconvenience. | |
|
| | Why is this making new now? I hate to break it to you but Comcast has always had a binding arbitration policy. Don't believe me? Go back and look at some old user agreements, if you have em. They are sent out once a year. This is the same way all this news happens. Its there forever, then one particular person who has a "louder voice" than others reads about it and it becomes front page news. Same thing happened with the "Unlimited bandwidth" issue. Way to pay attention media and consumers! Way to pay attention.
--
three6ohchris | |
| BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | so how can anyone even think they can present a valid case to an arbitrator when some of these companies can't even keep their records straight?
You drop your service; return the equipment and the serial #'s are transposed so the company charges you several hundred dollars for months on end when it's their mistake.
Arbitration under the right conditions where it's a court ordered scenario might work fine. But when the companies pay for the "arbitration" service, it's not likely the consumer is going to win any of these.
Me, I'll opt out of the arbitrator nonsense and use small claims... a more even footing there, and in many states it's illegal for companies to have legal representation in the court.
--
---Barney | |
| |
2 edits | Re: so how can anyone said by BarneyBadAss:even think they can present a valid case to an arbitrator when some of these companies can't even keep their records straight? You drop your service; return the equipment and the serial #'s are transposed so the company charges you several hundred dollars for months on end when it's their mistake. Sounds to me like you had a situation where you were being told you still had equipment. What company was it through? If it was Comcast I can tell you that the "Several hundreds" you see on the bill each month aren't actual charges. They aren't included in Comcast's billing system (that the CSR uses) as part of your actual total. In essence, they are ghost charges that linger until the equipment is returned or located, then the fees are gone. Now don't get me wrong, if the equipment is never found then you are billed those fees.
When you return equipment to a Comcast location they use a bar code scanner to check it in, then they print a receipt for you. It is highly unlikely that a number was "transposed" on the serial numbers (even if they don't use the bar code scanner, because the number would only be transposed on paper, not in the billing system, which is where they would just remove the equipment from your account). If you are positive you turned it in then locate your receipt. If you don't have it then call your Comcast office and tell them you want to have the lost equipment researched. Provide them with the date (be as specific as you can) that the equipment was returned, along with how it was returned (cable store, technician). You have to remember that cable companies don't like to keep equipment just sitting around in their warehouse. They want to get it back out and make money off of it. Once it's returned it's cleaned and reissued out to a new customer. This means that the serial number (this stays with the equipment wherever it goes) is entered onto the new customers account. If it was still on your account then this would have been caught in the warehouse before it was reissued and the serial number would have been removed from your account. If by some freak accident the serial number stays on your old account and the box is issued to a new customer, the box won't work for them (it's disabled on your old account) so they will call and the issue will be investigated.
I guess what I am saying is this: if you turn in a piece of equipment, chances are that it will be removed from your account and you will not be charged for it. I can't tell you how many times I have gone over this with customers several times (and the customer arguing with me because they are positive they returned it) only for them to call me back a few days later to tell me that they accidentally packed the box into storage when they moved. "OOPS"
Moral of the story? Always get receipts... it will C.Y.A. | |
| | | BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | Re: so how can anyone Thanks for your input...
I've resolved my issue.
1. they wouldn't accept as proof their own receipt from their own company as "Proof"
2). They denied the HW was ever turned in.
3). after 60 days of this nonsense I took them to small claims court.
4). I won hands down, no if's ands or butts about it.
--
---Barney | |
|
| |
|
|
