 DogfatherPremium 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 | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  kherrPremium join:2000-09-04 Collinsville, IL | Wasn't that clause struck down by the courts when other telcos (ATT anyway) tried to sneak it in ??? | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  | | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | 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. | |
|
 |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 1 edit | 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Nothing new 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 | |
|
 |  |  |  | | 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 2 edits | 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  vpokoPremium join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  vpokoPremium join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new I wonder who funds that think tank. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  vpokoPremium join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA | Re: Nothing new 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? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 3 edits | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  vpokoPremium join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA | Re: Nothing new said by Dogfather: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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  vpokoPremium join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA | Re: Nothing new said by 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. 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? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new I would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Verizon will fix my notebook? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | 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.  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  CheesePremium join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL kudos:1 | said by Dogfather: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. "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." | |
|
 |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 | 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 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
|
 |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  vpokoPremium join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Nothing new 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. | |
|
 |  |  |  rit56 join:2000-12-01 New York, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | 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. | |
|
 gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 | 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 | |
|
 |  hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA kudos:1 | 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. | |
|
 | | 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! | |
|
 | | 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. | |
|
 |  EPS join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA | Re: Verizion et al The problem is that class action lawsuits rarely give any real aid for those who they are supposed to- companies can usually get away with silly things like $10 coupons (so customers spend more at their stores!), just as long as the class-action lawyers get their millions. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Verizion et al In retrospect you are correct. Face it the legal system was designed by and for lawyers so tha tthey can enrich their private wealth. The honest lawyer went out with "To Kill a Mockingbird". Most lawyers I've met are so pompous and full of themselves that its tough to be around them for any length of time. | |
|
 |  |  | | Too true!!! | |
|
 |  | | ...and all Corporations are following suit. We have become a country of greed. Seems that all (or most)have the ethic 'do it anyway for as long as you can get away with it...here in the US the odds are that you won't be punished'.
I've watched the changes for the past 70 years. | |
|
 HarleyYacYacoPremium join:2001-10-13 Allendale, NJ kudos:2 | Hummmm I'll sue for the No Sue
 Lee | |
|
 | | Fios Deceptions? I am amazed at all this crybabying. Verizon is offering the best broadband connection in the world bringing fiber to peoples' homes and we get this trivial nonsense! After having endured Comcast and its ever spiralling costs I got a far better, far faster connection that cost considerably less. You never had it so good. | |
|
 |
 |  | | Re: Campaign contributions return many benifits to Telcos.
Wow, i can't believe some of the comments left here.
For those of you who are more than willing to do as you are told, you are my prime target in my future business. It is people like you that allow corporations such as Verizon, to continue to do as they please, and on top of it, profit massively from your lack of intuition or common sense.
Verizon is not offering anything new to the market. They are just offering a technology that has long existed, which we have been depraved of for far too long.
You people will be my target demographic... I like to call you "Lemmings" | |
|
 |  |  a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY | Re: Campaign contributions return many benifits to Telcos. oh god... even more anon posts... dude, Verizon is, at the moment, the ONLY baby bell pouring billions of $$$'s and deploying FULL FTTH on a mass scale. Take your head out of the portfolio already...... | |
|
 |  |  | | said by Lemmings :
Wow, i can't believe some of the comments left here.
For those of you who are more than willing to do as you are told, you are my prime target in my future business. It is people like you that allow corporations such as Verizon, to continue to do as they please, and on top of it, profit massively from your lack of intuition or common sense.
Verizon is not offering anything new to the market. They are just offering a technology that has long existed, which we have been depraved of for far too long.
You people will be my target demographic... I like to call you "Lemmings" Gimme a break.
As much as I loathe our telephone monopolies intent, ignorance, and incompetence, to suggest that they are profiteering or scheming to "screw" their customers is ridiculous.
Verizon has taken the bait laid by the FCC and is undergoing a national forklift-upgrade of epic proportions to bring us fiber, for about $20 a month in potential additional revenue.
AT&T looked at the proposal and saw nothing but red ink - and I suspect they're right. Previous expeditions like FIOS made for a quick trip to bankruptcy court, with the shareholders taking it in the shorts.
Copper may be old, but its paid for, and it is capable of delivering incredibly high-speed services, if we desire to pay for them. | |
|
 |  | | Heck, I just got FIOS a week ago and spent the 2 months before that trying to get ANYTHING in writing, particularly the terms I was agreeing to. I was unable to get any of that until the day of install when I did a quick read of both documents with the Verizon tech waiting for me to "sign here" so he could continue and then get the heck out. This was at the very end of the install.
I still don't know what my monthly bill will be as I was quoted one thing by the first tech I spoke to and have paperwork with 2 other numbers. I'm betting it'll be the highest number quoted ($109.95) + $5 for each of 3 STBs + taxes, so somewhere in the range of 150/month. Oh yeah, no mention of an installation/activation charge, tho I understand there WILL be one.
I think Verizon would still get the subscribers if they disclosed the terms in advance, and it would be much better for them PR wise to do so. As for arbitration, that's standard now in contracts. Legally binding is another question altogether. | |
|
 | | uhhh, you're in the US Business rules in the U.S.A.:
1. You can run over the customer as much as you want while the government looks the other way (ala Providian depositing your payments late, charging you a late fee or over the limit fee or both while the OCC who regulates them could care less until the media broke the story).
2. See number one except when the mass media catches you violating too many customers rights and then the government finally comes down on your business with a heavy hand (rarely happens).
Moral to the story: business owners don't get too greedy, just stay moderately greedy and you'll be fine raking in the bucks of your customers with no one to turn to. Get too greedy and p*ss off too many customers and then you're sunk. | |
|
 birdfeedrPremium,MVM join:2001-08-11 Warwick, RI kudos:8 | When you sign the contract, you get bundle prices. Until then, you're month-to-month with the right to terminate service at any time. And with the exception of the Activation Fee, you can cancel without charge on internet and TV within 30 days from installation.
Admittedly, it's a PITA to sign up then cancel, but you're within their terms of service as disclosed at order signing.
In the confirmation email sent to me the same day I ordered triple play, there was the link to read and sign. I understood clearly it was "Agree to Get Bundle Price" or "Not Agree and Get Month-to-Month".
I read (yes, I really did) and accepted the Agreement well enough ahead, that I could have cancelled the whole thing before anything was even started.
Since there are so many people who say "whatever" to TOS anyway, there are really only a relatively few who would actually need to see the TOS before agreeing to the service in the first place.
Not that much of a big deal. Well, at least until they have more of the system outages like this morning. 
Then, I guess I did agree to no recourse but to bitch and moan.  | |
|
 81399672Premium join:2006-05-17 Los Angeles, CA kudos:2 | Fine print is irrelevent People need to understand that fine print is just that, fine print. Once lawyers get on the case and get in to court, a lot of that fine print get dismissed by the judge. Verizon can put that in its fine print that it owns you for life. Obviously, no judge would ever enforce that clause. -- i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet | |
|
 |  AngeloThe Network GuyPremium join:2002-06-18 | Re: Fine print is irrelevent said by 81399672:People need to understand that fine print is just that, fine print. Once lawyers get on the case and get in to court, a lot of that fine print get dismissed by the judge. Verizon can put that in its fine print that it owns you for life. Obviously, no judge would ever enforce that clause. are you really that stupid? | |
|
 |
|