site Search:


 
   
story category
Mouseprint Arbitration Pushes Continue To Fail
T-Mobile the latest to be stopped by the courts...
by Karl Bode Friday 25-Jan-2008 tags: legal · business · consumers · T-Mobile US
Both AT&T and Comcast were recently slapped down by the courts for trying to bury language in your terms of service that would limit your legal rights. The companies tried to force consumers to take place in mandatory arbitration instead of having their grievances heard in a court of law. This week T-Mobile was shot down by the courts for trying to do the same thing.

In T-Mobile's case, the company was trying to derail a class action lawsuit brought about by two customers who were suing the company for burying rate hikes in below the line bogus fees (among other suspect charges), according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Click for full size
Obviously arbitration companies will be more loyal to their clients than to you, but a recent report by Public Citizen showed just how loyal. The report stated that one arbitration outfit frequently used by credit card companies ruled in favor of its corporate clients 95% of the time, if not more:

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."

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
kudos:1

Nasty

Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? It just seems like the will screw you any chance they get.

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1

Re: Nasty

said by rudnicke:

Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers?
Greed.

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1

Re: Nasty

said by newview:

said by rudnicke:

Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers?
Greed.
x2
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1

Re: Nasty

so very sad....

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
Corporations are looking out for:

a) bottom line (profits)
b) corporate assets (name)
c) stock price (upper management's pay is tied to stock)

Corporations do not care about people, and in general, even their staff, if it affects any of the above items.

Don't forget, there's a flip side, where many consumers attempt to take advantage of large corporations as well. Other corp will attempt to erode 'a' and 'c', and activists will attempt to smear 'b'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

Re: Nasty

Minor correction on the first item on your list. Most corporations are looking out for short term bottom line.

This is because that growing your business slowly and steadily won't please your investors/stock holders. Also, many executives will "company hop" so they want to maximize the company's earnings while they are there. The executive doesn't care if this just sets the company up for a big crash, they'll be safely on to the next company with millions.

It would be like a pilot on a commercial jetliner trying to get his route done faster. When he saw that his speed was going to lead to the engines blowing out, he would merely strap on a parachute and jump out safely without any cares as to the dozens of people aboard (employees, stockholders) who didn't have parachutes.

Very few companies buck the trend and grow their business slow and steady. (I think Google is one.)
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Re: Nasty

True... companies are really into short term (quarterly) profits and results. Its a time vs. money equation.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
You forgot about EBITDA which is often more spoken about on conference calls. That's the real driver in the telco/cableco space these days.

said by en102:

Corporations are looking out for:

a) bottom line (profits)
b) corporate assets (name)
c) stock price (upper management's pay is tied to stock)

Corporations do not care about people, and in general, even their staff, if it affects any of the above items.
That doesn't make sense. Corporate goals vary by their business, their position within it, and their ownership.

Your statement about people doesn't make sense either, to me at least. Best talent recruiting corps will care about people until it is a position where it believes it can get the best for less in return for perceived security, if that corp is willing to emphasize profitability. Stock price valuation on the other hand is way beyond a single post discussion, but I would agree, at times Corps will care less about their people and customers in the proper circumstances (which are generally anti-consumer). Private businesses are no better (think the shady mechanic in a big city...)

said by en102:

Don't forget, there's a flip side, where many consumers attempt to take advantage of large corporations as well. Other corp will attempt to erode 'a' and 'c', and activists will attempt to smear 'b'.
A consumer taking advantage of a corporation is a david and goliath story. Has a large corporation ever been bankrupted by it's customers? More likely, large corporations have failed due to hubris and incorrect motivations like your C example. Paying the CEO on stock price at any cost is akin to paying the salesperson a commission regardless of the profitability (or loss) of a sale. Sometimes the best laid plans aren't right In either case, the CEO/Salesperson still comes out ahead in every instance...would it be possible if there wasn't such a high level of nepotism without corresponding government oversight (if the gov themselves could be freed from the same problems?).

Perhaps I'm just an old jaded MF.

JasonD

@comcast.net

approval from:
Romney2012 See Profile
fiberguy See Profile

said by rudnicke:

Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers?
Get a F-ing clue. Do you know what it's like to operate a business? Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization. I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.

Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT!

woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

Re: Nasty

No you get a F-clue....The business wouldn't be the business if it wasn't for their consumer. There are a lot of businesses that are square with the consumer, and they do just fine. Most of these companies would not have these issues if they would just listen to their customers issues and try to come to an understanding with them. The corporations would have you think that everyone is sue happy, when most of the time they just wanted someone to listen to their problem and work with them.

"Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? "

that is part of the problem. People take the business at it's word that thats what they will get and when you call them on it, it seems to disappear and you then become a trouble maker.

Peace
--
BlooMe
averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA

2 edits

Re: Nasty

Agree with woody7.
The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help.
Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Nasty

said by averagedude:

Agree with woody7.
The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help.
Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help.
Then buy it out.. You got a break up front going in to that contract.. you want out? Fork over the $100 to $200 break out and be on your way.

I don't agree or like the contracts either, but, you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play.

And again, you also have something really wrong here. You don't HAVE to take the 2 year contract.. there are month to month services and pay as you go. The difference? They don't give you all those nice things that you get when you go into an agreement. What you're also saying is that you want all the goodies and offers but with out any strings or giving anything in return.

So.. if you don't like contracts and don't want to be locked in, take a go-phone, or a virgin phone. There are choices to be made..

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1

Re: Nasty

said by fiberguy:

said by averagedude:

Agree with woody7.
The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help.
Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help.
you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play.

I disagree. These companies use contracts to avoid competition. If you lock someone into 1-2 contract, then you dont have to worry about them jumping ship to go the a less expensive provider. It is also a method of guarantee revenue of a time period. Furthermore, if these communication companies offered a good service (i.e. show up when they say they will, have a good working billing system, offer decent tech support with English speaking people), then maybe, just maybe people with stick with the company.
When a company grows into a large entity (thousands of customers), this is when service takes a nose dive.
These communication (and other)companies are notorious for sub-par service, and everyone knows that. Maybe they should work on their internal communication system first.
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: Nasty

You are ABSOLUTELY right! The contract is 'also' used to avoid competition. But, that comes on many levels as well.

On one level, customers were offer shopping one provider over the other and would jump ship every other month because of a sale. There are several factors that play into this.. one was that it costs a lot of money to gain a customer up front. It also takes them about 6 months to start breaking even on them... second, to churn a customer, it costs money that they don't make back... so yes, the contract comes to play.

Do you get a subsidized hand set? Yes.. (and yes there are exceptions) Again.. pay the break out fee and move onwards to the next provider.

If customers continued to go with the hot deal, and we know that mentality is alive and well here on this site alone, then prices would in fact sky rocket for us all. Thus, the contract.

Think about when the contract came.. When it was just the A/B systems, contracts started to come to play, BUT, they were pro-rated contracts. (ie: if you were in a 1 year, were 6 months through, the break out was $100, then you paid $50 to get out) Now that there are several carriers, they did away with that. Too many companies in the field make it even costlier for the carriers. (not making an excuse, just saying it like it is)

So now.. if a contract is what is screwing the customer, then how come people cry foul over cable and all their ill, who has no contract, when phone companies stick a contract on EVERYTHING these days and they, of all people, are the saviors?

But, in large, I do happen to agree a lot with what you say... with that said, there are MANY reasons out there to feel 'screwed'.. however, as I've said before, being "screwed" is objectionable and an opinion - only in which case the opinion *can* be wrong.

p.s. - there is still cell phones with out contracts.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: Nasty

said by fiberguy:

On one level, customers were offer shopping one provider over the other and would jump ship every other month because of a sale. There are several factors that play into this.. one was that it costs a lot of money to gain a customer up front. It also takes them about 6 months to start breaking even on them... second, to churn a customer, it costs money that they don't make back... so yes, the contract comes to play.
Using this argument, I gather you wouldn't find it offensive to walk into any store that has advertised to gain a customer to pay a "contract" to purchase something from them. Who says McDonalds doesn't spend a heaping amount of money to gain/maintain customers? Should they begin charging a minimum term of use? Customers certainly churn regularly depending on mood, food desire, location, ease of access (lines/travel distance). Perhaps we do not have enough competition? None of the competitive business can get that guarantee, can they? 6 months to break even would be a non issue if the service was excellent, or "good enough". It ain't like customers are seeing discounts for multi-year commits, unlike in other businesses.

said by fiberguy:

If customers continued to go with the hot deal, and we know that mentality is alive and well here on this site alone, then prices would in fact sky rocket for us all. Thus, the contract.
Yeah! This is why Walmart is such a friggin giant, yet doesn't really dominate the overall retail market. They are HUGE but they have yet to monopolize any but the smallest of markets (rural, if you will). Walmart sucks money out of the suburban market and passes on to the rural market, at the same time, sucking more out of the vendors that deal with them. Are there any markets that Walmart has no competition?

Does ANY mass market competitive business, other than cable and telecom, require multi-year contracts? Perhaps the mass market contracts are indicative that this isn't the competitive market it should/could be.

said by fiberguy:

Think about when the contract came.. When it was just the A/B systems, contracts started to come to play, BUT, they were pro-rated contracts. (ie: if you were in a 1 year, were 6 months through, the break out was $100, then you paid $50 to get out) Now that there are several carriers, they did away with that. Too many companies in the field make it even costlier for the carriers. (not making an excuse, just saying it like it is)
This made sense when the business was new and fairly dominated by the LECs and was priced at a buck a minute.

This also made sense when competition was created and everyone was seeking out market share at any cost.

This only currently makes sense because the carriers themselves will only allow devices they approve on their networks. The rub being, they only approve devices that they control from a sales standpoint. The "subsidy" is driven by the carriers who demand control so they can sell stuff on those devices that they have deemed ok to be on their network.

In simple terms, the business is not competitive. If the ISPs of yore required you to purchase a special modem to dial up, instead of requiring we use a Hayes compatible modem, we'd likely still be in dial up days and purchasing dial up services for 10 cent a minute to have this discussion.

said by fiberguy:

So now.. if a contract is what is screwing the customer, then how come people cry foul over cable and all their ill, who has no contract, when phone companies stick a contract on EVERYTHING these days and they, of all people, are the aviors?
A good question, but many people are contracted with Cable as well. The only free space from contracts is Telephone at this point, and that may vary from state.

Unfortunately people are people. Markets are markets.

Competitive markets provide more equal balances.

Where equals compete to sell and buy, prices tend to stabilize. Do we agree on that at least?

said by fiberguy:

p.s. - there is still cell phones with out contracts.
p.s. - you have defined the competitive market cell companies fear, it is like the carterphone decision 1.5 (2.0 if you just buy your favorite phone and activate it with your preferred carrier of the day, week, month, year with appropriate pricing incentives for commits). Crazy I know, but when will the first ballsy carrier offer contracts by individual? Scary new world that may never happen...but would in a purely competitive environment.

p.p.s. - if it weren't for government monopoly/franchising,
many in rural america didn't have tv, hence Community Antenna TV. The digital box there is no more necessary than the cellular phone to use the service, other than by carrier design.

Sounds a lot like we are in the same business. I read a lot and often disagree with you, but I respect your thoughts and do acknowledge your point of view (just don't often disagree or agree enough to bother responding).

Final thought...no matter how you cut it, the network is getting less expensive from a capex and opex perspective.

It's short term in the carrier world and long term in wall street world.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: Nasty

Ok... You're talking about a retail environment and we're talking about a service industry (communications) which is totally different. The two don't argue the same way.

Also.. I'm curious where all these cable TV contracts are coming from? Cable is well known for now requiring contracts.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: Nasty

said by fiberguy:

Ok... You're talking about a retail environment and we're talking about a service industry (communications) which is totally different. The two don't argue the same way.
Are you suggesting that we individuals are wholesale customers and can opt into individual contracts?

Communications is a retail business, predominantly.

Telephony, Cable, Satellite, Cellular, ISP....they are all retail.

They all have wholesale arms are well.

It is simple.

Examples:
Telephone companies sell wholesale to LD and CLECs.
Cable sells wholesale to religious channels and shopping.
Sat....follows cable
Cellular sells wholesale to SMS providers (american idol?)
ISP (often all of the above now) have similar deals.

said by fiberguy:

Also.. I'm curious where all these cable TV contracts are coming from? Cable is well known for now requiring contracts.
I don't understand. Your question answers itself.

If your asking about cable companies, they were started on the same monopolistic guarantees as telephone companies. They are still requesting deregulated pricing offered under the telecom act of 96 for basic service. Cable franchises and prices were originally offered at at a given rate of return for a set of basic services. The TA96 gave them freedom of return based pricing for basic services once competition hit a certain level.

Just in case I misinterpreted, cable contracts are certainly a minimum of 6 months of more depending on the market and digital upgrades are required with a modem rental, which amount to the equivalent of renting a telephone. Any box would be cheaper sold at walmart if it met cable specs. Any phone would be cheaper if sold at walmart if it met cell company specs.

For the record, I have only shopped at walmart mart 6 or 7 times in my life.

I don't think I understand your differentiation. Service are sold by barbers, goods are sold by grocers. Neither of the two require contracts as the norm, nor do the contracts necessarily equate per customer.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

Re: Nasty

I love reading what you write. It's probably the clearest analysis/argument posted in this thread.

Just a little data point for your cable contracts: Offering a rebate at the third and sixth months is the equivalent of requiring a three or six month contract to get a discounted rate. While they claim "no contracts" the reality is you pay rack rate without pretending you are in one.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: Nasty

said by RadioDoc:

Just a little data point for your cable contracts: Offering a rebate at the third and sixth months is the equivalent of requiring a three or six month contract to get a discounted rate. While they claim "no contracts" the reality is you pay rack rate without pretending you are in one.
Good point. I just go off what my 80+ grandmother's sister tells me about her comcast phone service, and lack of ability to change, and what I read on the billboards & tv adverts.

Semantics suck....
Contracts are contracts.
Rebates are rebates.
Coupons are coupons.

Mixing the three makes for interesting discussion.

Never thought I'd see the day that my grandparents would no PIC their LD (and get charged to do so at the benefit of the telco).

I'm satellite, telco, cellco. Separate and cheaper.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

1 edit

Re: Nasty

said by xsiddalx See Profile :

I'm satellite, telco, cellco. Separate and cheaper.
Indeed, me too. If bundling didn't make the providers more money they would not offer it.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by RadioDoc:

Just a little data point for your cable contracts: Offering a rebate at the third and sixth months is the equivalent of requiring a three or six month contract to get a discounted rate. While they claim "no contracts" the reality is you pay rack rate without pretending you are in one.
You REALLY love stretching things and spinning, don't you?
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

Re: Nasty

Evidently not as much as you love mindless arguing.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

2 edits
Typo.. cable is well known for NOT requiring contracts..

Additionally, the difference between a retail and a service industry is pretty clear. WalMart is retail, and Applebees is a service industry.

In order for Cable or phone to sell you something, there is a great cost involved in putting it out to you.. there is the provisioning, installation, and the entire process involved in getting that to you. They do charge either no or a little installation charge to get you going and it takes time to earn that back. Wal-Mart has a product.. a fixed price 'grab and buy it and leave with it' scheme.. They are two different things in this case.

You can argue it out and make the two look the same, however, they aren't.

Having to stay to earn your bonus over time is NOT a contract. A contract, in context of the conversation, is saying you must continue to purchase - period. Penalties for breaking out.

The "get 12 monthly credits" type of thing is a loyalty program and you can break it at anytime.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
said by fiberguy:

said by averagedude:

Agree with woody7.
The only thing I would add is that 2 year mandatory lock in contracts don't help.
Such a long contract makes you feel helpless, especially when customer support is no help.
Then buy it out.. You got a break up front going in to that contract.. you want out? Fork over the $100 to $200 break out and be on your way.

I don't agree or like the contracts either, but, you'd have to be blind to realize that the consumer played a MAJOR part in why those contracts came to play.

And again, you also have something really wrong here. You don't HAVE to take the 2 year contract.. there are month to month services and pay as you go. The difference? They don't give you all those nice things that you get when you go into an agreement. What you're also saying is that you want all the goodies and offers but with out any strings or giving anything in return.

So.. if you don't like contracts and don't want to be locked in, take a go-phone, or a virgin phone. There are choices to be made..
In all fairness, why buy out the contract? Just use the service to it's fullest potential and they might cancel you.

If you can't use the service to it's potential, a letter to the better business bureau might help. Complaints to local public service commissions might help. FCC? Small claims court? Local papers and/or news stations? Blogs? BBR? There are routes to resolve a non-functioning phone service.

Maybe the original poster didn't really have horrendous customer service issues?
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
said by JasonD :

said by rudnicke:

Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers?
Get a F-ing clue. Do you know what it's like to operate a business? Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization. I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.

Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT!
You are the one full of BS. I have run a business and never had the issues you claim to have had.

Arbitration is nothing more than buying your judge and verdict.

If a business did not try and screw over consumers day after day, this wouldn't be a problem.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Nasty

And your business is the model for everyone else? Do you have millions of customers? no... doubt it. Anyway...

When you guys sit here and throw around, loosely I might add, "business screwing over the consumer".. you often forget that it's and objectionable opinion you're speaking of, and like others said, businesses are tired of running to court at every turn because a consumer found the right greedy attorney to drag the company to court over something outright stupid and slap a six digit figure to the complaint over a 3 digit "dispute"...

It's also easy for people to say the consumer is "screwed" yet very rarely do people every say why and give real examples.

Truth be known - the consumer is not always right. Sorry, Marshall Fields... but THAT was a great marketing campaign in the early 90's that only caused major misguided entitlement issues in the world today.

**'The Customer is always right' - What they were attempting to do was to make the customer feel special by inculcating into their staff the disposition to behave as if the customer was right, even when they weren't.**

Want some good truth reading? »positivesharing.com/2006/07/why-···service/

The business sets the terms.. some consumers don't like them - go elsewhere. If you have no other choice, don't call it being screwed, instead, be smart and approach with caution moving forward.

I also operate businesses. While I do my best to take care of the customer, some people will never feel you treat them right no matter what. THERE is your "I'm being screwed" consumer.. at some point, the company just says "forget you" and gets tired of dealing with the customer.

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1
Why dont you pony up and login??

So you feel that it's ok with these companies to take advantage of their customers? Do you feel it's ok for these greedy bastards to bury rate hikes? What are these companies so afraid of? Are they worried that the courts just might be fair and find that the consumers rights are violated?
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Nasty

Last time I checked, didn't we just discuss companies like Sprint, who is one of the "we're being screwed by" corporations, who just buried a rate hike and then opened themselves up for their customer to break the contract with out penalty?

If you're in a contract, and your rates are raised, it seems you have two choices. 1) Enforce your contract with them which has been done. or 2) Break the contract and move on.

Courts already know this.. and courts also know that rates go up and don't see it as being screwed, unless they violate both 1 and 2 above.

umm

@keybank.com
In my opinion as a consumer, I would have to say if they need an arbitration company they are doing something questionable that needs explaining.

Why would anyone choose to operate a business with questionable processes?

What ever happened to "you see something you like, you buy it, your done"?
It seems like that process goes more like this:
"something you like, read the fine print, decipher fine print, consult lawyer, buy it, wait for changes, decide whether or not to keep or try another"

And yes my family have been and still are self employed running several businesses. BTW, with no fine print.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
said by JasonD :

the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent
Straw man. Here, I'll knock it down for you.

You basically assert that the costs would be higher if the corporation had to defend its business behavior in court. I reply that the customer should not have to trade their legal rights for lower costs--lower costs that are artificially low if they do not represent the true cost of providing the service. Put another way, the customer should not be forced to sell their right to sue for a couple bucks less per month on their phone, broadband or cable bill.

Maybe some business services should be non-existent if the only way they can be provided is to strip the customer of their basic commercial rights. Maybe some business models are inherently invalid and should not be subsidized at the expense of the customer's legal recourse.

Ask any decent attorney what they think about mandatory arbitration. Only the ones making money off of it think it's the grand idea you do.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
said by JasonD :

The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization.
I disagree. If your legal team is large or your require a means of "beating your customers at the head", you either have business model that is not viable without a monopolistic niche or a model that feeds off that behavior in the first place.

said by JasonD :

I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.
Could there be a reason for this that was brought on by the businesses themselves? (Or trial lawyers that can't get employed willing to gamble?) These risks need to be brought into the cost of service and/or insured against. This is not new to the 21st century. Sounds like you advocate a teenager beat his kid brother because his father beats him...ugh. Poor business model IMO.

said by JasonD :

Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT!
So our costs would be higher and we make more rational economical choices, but you'd lose. So some businesses are non existent, the world won't end. Small print contracts that protect you but leave me open makes no more sense than you accepting a small print contract from me that says no...don't like it? DON'T SELL IT!

*duh*

Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
said by rudnicke:

Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? It just seems like the will screw you any chance they get.
Which is different than what many consumers do, how?
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

1 edit

Re: Nasty

He was being sarcastic.

Sorry, wrong post. Nothing to see here.
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2
Capitalism, supply and demand, etc. Go take an economics class.
UncleDirtNap

join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
The question you should be asking is why does Congress allow this to happen?

The anti-competitive and unethical business practices that media companies and SOME cable companies are engaged in are already illegal for just about any other company to use, but they get away with it because of regulations put in place during the early days of cable that the current Democrat leadership in Congress is blocking efforts to end.

It's greed alright, but to find out who's being greedy and permitting media companies to continuously pile crap and nonsense channels on to your service and charge you for it; head to any one of the web-sites that lists campaign contributions and see who the top contributors to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton's campaigns...

TimeWarner, Viacom, Comcast etc etc.
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

Re: Nasty

You seem to have wandered out of the Red Room by accident...

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it. TimeWarner, Viacom, Comcast etc etc. are equal-opportunity lobbyists.

The situation we are currently in was set in motion by the Reagan administration. I'll take a guess and assume you won't mention that.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
Links to sources always help arguments? Care to serve some up, or are you talking smack?

said by UncleDirtNap:

The question you should be asking is why does Congress allow this to happen?

The anti-competitive and unethical business practices that media companies and SOME cable companies are engaged in are already illegal for just about any other company to use, but they get away with it because of regulations put in place during the early days of cable that the current Democrat leadership in Congress is blocking efforts to end.

It's greed alright, but to find out who's being greedy and permitting media companies to continuously pile crap and nonsense channels on to your service and charge you for it; head to any one of the web-sites that lists campaign contributions and see who the top contributors to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton's campaigns...

TimeWarner, Viacom, Comcast etc etc.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
Part of it is in fact greed.. and, part of it is to protect themselves from bottom feeding consumers looking to stick it to the company in return.

It's a two-way street.

Companies will offer their specials which we all know come with strings and terms. Yet, SOME consumers like to go for the goodies and then run while playing the next one.

It's not the major player in why these corporations are so nasty to consumers, BUT, the consumer has also played a part in why the corporations have turned and gotten nasty in return.

Don't think for one moment that a consumer won't screw the corp at any turn as well.

A real world experience.

A car wash that I go to regularly.. while standing in line I heard a customer bitching out the cashier.

Unlimited car washing clubs used to be $44.99 a month and all you got was a basic full service wash. The car wash changed the offer and now the $44.99 club is now based on a 1 year commit but also now includes 4 free hand waxes ever 3 months, a 20% discount on detail, 10% on c-store items AND now gives you a wash package which is a better wash for the same monthly cost as the old plan. BUT, that club requires a 12 month commit at 12 monthly payments based on a credit card.

They also started a new club at $24.99 a month which is only an EXTERIOR only wash which you can by monthly. You get no extras yet, you can still pay the $3 difference at the counter to upgrade to a full service wash as you chose. (You get no perks with this package)

bottom line.. the customer chewed the cashier out saying they were trying to screw the customer. She explained that everything had changed at the first of the year to the new program.. she explained that you get a lot of perks for the same price, and even went to explain that these clubs are "loyalty clubs" for frequent washers and were modified based on customer feedback. She went as far to explain that while you are buying an annual plan over 12 lower payments, you are also getting a TON more stuff in return..

His reply was "why shouldn't I get all that too? but why should I have to do a year? "You're screwing me is all"... she told me later that she's heard that a few times, though most people liked the new program and signed up for it. The other guy was pissed that his plan had been phased out and he was being screwed.

Tell me the logic in how he was being screwed? Screwed.. a loosely used word these days. Was he really screwed? No. Was he more disappointed? maybe, but more so, he felt entitled.

I think the moral is that the term "screwed" is mis-used WAY to much these days... while some people ARE being screwed, others are misguided in thinking they are screwed.

Think of the cellular contract and stuff. (not saying those are perfect) but, about 99% of people get something upfront and are put into a term. When something doesn't go right and they want out, they are told about the 'contract' and feel screwed. How are you screwed? Pay the break out fee and go. The consumer knows up front they have that against them going in..

I just don't agree with many people around here.. while I agree their is room for improvement on the corporation side, I also agree there is much room on the consumer's side as well. and yes, some people are getting the short end of the stick, that I don't disagree with.

See 9 replies to this post

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
It's legal for Corporations to lie, cheat, steal, rob, trick, defraud you, and just generally take your money at will.

However it's 100% illegal for you to try to do any of these things back to them. Neat, eh?
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
a company that provides high quality customer service doesnt need to put in little contract clauses to make it not possible to take them to court.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

digitalfreak
Premium
join:2005-12-09
Blacklick, OH

*sigh*

In the cases presented above, if T-mobile wasn't trying to screw over it's customers, they wouldn't have been sued in the first place.

birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5

Nasty

Why are all these consumers so nasty to corporations? It just seems like they get screwed any chance they get.

You know, boo hoo, my connection speed dropped from 6Mbs to 4Mbs for 35 minutes on Friday night. I have documented this outage, and if you don't give me credit for the month, and $10 off my rates for another 2 months, I'm gonna sue you. And god help you if it happens again!

And don't go calling it the "cost of doing business" either. That means that you and I pay for those losses subsidize cheats.

Credit cards, telecom services, you name it, there's people working overtime to get over on the man.

A mega-corp's gonna do what a mega-corp's gotta do.

[/sarcasm]

That's the trouble with seeing both sides of the issue. Let it happen 'til it hits me, then scream "I want a credit!"

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
iraq

Re: Nasty

What are you talking about?

The crux of your problem is stated in the first 5 words. You refer to people as CONSUMERS, not CUSTOMERS. There is a BIG difference between a 'consumer', who uses your product, and a 'customer', who buys your product. If the mega corps got back to basics, and treated people like 'customers', they wouldn't HAVE all these problems.
When is the last time you've been satisfied getting a bill fixed by comcast or verizon? Probably never. When's the last time you've been satisfied getting your bill fixed by a local company? Probably always.
The megacorps exist to FEED on the people. The real businesses work to PROVIDE for the people. That's why megacorps love this so called 'arbitration', it lets them continue to FEED on people.
The people gotta do what the people gotta do. If that means bankrupting AT&T for violation the constitution, then that's the price the megacorp pays for ignoring the law.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2

Re: Nasty

Here we go again. Big, bad, evil companies owe us something. Steal, pirate, anarchy, woo hoo.
jsouth
Jsouth

join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS

Re: Nasty

No one even mentioned stealing or piracy or whatever. The companies do owe us something. They owe us the right to be treated fairly. They cannot just take away our right to take them to court if they do not provide said service. Now I admit court should be a last resort type of thing and other attempts should be made to rectify the situation first. The courts apparently agree.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead?
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Nasty

No, the courts don't necessarily agree. The courts, in case you didn't know, really don't want to see people in them at all. If arbitration clauses were illegal, they'd have been struck down years ago. Courts actually ENCOURAGE arbitration .. ever been to court? If not, let me tell you what happens.. the judge will send you into another room with an arbitrator first before you approach the bench and plead your case.

What courts are disagreeing with is the tactics that are being done in the course of arbitration and HOW people are put into the arbitration clauses.

Like I said.. courts would rather not see the system clogged up with LaConsumer and her $5,0000 unpaid phone bill because a friend took her phone and not AT&T won't credit the calls back. Additionally, courts don't want to play mother and father because a customer starts having a hard time making calls, drops calls, etc. The consumer has a right - break the contract and move on. The contract was agreed upon up front by both parties. Now, if the company didn't let you break out at all, THEN the courts, I think, would be eager to hear that case.

And to your post specifically.. what is far? Fair is objectionable and the law doesn't recognize "fair".. it recognizes the law.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Nasty

Then it is the courts job to make sure cases that do not have much merit ever reach their rooms.
mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA

Arbitration

Sounds like consumers dragged in front of NAF may have a good case for a class action suit. I agree, there are too many frivolous lawsuits. Some aren't frivolous at all. A contract written contrary to the law is not enforceable. The law guarantees you a right to a trial by jury. Even for civil cases. Bad companies try to convince you otherwise. Good companies are the only arbitration required, they try to work with their customers.

As far as the cost of frivolous lawsuits being passed on to consumers: that's BS also. If you bring a frivolous suit, and lose, the judge will almost certainly award the cost of legal fees to the defendant. The only legal fees being passed on to consumers are those of companies suing each other, and those for when they lose to consumers. That drives the cost of not providing adequate customer service up, and makes those companies less competitive. So be it. Let the market take care of them.
hootch

join:2007-09-28
Vancouver, WA

Re: Arbitration

I have worked for several companies that were privately owned and then went public and the same thing occurred at each place. Once they went public, the most important "customer" of the company was the stockholder. Anything would be done to pleaset he stockholders...usually at the expense of the customers and employees.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Arbitration

Welcome to reality, life, and the way it works.
hoyleysox

join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

arbitration looks good on paper

Arbitration is more efficient and faster than lawsuits. But arbitrators are supposed to be impartial.
Someone is going to accuse the arbitartion companies of bias, take the arbitrators to court - and win. That case will make mandatory arbitration clauses null and void.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: arbitration looks good on paper

said by hoyleysox:

Arbitration is more efficient and faster than lawsuits. But arbitrators are supposed to be impartial.
Someone is going to accuse the arbitartion companies of bias, take the arbitrators to court - and win. That case will make mandatory arbitration clauses null and void.
BINGO!

How can you be impartial when one side if paying you?

yuutomo
The Wonder Kitter
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT

Welcome to the World....as it is..

think you'll get your say, if the big business' have their way, NO.

brooklynman4

join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY

Re: Welcome to the World....as it is..

This is very intresting as i was just reading my local paper and saw att leading the pack in wireless field.

nobigdeal

@verizon.net

contracts and prices

dont tell me a cell phone costs $350-450 without a contract. there is no way period. thats what they charge but there is no way. hell i can buy a dell with e2140 2gb of ram and a 19 monitor for that price. a phone cannot cost that much to make. you can point me to prices and everything else, but i am too hardheaded to believe 350-450 and up to make one.

birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5

Re: contracts and prices

said by nobigdeal :

dont tell me a cell phone costs $350-450 without a contract. there is no way period.
I'm with you. Go to Walmart and check out the prices on pre-pay phones. I had a VZ Wireless prepay phone that got dunked in water and fried. Had about 12 hours of prepaid rollover minutes saved. The first CSR says too bad, want to sign up with a real plan and we'll send you the phone. Didn't but stewed about it a little.

Long story short, the second CSR said go to Walmart, buy a phone, then call in and have your account switched over to it. Saved the minutes.

A year later, same thing happened. Nice little Samsung phone w/ camera, $50. Ok so this might be a closeout on last year's model, but who cares? All I want to do is dial out and receive a call. The little announcement at the beginning tells me I am up to 23 hours of daytime talk time.

In case you're wondering, I pay $15 per mo. for 100 minutes, and as long as I renew before the 30 days is up, they roll over.

My plan is: $50 for the phone, $15 per month, period.

quit complaining

@spcsdns.net

Bad service; Don't pay the bill

If you don't like what your (cell,tv,internet) provider is doing under your contract, quit paying them. It's as simple as that. Do you really think they are going to take you to court for a $100.00 contract buyout fee? Several years ago, I signed up for a cellphone with a company that promised that they had coverage in my area. There was coverage allright, but it was impossible to hold a conversation with the garbled and chopped signal. They didn't provide a useable service; why would I continue to pay them over two years for something that didn't work? Or pay a buyout fee? Other than a couple of letters from a collection agency, there were no consequences of note.

james

join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA

Re: Bad service; Don't pay the bill

I can't wait until you apply for a credit card or mortgage. I'll be keeping a lookout for a thread with the title: "I HAVE A BAD CREDIT SCORE?! DID SOMEONE STOLED MY IDENTITY?".

Sunday, 03-Jun 12:03:25 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.