Why Comcast, AT&T Want ArbitrationNew report finds outfits almost always rule against you... ( old news - 09:44AM Friday Sep 28 2007) tags: legal · business · consumers · Comcast · AT&T DSL ServiceAs 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).
Related:- Comcast Can't Erode Your Legal Rights With Fine Print
- Study Ranks ISP Online Support
- Comcast's Use Of Twitter Continues To Fascinate
- Charter Promotion Promises 65 Inch HDTV, Delivers 19 Inch
- NY AG Will Sue Comcast If They Don't Pretend To Fight Child Porn
- Comcast Hit With Another Throttling Lawsuit
- Comcast Caves to Cuomo Legal Threat
- MI Town Sues Comcast Over Franchising Fees
|
 
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | What did you expect? Is anyone really surprised? They find in favor of the company that's paying them. Who would have thought? | |
|  | 
en102
Canadian, 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 | |
| 
N3OGH
They both suck, we're so screwed
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| 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… | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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.  | |
| | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
September 28th, @10:41AM
| Re: Wait for it...... said by TK Junk Mail  :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. | |
| | | ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
| 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. | |
| | | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, 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? | |
| | | | | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| 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
·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. | |
| | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| 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!) | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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.  | |
| | | | | 
Burningbird
@swbell.net
| "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.
| |
| | | | | TheBigCheese
join:2002-08-05
Voorhees, NJ
| 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. | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
| | joker5656
join:2006-06-23
Greenville, SC
·Charter Pipeline
| 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 | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Wait for it...... said by joker5656 :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. | |
| 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
02101
| 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? | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | 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? | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
moderated:
September 28th, @12:59PM
| 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. | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
| | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, 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. | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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.  | |
| | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
edit:
September 29th, @10:10PM
| 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. | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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? | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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 | |
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| 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!) | |
| | | 
ArgyleDSL
Premium
join:2002-07-04
Flushing, NY
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| 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 | |
| | |
Burningbird
@swbell.net
| 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. | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| 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 | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
|
johnnyv
@covad.net
| 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. | |
| | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Mishawaka, IN
·Comcast
| 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. | |
| jc1350
join:2004-09-23
| 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. | |
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Netcong, 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 | |
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR | 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 | |
| | 
C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I can see the need for Arbitration said by Richard B :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. | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Richard B :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
 ·Verizon FIOS
·VoicePulse
edit:
September 28th, @11:18AM
| 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. | |
|
|
|
