Topic 'Common Sense' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Common-Sense-9430237 en Sat, 26 Mar 2022 03:46:11 EDT Sat, 26 Mar 2022 03:46:11 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629565 said by shmltn:
See this is where you continue to misunderstand the principles involved.

The waiter would never say "you'll have to see the manager." The waiter would see the manager and if the waiter dreamed of requiring the customer to do anything in particular the waiter would be rewarded with the loss of his job.

The Billing department offered to call the Disconnect department for the customer. He refused. He wanted THEM to handle it without calling another department, an operation which was impossible. It would have been equivalent to asking your waiter to resolve the issue WITHOUT talking to the manager. Waiter, resolve it, right here, right now, don't go talk to the manager.
--
Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's the non-thinkers that always come in legions." -John Callari]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629565 Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:13:47 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629550 said by shmltn:
Well I used to run the restaurant of a country club.

If any customer wanted their money back it would be up to whomever was available to make sure they get it back.

Our primary "regulation" was that the customer was always right. It didn't matter who they asked whether it was the waiter, the bartender or the busboy, that person would do whatever was necessary to accommodate them.

In all likelihood they would also receive a gratuity such as a free meal voucher, in the interest of maintaining their patronage.

We would never require any customers to jump through hoops such as that of SBC's so-called "regulations" or "rights".

At the restaurant harassing the customer in that way would cost someone their job.

We actually liked our customers and did whatever we could to help them enjoy doing business with us.

That is common sense.

I don't think that sense is common at SBC.

You must have trusted your busboys and other employees quite a bit to entrust them with access to the cash register.
--
Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's the non-thinkers that always come in legions." -John Callari]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629550 Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:11:54 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629498 said by PacCoast:
If you ran a restaurant and your policy was that a customer who wanted a refund had to talk to the cashier and not the waiter to get that refund, then you would be within your rights. So why wouldn't you talk to the right people at SBC when you were told to?

And sending a cancellation note with returned equipment is just absurd!

One does not call a Billing agent when one wants technical support nor does one call technical support when one has a Billing question. I wouldn't place my order with a restaurant with the bus boy. I would expect him to get my waitress so that I could order, however. Billing offered to transfer him to the Disconnect department so that he could terminate his service. He refused. Billing does not have the power to issue the Disconnect, so ultimately, it was an impasse and there was nothing the "busboy" could have done.
--
Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's the non-thinkers that always come in legions." -John Callari]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629498 Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:06:51 EDT Re: Is this customer friendly service? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9629475 said by shmltn:
>> "He has called Billing TWICE"

The nerve! He should be publically beaten and stoned. No wonder there are so many problems in this country...what with people like that free to walk the streets.

What's this world coming to? (Next they're gonna wanna call back a third time or some nonsense!)

>> "both times they explained the situation thoroughly"

I didn't get the part where he was actually looking for an explanation. In fact wasn't he really calling to make sure that SBC took the appropriate action related to his not following through on setting up a DSL account?

What was there to explain really? The matter seems quite simple. When customers use your services they are billed for them. Isn't that the case?

The other thing about which type of rep doesn't really make much sense. Here the man has a problem with being billed for what he hasn't used...a problem with billing.

So lets see here...a billing problem...billing representatives. Sounds like a good match. Sounds like the logical course of action.

>> "Both times he ignored their explanations."

Ya...and? So? That's what I'd have done. What's there to explain and what does it matter whether or not he "ignored their explanations".

It really sounds like as if he was there trying to get something through to you people and that you didn't get it and even ignored what he had to say.

But not entirely. I'm sure the appropriate notes where taken on his account and that various people at SBC were (and have been) fully aware of what he was wanting to inform SBC about.

SBC apparently only ignored what he said to the extent that they wouldn't do the right thing afterwards unless he were to oblige SBC in their little game of Simon Says.

"Simon says call the (anal) Retention department or we continue to charge you for what we know you never used." And this guy just wouldn't do it!!! Can you believe it?!

I can. I wouldn't of done it either. You were notified. You were aware. You elected to continue to ask this man to pay for something that you know he never received.

Sort of has a ring of fraud to it in my opinion. There is no misunderstanding apparently. Everyone involed knows exactly what transpired and yet SBC refuses to stop asking this man to pay for something that he didn't receive or use.

Because why? Because...

>> "He was denied credit for not following advice"

Ohhhh! For not following advice! Why didn't you just say so in the first place? That would've saved a lot of back and forth and everyone would've known straight away that SBC is intending to use extortion to get this man to pay them money for nothing.

Why wouldn't he just follow the advice?!! I guess that he just doesn't understand what could happen to him if he doesn't.

Afterall...

>> "our billing reps have it stated, rather boldly, that he will not get credit"

And if SBC billing reps state it...especially boldly then thats the final word on the matter. Neither the customer, a court of law or even God Himself can change it after that.

Like SBC cares whether he has received or used what he is being billed for. As if that even matters at all.

Why won't this guy just pay the money?!!! Who cares about what is right and wrong or legal or not. What does that have to do with it? SBC wants it. The billing reps have stated it...boldly even. Its time for this guy to both put up and shut up and pay the money right?!!

WRONG. Who do you people think you are anyway? A secondary government or something? Or do you imagine that you operate outside the law? Or is it that you people just try to get away with whatever you can no matter what it takes? Like following this guy to 3rd party forum where he is supposedly able to post his opinion and to further attempt to prove him wrong and SBC right...when its painfully obvious to begin with.

God...how did we all get stuck with people like you running our communications companies? The day that someone else comes to buy you people out (like you did to pac bell) can't come a moment too soon. Who could possibly be any worse?

-Another dis-satisfied SBC customer

Thank you for choosing SBC...My name is Bruno and I think that you should follow our advice and pay the money that we ask...otherwise we might become very *disappointed* with you and who knows what could happen.


The billing department advised him that he would need to talk to the Disconnect department so that he could disconnect his service. He refused to be transferred. If he won't let us get him to the right department so that he can disconnect his service, what can be done?
--
Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's the non-thinkers that always come in legions." -John Callari]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9629475 Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:04:58 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629154 --
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9629154 Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:37:18 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9614897
How can we prove that you did not buy a $30 modem off ebay and use it? Especially since no complaint was made for months.

There are too many variables to just give someone near $200 because they neglected to call our EPC after being told to twice. Sorry but being stubborn does not constitute a good cause.

Anyways, I am done with this.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9614897 Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:37:12 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9596513
So anyone can ask for service and keep any equipment they receive without payment, or returning it since there is no legal obligation? Perhaps that would be the case if the equipment was not requested, but this was not the case here.

"2. It *IS* perfectly reasonable, and commonly accepted practice, to return all such materials with a brief note of explanation which *DOES* constitute non-acceptance of terms or service."

Cite?

"4. The installation *obviously* was not even attempted never mind completed. In fact all materials were returned with a note of explanation which SBC acknowledged having received. The DSL account was never formally established."

There is the matter of damages here IMO. Cost were incurred due to the negligence and non-cooperative nature of the customer's actions. The customer failed to read or follow the requirements for installing the service which include 'Customer Self-Install makes use of customer-installed low-pass microfilters for each line analog device (typically telephones, fax machines, etc). The intent of the filters is to filter out any DSL signal noise from your voice service, allowing both voice and data to share common inside wiring. These filters are placed between the analog devices and the phone jack(s) and do not require any tools for installation.

Please check to see if your computer meets the minimum system requirements for Customer Self-Install. Customer Self-Install is available if you have a telephone line qualified to carry the DSL signal. However, Customer Self-Install is not available if you have:

* an alarm or medical monitoring service on the line where you want SBC Yahoo! DSL
* rotary dial or hard-wired phone service on the line where you want SBC Yahoo! DSL
* more than six (6) jacks with analog devices attached (such as a fax machine or analog modem)
* a PBX, Key System or Hunting service
* a Centrex line that terminates on a multi-line jack or as part of a Key System
* a Router
* Windows 3.1 or UNIX / Linux operating system at this time. Linux operating systems are compatible, but not supported. '

I believe that customer's phones were not analog phones, or were other non-compatible phones.

That having been said the customer does not appear to have obtained advice from SBC via the toll free support line that could have salvaged his DSL installation such as installation of an LPF-200 splitter at the SNI if in fact the ComDial installation went out to the SBC network via POTS. (Part of this is guesswork on my part - I don't know much about ComDial).

"7. Verbal agreements bear the least legal weight in the state of California and are only admissable in court if: the agreement was *acted on by both parties* AND there is some other form of legally admissable evidence (such as check stubs, service logs, etc.) that verify that both parties subsequently took action to fulfill the agreement."

Is there any impact if the order is placed via the internet or if the customer is informed that his phone order is being recorded, and that recording is available as proof of the verbal order? I would think the *acted on by both parties* part refers to proof being available of the verbal agreement.

"8. Its NOT the customers responsibility to be aware of SBC's (or any other companies) internal structure. SBC was contacted both in writing and directly at their published customer service number(s). Therefore more than one agent of SBC was *fully aware of the customer's intentions*."

You haven't been read Judge Green's rulings. Parts of SBC aren't allowed to deal with DSL and could not process his request - I think. Also, the PUC may establish government regulations on how transactions are processed. The problem of 'Slamming" has caused great restrictions on how companies sign up customers. Are you sure some similar restrictions would not apply to discontinuance or cancellation requests as in this case?

"9. Having been informed both in writing and verbally it was then *soley* SBC's responsibility to make sure that the proper action was taken. In this case proper action shouldn't have even required *disconnection* since the DSL agreement and account had never been formally established."

I agree - but I think that some service or shipping charges at least should - in fairness to other customers who must pay the costs - apply to the customer in this case due to what I vies as his 'negligence'.

"
10. Just because SBC says this or that is required does not make any such "requirement" a matter of actual legal obligation or responsibility. In fact this customer could have quite easily and legally decided to have their lawyer deal with *ANY* authorized representative of SBC."

You provided no evidence or claim that when "SBC says this or that is required does not make any such "requirement" that SBC is referring to a requirement that they instituted as an institution and not something required by PUC / FCC or other authority.

If we follow your logic to it's extreme, then yelling from your balcony at an SBC laborer working in a trench in the street that you wanted him to discontinue your DSL service would be sufficient notice to SBC to do same. Or perhaps calling the operator at any hour and telling that operator to discontinue your DSL service would constitute proper notice. I doubt that the PUC would smile upon such practices as part of an orderly business operation.

"You people at SBC are unbelievable. This must be why most people seem to loathe SBC and their pigheaded, customer UNFRIENDLY practices and policies.

You are not fooling anyone you know. All of these bad decisions related to customer service will come back to haunt SBC. In fact, in some cases (class action suits) they alredy have."

I think they try hard. And I think that there are a lot of unscrupulous customers out there that will cause large costs to be passed along to other customers is SBC just rolls over every time a bad customer raises a stink about something.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9596513 Sat, 06 Mar 2004 05:26:12 EDT Re: Another touching SBC email http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9587714
I'm done with the 1000 word essay pointless arguments. Billing will not change, end of story. Have a good day.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9587714 Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:55:29 EDT Re: Another touching SBC email http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9582159
>> Well considering by law certain groups cannot contact others and by policy they cannot. I don't think they are going to risk any type of infraction for him.

Give me chapter and verse or just admit that you are lieing. Oh ya..."certain" laws make it so that you cannot do what your customers ask you to even in writing huh? Oh...since you say it...it must be true.

Infraction my ass. I have had 3rd parties *ADD* services to my account and have been told that I had no option but to pay for it. Which was of course a flat out lie and I never did pay and the telco removed the services that...yes...a 3rd party added without proper consent.

AS IF IT HASN'T BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME NOW. PLEASE! YOU ARE SO FULL OF IT YOUR TEETH ARE BROWN!

You are mixing apples and oranges here again. There is no 3rd party to discuss. The principal contacted you...both in writing and by phone twice by your admissions. Right? Or not picking and choosing that one this time?

I've been around way too long to buy your bullsh*t about common business practices. As if it hasn't been common business practice to return the materials with a note of explanation. Surprise I *DO* know quite a bit of what *IS* adminissable and what *WILL* be heard in a court. The common denominator is and always has been WHAT IS REASONABLE.

COME TO TERMS WITH THIS. YOUR DENIAL MAKES ME SICK. YOU SIR ARE A LIAR.

>>> bingo, however that simple process HAS to come from our EPC which he neglected to call.

oh bingo...so it doesn't matter who enters the order (in this case to stop something that was never actually started) yet the "simple"...."process"...*HAS* to come from your who? Your EPC IJA TLA TNCA. Right? Right!

>>> again, law and policy both come into play. There is no harassment. A waiter cannot give credit and neither can I nor CPE.

Oh. You...the almighty clerk are gonna lecture me on law now? Oh hehehe. Stop. How rediculous.

There is no harassment. Hear no evil. See no evil. Right? OK! Whatever.

A waiter cannot do what? Says who? YOU?!! You couldn't run a restaurant obviously to save your life. Unless you mean run into the ground. You people are the best worst example. ANOTHER THING FOR YOU TO JUST COME TO TERMS WITH. YOU ARE *FAMOUS* FOR *SUCKING* AT CUSTOMER SERVICE. AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. HAS KNOWN IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. GET OVER IT. WHO ARE YOU CONVINCING HERE? ANYONE?

>> He is only paying for the months during which he relucted to call and cancel his service.

You said that he did call to cancel his service. He called the billing department. You wish this would fly in a court. How pathetiic! You cling to your assertions in the face of anything and everything. Go right ahead and maybe you'll actually end up convincing yourself. Everyone else pretty much knows you are full of shit here. It's really that simple.

>> And the courts will laugh him out.

No they won't. Judges review court petitions and will render summary judgement or even refuse to hear a case that doesn't have merit. Something you apparently are unfamiliar with. Judges and courts are sick to death of companies like SBC *inventing* supposed *law* and manipulating and harassing people to the tune of millions or billions of dollars.

So how are all the class action suits going? Hmmm? Winning *ANY* of them....AT ALL? AHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

It was much fun to be included in the last one! I can't wait for the next! You people work so hard at it!

Courts do not exist to "laugh out" people you intend to abuse. As much as you like to believe otherwise...this is simply a fantasy of yours it seems. Get help.

>> No, however both times he was told what HE has to do, not them. Both times he relucted to do so making it his own fault, not ours.

NO? No what? I asked "what do you suggest that he was calling for?" For "no?" Is that your final answer?

Apparently this man is a business man and knew he *WAS* doing all that we was required to do...having not established an account in the first place...they simply is no need to cancel one. Except for the billing whim of some pseudo-autonomous "department" that you want to make real by re-asserting your story. More repetition is not working here. NO ONE BELIEVES YOU.

Fault? Fault for what? Do you mean billing this man for an account that he never created? I suppose you must mean that. He didn't play simon says correctly, nor follow advice or even to do what he "*HAS*" to do. Therefore you must continue to bill him huh? Oh that makes sense...and so *legally* sound. You're a real crack clerk slash legal wiz aren't you?

>> I honestly doubt they even read it. If they did they are in no position to take action because of a note. Just as email referred him to billing and billing referred him to EPC. They don't have the customers number or anything in our warehouses.

Ya...why should written correspondence be relavent to the situation? Who cares if that's the primary form and definition of contractual obligation in the state of California. You certainly don't! A judge might.

You keep calling it a "note." Why is that? Did someone pass it to you between classes? It is written communication. You doubt they even read it?! Ya. I'm probably so simple that I'll believe that too.

They most certainly did read it and you know it. Read it and laughed about how they are gonna make this guy play simon says if its the last thing they do. Not only that...but they'll even make it so he owes money for something that everyone knows he never established an account for. Oh you funny guys. Are you clever...or is it cunning?

If they did? Then they are in "no position", you say, to "take action" because of the written correspondence. Hmmm. Now on the other hand here you are about to spew how *your* written correspondence...which was mailed in the package that was returned is binding...because...because why? If he signed up for it...which he didn't...then he agrees to all your terms and conditions regardless of how often you fabricate them.

Now that sounds proper huh? You sure told me didn't you!

Told me a crock of bullshit...but hey...whatever...I'm used to this sort of thing from you people. It's simply what you do best. Bullshit. (Certainly not customer service!)

OHHHHH! They don't have the customer's number *OR ANYTHING* in your warehouses. You probably don't have the in-bound caller id option on your 800 numbers right?!!

AND of course you couldn't actually *ask* the man for his number and 3 digit code to verify and finalize the business that was never started could you? That wouldn't be right?

Keep talking joker. The more you say...the clearer the picture of who and what SBC really is becomes.

GET THIS: BECAUSE YOU SAY SO DOESN'T MATTER.

Make that you mantra...you seem almost mentally ill. You almost scare me...if you weren't so completely goofy.

AREN'T YOU THE ONE THAT SAID THAT YOU ARE DONE (MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF) HERE? I THOUGHT SO!

>> So your saying I could send an email to support@sbcglobal.net to cancel your account, and you wouldn't want a policy in place to prevent that? Sorry but if you ever dealt with telco you would know all about 3rd party verification

I never said anything of the kind. This fantasy-pretend thing you've got going is actually not a good thing. If I ever dealt with a telco. ROFL!!

I've seen every one of your scams and have *dealt* with a "telco" so many times that just the thought of people like you makes me want to puke. Even though it always works my way...you people never give up...and will stoop to ANYTHING to try anyway. Disgusting.

>> Again, what you are stating is ludicrous. If people could order or cancel that way then what would stop anyone from just abusing this and cancelling people's service? Nothing. You have to have voice confirmation along with other details and generally 3rd party verification.

You really aren't claiming to be that simple are you? I have personally added and removed services from someone elses account (on their requests) and like I mentioned have had 3rd parties add services to my account and was definitely told that there is nothing that I could do to prevent that from re-occuring.

I'M NOT BITING. MAY AS WELL BARK AT SOME OTHER TREE.

According to you people "you have to have voice confirmation". First of all that's not entirely true now is it? Second of all cite me chapter and verse and I congratulate you on being right otherwise I'll redicule you for being a coward and a liar.

"With other details and *generally* 3rd party verification" Do you ever read what you are writing? Ever actually say it out loud to hear the words? Generally 3rd party verification. Along with everything else huh? Sure. By my own experience this proves you to be an unmitigated liar. You are not gaining any ground.

>> We have our TOS listed openly, by signing a contract or an agreement with us you agree to abide by our policies and procedures which, among those, are calling in to cancel.

Listed openly. That's a good angle. Go with that one.

So you are saying this man "signed" a piece of paper...(i.e. made a note in your terms) and that you have this note and that it means something in particular to you? And you...you are sitting there calling me ludicrous?!!! Oh that makes sense. So by "signing" a *contract* OR *agreement* with you schiesters...blah blah blah.

Well that makes it real simple. This man returned all of your written material and did not agree to any such thing yet you continue to maintain otherwise and want to suggest that SBC has a legal leg to stand on and that this man will be "laughed out" of court huh?

You are high on glue right? Or some learning...cognitive...attention disorder? Sorry. I didn't figure that out until now. So they hire the handicap at SBC...maybe they aren't 100% bad...nah...99.99%.

>> What part of policies and procedures you agreed to abide by do I need to spell. SBC would win in court if we went over this. The ONLY reason we will not credit his account is because of his reluctance to follow direction.

I didn't agree to a damn thing with SBC. What part do you need to spell? Don't ask me! Why are you spell parts anyway? Point being what? Your policies and procedures and like little kids wearing towels playing superman. They aren't actually Superman you know...that's just pretend.

SBC would win in court?!!

HIS "****RELUCTANCE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS****"????!!!!!

Dude...please...do yourself a favor and get some sleep. You're starting to hallucinate. Back on planet Earth a reluctance to follow directions doesn't make one owe SBC money. It's really as simple as that.

What did they do to your mind that you can't grasp this?

I don't know if I should feel sorry for you or just go with the general disgust of you that I feel.

You are obviously impaired. Challenged. Handicapped.

>> Inflated costs? You call offering DSL for cheaper than you have ever seen it, $45 for 6 mbps, inflated? Ok...

Well...I didn't mean that in particular but since you mention it...actually yes. Yes I do. Your ISDN is rediculous as well. I was more meaning that the amounts for lawyers fees and court costs would be inflated and passed on to subscribers. That's all. Hmmm. Sounds like you're indicating.

>> See post above. By agreeing to use our service you agree to our terms, conditions, and policies. So yes it will matter in court.

If anyone should see something else I really think it would be you. The contract was never signed. The man never completed the agreement. You have no agreement. He therefore did not agree to abide by jack shit anything PER YOUR HARDHEADED DEFINITIONS. RIGHT?!!!

QUIT WASTING OUR TIME WITH YOUR FANSTASTIC PSEUDO-SMART SOUNDING BULLSHIT. NO ONE BELIEVES YOU!

Ya it will matter in court. You're quite right. And SBC would be soundly beaten. I know its hard to admit defeat...I feel for you...disgust that is. You are a liar sir.

>> This is in no way harassment nor extortion. If he or anyone else cancels correctly as they were instructed, he would not have this problem. Instead he chose not to follow procedure and brought this upon himself

Yes it is. You are even harassing ME over this mans case because SBC will try everything and anything with no self respect to get that bottom dollar. WON'T THEY?!

People are not actually required to do what you want them to. That's why we have laws. They only *have* to do what is required and WHAT YOU *INSTRUCT* PEOPLE TO DO DOESN'T MAKE A SHIT OF A DIFFERENCE.

One day you give in to that reality. Maybe. You are obviously severly impaired. But I still don't feel sorry for you.

>> In the beginning they did not, now they do. Yes they do and if you talked to Justin I'm sure you'd see that.

Oh. So they pay you to lie, mislead and make those rediculous assertions huh? Ya. That's what I've come to expect from SBC.

>> I guess that just goes back to ignorance is bliss. Unfortunately we do have FCC mandated policies such as no communication between ISP and telco and other.

If only it could. I wish I could remain ignorant of all your bullshit trips. I really do. But you people have other plans that don't allow it. Face it though. Nobody wants to know anything about it. Probably doesn't feel very good...BUT WHAT HAVE YOU PEOPLE EVER DONE TO MAKE YOUR CUSTOMERS FEEL WANTED, WELCOME, APPRECIATED, ETC?

Nothing. You make habit of the most incredibly rude manner of speaking with customers that if you didn't institute monopolies and actually gave people a *real* choice everyone would be heading for the way out! So quick that you couldn't even fabricate a stupid story to fix it! Yes. That fast!

Unfortunately you say. Hmmm. Ya...companies like SBC didn't have *ANYTHING* to do with those laws did they? What SBC lobby?? NO WAY!

These laws are invented and pushed through by people like you for your own profit and self interest and the majority of people have no idea what any of it really means to them.

YOU STILL HAVE GAINED NO GROUND. BUT HAVE FILLED THE AIR WITH STENCH. MUST BE THAT SBC TRAINING KICKING IN!

>> It is true. Look up the Telecom Act of 1996 is you want more proof. Again your ignorance is bliss.

I don't have a problem with anything that I am actually ignorant about. I'm quite happy to know nothing about plenty of the scandalous bullshit that people like SBC make as a way of life. I wouldn't call it bliss. More like short lived before being re-educated as to how far people like you will go for money and power.

OH. Also...you're evaluation of me is so completely irreleevant as to almost not exist...I'm more concerned about which notes random birds sing or what direction the wind blows in any given random instant.

You evaluate me? You are a CSR dude. The foodchain thing. I'm an engineer and have been one for a very long time. You are saying what now of any relevance?

Ya. I didn't think so.

>> You are TROLLING and everyone knows it. Give it up. This is not a situation you know anything about.

Oh ya. I also am not much concerned with what you call it. Trolling...whatever. Unfortunately I know more than I ever wanted to know about the situation and actually quite a bit more about the actual technology than dozen of your best....hehehe....C S R's....ahhhahahaha

That I know anything about...ohohohoho....listen to big CSR...he's really cute with that towel for a cape. He's gonna be a fireman some day. Isn't that sweet!

You'll make the best fireman of all time! I just know it!

>> How is that nonsense? Long diatance and local all in one, one bill. Did you not read or listen to the commercial?

Pay attention if you're gonna talk to the big kids! That in light of your upteen psuedo-departments is a crock of shit. And a smelly one at that. Why do I bother entertaining your mindless assertions?

Well ya ok...for the fun. You just keep putting your foot in your mouth and its quite entertaining. Trolling you call it? What do you call being a slimy liar?

>> Ignorance is showing here. Again, read the Telecom Act of 1996 and see how much of this is FAKE. See how much I am lying. We have 3 core depts. ASI, SBCIS, and Telco. Each one has it's own subdepts. And these depts often don't even know about the other ones since, by law, they cannot communicate.

Yes...and of course we are so very concerned with the CSR's evaluation (how cute) of my ignorance. Showing again huh? Aw jeez...silly me. When a CSR can see it showing...I must be goofing off!

Wait! You have core what...NO! NOBODY WANTS TO KNOW. NOBODY CARES. ONLY YOU. GO RECITE IT TO A CO-WORKER OR SOMETHING. I like my ignorance of your slime. Yet you try to take that away from me too.

Maybe you won't be a fireman after all. Maybe just a crook instead. Your true colors are showing and their sorta ugly. But you probably like them as much as I like my ignorance...A LOT! Probably PROUD AS PUNCH!! I know I am!

>> Yes, ask anyone in the SBC forums and you'll see how

Would that be by insulting and being abusive with customers? If so then I guess that I already knew that one. Got me there!!! ooh!

>> I do not lie, I do not harass, and you are guilty of libel.

so sue me then. or shut up. Because I don't care what you think about what I have done here. You are a liar sir. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Have I ever heard of hierarcy of command? One of my former posts was Shell Oil Project Manager. I think maybe I've heard one or two things about it.

I do know that:

CSR = Knucklehead

That's for sure.

He didn't read your stupid documentation he mailed it back. He never agreed to it. Why is this so hard for you to come to terms with? You've gotta go THIS far...name call...insult...you...you...CSR.

I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about data processing and finite state automata. How simply nauseating. Being called dull by a CSR. hehe If only it made a shit of a difference what you think.

You get paid to go...THIS FAR...over this....WITH ME...AND WHOMEVER! Great job dude. High profile...high respect...highly trained...and skilled position huh?

I'M AWESTRUCK. YOU ARE JUST AWESOME DUDE. WHOAAAA!

>> Billing is the only ones who can issue credit. Billing has access to him calling and refusing to cancel per policy. What do you mean "Who are your departments 'in contact' with exactly?"? Each dept. can only discuss things among themselves categorized by the core groups, discussed above.

Billing?!!! The people that he called and was told to call someone else? You can't imagine that I've already forgotten have you? Refusing to cancel? He never started! He never signed! You've got NOTHING and just will say and do ANYTHING to avoid facing that!!

You need to see somebody about that. Obsessive/Compulsive. You aren't just a liar but are crazy as well. Ideal SBC CSR candidate. Perfect match.

>> Here you are using words to try to deceive yourself. I have covered the ONLY reason WHY he was NOT issued the credit.

ONLY THAT? WHO ELSE HAS BEEN WRITING UNDER YOUR NAME THEN? YA YOU MENTIONED WHY! MORE THAN ONCE! WITH MORE THAN ONE EXPLICIT REASON! BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T FOLLOW YOUR ORDERS OR SOME SHIT? RIGHT?

What's your objective here? I don't get it! Who are you targeting with this nonsense? Surely you can't imagine that I will buy in...maybe you might...that's naive and CSR simplish...what else can I say. (That you haven't beat to death saying the same thing over and over about?)

>> Yes, owned and operated in San Antonio, TX.

Could of fooled me.

>> Yes, many are frequent visitors. You may want to look into our stock as it's own the rise, fast.

Sure...because you say so right? I don't buy stocks. I trade on the commodities exchange.

>> Yes, almost all are based in SBC Headquarters in San Antonio, TX.

Are their brains still attached and functional?

>> We have no abuse of customers. Although we have abusive customers. I only have bad attitudes to those guilty of libel on just about every paragraph you wrote.

No abuse?! Dude. I've recieved it first hand on many an occaison. Smart ass snide comments abound...you people seriously do champion the worst of the worst. Whose ignorance is showing now?

Ya...the customers are the problem. Ya...I know.

So now you declare that I am *guilty* of a civil offense?

Judge...jury...marshall...fireman...you got all the bases covered and you sir are a liar.

>> I think the question should be how long do we have to stomach your poor attitude and ignorance of how things work. Ignorance truly is bliss

Funny how you like that saying so much. Gee...ummm...anybody...who probably knows more about a technology...a CSR or an engineer. My ignorance is what dude? Those are awfully big words for a little fireman.

Ignorance might be bliss if it weren't for people like you. You've obviously have some sort of measuring-up complex...self conscious about being ignorant or something huh? Ya...I guess it could be embarassing for a CSR.

After being an engineer since '82...ignorance really only comes up when dealing with self-assured CSR's like you. Ignorance. I wish. If only it could be so. If only you people hadn't ruined it way back. There's SO much that I'd rather NOT know and would feel real good not knowing. I know enough stupid shit already. Things that little CSR's needn't worry their pretty little heads about. Ya.

Aw don't be sore little CSR man...after all SBC is paying you for this. hehe haha hehhehe

-Your fan
you wish]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9582159 Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:15:26 EDT Re: Another touching SBC email http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9581042
said by shmltn:
>> Ok, before everyone starts bringing out law school 101.

Too late.

Unless your a lawyer, I doubt that.
said by shmltn:

>> Our CPE group has no contact with the dept. that places orders. Most of this stuff is automated anyway.

Ya. That would require something like a telephone for one group of a business to be actually "in contact" with another part.

Well considering by law certain groups cannot contact others and by policy they cannot. I don't think they are going to risk any type of infraction for him.

said by shmltn:


But since this stuff is all automated then surely it cannot possibly matter who enters the order or actually puts the note on the account. A simple "customer elected to not follow through...do not bill" would be quite simple and require no further action.

bingo, however that simple process HAS to come from our EPC which he neglected to call.

said by shmltn:

If all of your quite "separate" departments can read the account then it is possible that they can modify it as well. Maintaining the point that a certain so-and-so must be called is a filibuster, diversionary or even harassment.

again, law and policy both come into play. There is no harassment. A waiter cannot give credit and neither can I nor CPE.

said by shmltn:

The man said "no." Get over it. Get used to it. You people don't get it. You are blatantly demanding that someone pay you for something that you know was not used in a public forum.

He is only paying for the months during which he relucted to call and cancel his service.

said by shmltn:

All this man needs to do is bring a transcript of this thread to court really.

And the courts will laugh him out.

said by shmltn:

Especially SBC's own words....how about:

>> "Both times he called billing"

yet you say:

>> " However he never called to cancel"

In your words then...what do you suggest that he was calling for? To complement you people on a job well done?


No, however both times he was told what HE has to do, not them. Both times he relucted to do so making it his own fault, not ours.

said by shmltn:

You also said in earlier posts that they acknowledged receiving the returned equipment and received the note. They do speak English correct? They are of reasonable intelligence aren't they? They understood what the note was saying correct? They elected to not abort the account signup even though the customer never began it right?

I honestly doubt they even read it. If they did they are in no position to take action because of a note. Just as email referred him to billing and billing referred him to EPC. They don't have the customers number or anything in our warehouses.

said by shmltn:

You say legal purposes. What legal purposes? The California Civil Code defines all legal aspects of contractual agreements that are valid when doing business in the state of California. Your additional regulations, requirements, effluvium are entirely immaterial.


So your saying I could send an email to support@sbcglobal.net to cancel your account, and you wouldn't want a policy in place to prevent that? Sorry but if you ever dealt with telco you would know all about 3rd party verification.

said by shmltn:

You don't mean to suggest that your policies nullify Californias state law do you? This is how it sounds.


Again, what you are stating is ludicrous. If people could order or cancel that way then what would stop anyone from just abusing this and cancelling people's service? Nothing. You have to have voice confirmation along with other details and generally 3rd party verification.

said by shmltn:

For legal purposes with no legal theory. Legal purposes outside of actual legal obligations are nothing more than creative writing pertinent to whomever decides to entertain them. These "legal purposes" carry no weight above and beyond the law of the State of California. Not in a California court that is. This is where the business took place. This is where any possible contract would be bound and dictates the appropriate jurisdiction. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you would not as you seem highly ignorant of what constitutes legalities in the State of California.

We have our TOS listed openly, by signing a contract or an agreement with us you agree to abide by our policies and procedures which, among those, are calling in to cancel.

>> You are right about him not being under contract until he registers

said by shmltn:

Yes I know. That's why I mentioned it. I'm also right about contractual fulfillment and related evidence as well.

Would SBC dare contend in a court of law that they demand payment for something that they know the defendant did not use? They probably would. They'll try anything it seems. A desperate attempt at sounding legitimite.


What part of policies and procedures you agreed to abide by do I need to spell. SBC would win in court if we went over this. The ONLY reason we will not credit his account is because of his reluctance to follow direction.

said by shmltn:

Which I'm sure that any such inflated costs are passed on to their subscribers. To pay for what SBC to waste our courts time and resources to entertain their greed and unreasonable policies. I'm sure any judge would love to hear that case. I bet that most judges are very fond of SBC. Wouldn't you? Especially with such morally correct posturing and such witty replies.

Inflated costs? You call offering DSL for cheaper than you have ever seen it, $45 for 6 mbps, inflated? Ok...

said by shmltn:

You went on about...

>>>I'm sorry that you guys think that returning the equipment constitutes cancelling, however our regulations say it does not.

Don't be sorry about what us "guys" think. There's no need and it doesn't change the situation in the least. Your regulations basically won't make a sh*t of a difference in small claims court. Now will they?

See post above. By agreeing to use our service you agree to our terms, conditions, and policies. So yes it will matter in court.

said by shmltn:

I'm sorry that you continue to maintain such an irrational and greedy position that is flawed and has continued to be wrong, at odds with common business practices, at odds with the state law and really nothing more than basic harassment bordering on extortion.

This is in no way harassment nor extortion. If he or anyone else cancels correctly as they were instructed, he would not have this problem. Instead he chose not to follow procedure and brought this upon himself.

said by shmltn:

Does SBC pay you to answer these posts? Do they own any interest in the people that maintain these forums?


In the beginning they did not, now they do. Yes they do and if you talked to Justin I'm sure you'd see that.

said by shmltn:

Nobody wants to know or even cares about SBC's internal departmental structure. It is only important to you self-important and self-assured people. Really. Nobody else wants to know, is obligated to know, is the least bit interested in knowing about or dealing with your paper machete "departments".
I guess that just goes back to ignorance is bliss. Unfortunately we do have FCC mandated policies such as no communication between ISP and telco and other.

said by shmltn:

Oh sure. This department is not in contact with that department and these other ones don't have access to that information or can't do anything about...blah blah blah.

It is true. Look up the Telecom Act of 1996 is you want more proof. Again your ignorance is bliss.

said by shmltn:

YOU ARE LIE-ING. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

You are TROLLING and everyone knows it. Give it up. This is not a situation you know anything about.

said by shmltn:

How about that "one" advertising campaign that SBC pushed in everyone's faces not too long ago. One bill right? Better than two. Or some such nonsense.


How is that nonsense? Long diatance and local all in one, one bill. Did you not read or listen to the commercial?

said by shmltn:

One bill and umpteen fake departments to stall for time so that SBC can proclaim that times up! It's now too late to do anything about that. They are awfully sorry...but there's nothing they can do.

Ignorance is showing here. Again, read the Telecom Act of 1996 and see how much of this is FAKE. See how much I am lying. We have 3 core depts. ASI, SBCIS, and Telco. Each one has it's own subdepts. And these depts often don't even know about the other ones since, by law, they cannot communicate.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
Can you people look at yourselves in the mirror and be anything other than completely disgusted? Ya? How?

Yes, ask anyone in the SBC forums and you'll see how.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
Ya. You've been done here. Only you've yet to actually realize it. This is not a thread that proves you are right. It's simply another example of how you harass your customers with lies and excuses meanwhile inventing reasons why you have to bill them and its out of your control.

I do not lie, I do not harass, and you are guilty of libel.

Have you ever heard of hierarchy of command? Learn it, that's the position I'm in. If he had called EPC when he was TOLD to in written documentation then he MAY have been able to get by with it. But when he hung up on them and refused, he brought this upon himself. I'm sorry but ONLY billing reps can issue credit, and not a one will do it after this.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
Who's control is it in anyway? Who does have access to that information? Who are your departments "in contact" with exactly? Anyone?

Billing is the only ones who can issue credit. Billing has access to him calling and refusing to cancel per policy. What do you mean "Who are your departments 'in contact' with exactly?"? Each dept. can only discuss things among themselves categorized by the core groups, discussed above.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
Here again. You really are not fooling anyone and I suppose are doing nothing more than trying to convince yourselves that you are in fact right despite the plain reality.

Here you are using words to try to deceive yourself. I have covered the ONLY reason WHY he was NOT issued the credit.

said by [user=shmltn:
]

Is SBC an American own and run company?

Yes, owned and operated in San Antonio, TX.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
Are the principle stock holders United States citizens?

Yes, many are frequent visitors. You may want to look into our stock as it's own the rise, fast.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
Are the majority of the board of directors United States citizens?

Yes, almost all are based in SBC Headquarters in San Antonio, TX.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
I think not. That may explain the casual disregard and abuse of its customers. You people seem to champion the textbook worse attitudes and policies for successful customer service don't you?

We have no abuse of customers. Although we have abusive customers. I only have bad attitudes to those guilty of libel on just about every paragraph you wrote.

said by [user=shmltn:
]
How and why is that? How long are we to stomach you people?
I think the question should be how long do we have to stomach your poor attitude and ignorance of how things work. Ignorance truly is bliss.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9581042 Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:21:24 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9580830
The waiter would never say "you'll have to see the manager." The waiter would see the manager and if the waiter dreamed of requiring the customer to do anything in particular the waiter would be rewarded with the loss of his job.

So if a customer ate at my restuarant for 6 months I would personally FIRE the waiter IN FRONT of the customer giving them my sincerely apologies if he said any such thing. Again here. We *like* our customers and want them to feel like coming back all on their own. We accommodate them as much as humanly possible and then some. We appreciate their business and reward their loyalty.

Our employees have absolutely no right to require customers do anything in particular. Never have. Never will. We make them feel welcome, do our best to ensure they enjoy their stay and enjoy doing business with us and we become concerned if they have a problem and make best efforts to fix anything that we can and/or accommodate any request even a whim if it is at all possible.

WE LIKE OUR CUSTOMERS. WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO FEEL LIKE COMING BACK. I KNOW THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN SBC TERMS. SO GIVE YOURSELF A REST AND DON'T TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT.

Yes keep doing business the way you have been, self-assured all the way and that will be the fastest route to you being gone in the shortest time I think.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction right? You people have been asking for quite the reaction for quite a while now. I'll be delighted to see you receive it. You apparently enjoy class action suits huh? Must be more of that secret SBC know-how.

Simply brilliant. Genius in fact.

Wouldn't you agree?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9580830 Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:00:48 EDT Re: Another touching SBC email http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9580685 > Ok, before everyone starts bringing out law school 101.

Too late.

>> Our CPE group has no contact with the dept. that places orders. Most of this stuff is automated anyway.

Ya. That would require something like a telephone for one group of a business to be actually "in contact" with another part.

But since this stuff is all automated then surely it cannot possibly matter who enters the order or actually puts the note on the account. A simple "customer elected to not follow through...do not bill" would be quite simple and require no further action.

If all of your quite "separate" departments can read the account then it is possible that they can modify it as well. Maintaining the point that a certain so-and-so must be called is a filibuster, diversionary or even harassment.

The man said "no." Get over it. Get used to it. You people don't get it. You are blatantly demanding that someone pay you for something that you know was not used in a public forum.

All this man needs to do is bring a transcript of this thread to court really.

Especially SBC's own words....how about:

>> "Both times he called billing"

yet you say:

>> " However he never called to cancel"

In your words then...what do you suggest that he was calling for? To complement you people on a job well done?

You also said in earlier posts that they acknowledged receiving the returned equipment and received the note. They do speak English correct? They are of reasonable intelligence aren't they? They understood what the note was saying correct? They elected to not abort the account signup even though the customer never began it right?

You say legal purposes. What legal purposes? The California Civil Code defines all legal aspects of contractual agreements that are valid when doing business in the state of California. Your additional regulations, requirements, effluvium are entirely immaterial.

You don't mean to suggest that your policies nullify Californias state law do you? This is how it sounds.

For legal purposes with no legal theory. Legal purposes outside of actual legal obligations are nothing more than creative writing pertinent to whomever decides to entertain them. These "legal purposes" carry no weight above and beyond the law of the State of California. Not in a California court that is. This is where the business took place. This is where any possible contract would be bound and dictates the appropriate jurisdiction. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you would not as you seem highly ignorant of what constitutes legalities in the State of California.

>> You are right about him not being under contract until he registers

Yes I know. That's why I mentioned it. I'm also right about contractual fulfillment and related evidence as well.

Would SBC dare contend in a court of law that they demand payment for something that they know the defendant did not use? They probably would. They'll try anything it seems. A desperate attempt at sounding legitimite.

Which I'm sure that any such inflated costs are passed on to their subscribers. To pay for what SBC to waste our courts time and resources to entertain their greed and unreasonable policies. I'm sure any judge would love to hear that case. I bet that most judges are very fond of SBC. Wouldn't you? Especially with such morally correct posturing and such witty replies.

You went on about...

>>>I'm sorry that you guys think that returning the equipment constitutes cancelling, however our regulations say it does not.

Don't be sorry about what us "guys" think. There's no need and it doesn't change the situation in the least. Your regulations basically won't make a sh*t of a difference in small claims court. Now will they?

I'm sorry that you continue to maintain such an irrational and greedy position that is flawed and has continued to be wrong, at odds with common business practices, at odds with the state law and really nothing more than basic harassment bordering on extortion.

Does SBC pay you to answer these posts? Do they own any interest in the people that maintain these forums?

Nobody wants to know or even cares about SBC's internal departmental structure. It is only important to you self-important and self-assured people. Really. Nobody else wants to know, is obligated to know, is the least bit interested in knowing about or dealing with your paper machete "departments".

Oh sure. This department is not in contact with that department and these other ones don't have access to that information or can't do anything about...blah blah blah.

YOU ARE LIE-ING. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

How about that "one" advertising campaign that SBC pushed in everyone's faces not too long ago. One bill right? Better than two. Or some such nonsense.

One bill and umpteen fake departments to stall for time so that SBC can proclaim that times up! It's now too late to do anything about that. They are awfully sorry...but there's nothing they can do.

Can you people look at yourselves in the mirror and be anything other than completely disgusted? Ya? How?

Ya. You've been done here. Only you've yet to actually realize it. This is not a thread that proves you are right. It's simply another example of how you harass your customers with lies and excuses meanwhile inventing reasons why you have to bill them and its out of your control.

Who's control is it in anyway? Who does have access to that information? Who are your departments "in contact" with exactly? Anyone?

Here again. You really are not fooling anyone and I suppose are doing nothing more than trying to convince yourselves that you are in fact right despite the plain reality.

Is SBC an American own and run company?

Are the principle stock holders United States citizens?

Are the majority of the board of directors United States citizens?

I think not. That may explain the casual disregard and abuse of its customers. You people seem to champion the textbook worse attitudes and policies for successful customer service don't you?

How and why is that? How long are we to stomach you people?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9580685 Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:48:16 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9580193 said by shmltn:
Well I used to run the restaurant of a country club.

If any customer wanted their money back it would be up to whomever was available to make sure they get it back.

So if a customer ate at your restaurant for 6 months and asked your waiter for his money back and he said "you'll have to see the manager" Then he left and did this for 6 months then FINALLY decided to come to you and want his money back for those 6 months, you would give him his money back?

Maybe that isn't common sense.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9580193 Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:59:22 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9580116
If any customer wanted their money back it would be up to whomever was available to make sure they get it back.

Our primary "regulation" was that the customer was always right. It didn't matter who they asked whether it was the waiter, the bartender or the busboy, that person would do whatever was necessary to accommodate them.

In all likelihood they would also receive a gratuity such as a free meal voucher, in the interest of maintaining their patronage.

We would never require any customers to jump through hoops such as that of SBC's so-called "regulations" or "rights".

At the restaurant harassing the customer in that way would cost someone their job.

We actually liked our customers and did whatever we could to help them enjoy doing business with us.

That is common sense.

I don't think that sense is common at SBC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9580116 Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:51:54 EDT Re: Another touching SBC email http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9487252
1. Our CPE group has no contact with the dept. that places orders. Most of this stuff is automated anyway.

2. Both times he called billing they clearly and bluntly explained to him for legal purposes he had to call to cancel his order. (would you like the idea of someone sending us an email anonymously saying disconnect this account, it could be a neighbor or anything).

3. You are right about him not being under contract until he registers, or 30 days, whichever comes first. However he never called to cancel. If he would have cancelled there would be no ETF or any of this mess.

I'm sorry that you guys think that returning the equipment constitutes cancelling, however our regulations say it does not. There is nothing I can do about that and if you refuse to listen to reason then I am done here.

Have a good day.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Another-touching-SBC-email-9487252 Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:18:26 EDT Another touching SBC email http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Another-touching-SBC-email-9450875 Another touching email by SBC

Thank you for contacting SBC Internet Services Customer Care.

We have received your e-mail in regard to your SBC DSL account. Please know that we value you as a customer and our prime concern is to ensure you are satisfied with our service.

Please know that we want to help you. Unfortunately, the support related to SBC DSL Service Subscription falls outside our service parameters. In order to resolve any issues regarding your SBC DSL account, we request that you contact our DSL Services support at 1-877-SBC-DSL5. They are the appropriate department with the required tools and expertise to provide you with the best possible resolution of your inquiry.

Please note that we offer our best endeavors to resolve any inquiries regarding the billing of SBC dial-up customers. We sincerely appreciate your patience and cooperation in this regard. Please refer to the case number, *******, which corresponds with this e-mail.

If you have any further questions, we request that you visit the following link:
»www.sbcis.com/.

Your contact with our office is appreciated. Thank you for informing us of your concerns.

Sincerely,

Dave
SBC Internet Services Customer Care]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Another-touching-SBC-email-9450875 Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:54:41 EDT Re: Is this customer friendly service? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9450671
Thanks shmltn]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9450671 Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:28:21 EDT Re: Is this customer friendly service? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9449248 > "He has called Billing TWICE"

The nerve! He should be publically beaten and stoned. No wonder there are so many problems in this country...what with people like that free to walk the streets.

What's this world coming to? (Next they're gonna wanna call back a third time or some nonsense!)

>> "both times they explained the situation thoroughly"

I didn't get the part where he was actually looking for an explanation. In fact wasn't he really calling to make sure that SBC took the appropriate action related to his not following through on setting up a DSL account?

What was there to explain really? The matter seems quite simple. When customers use your services they are billed for them. Isn't that the case?

The other thing about which type of rep doesn't really make much sense. Here the man has a problem with being billed for what he hasn't used...a problem with billing.

So lets see here...a billing problem...billing representatives. Sounds like a good match. Sounds like the logical course of action.

>> "Both times he ignored their explanations."

Ya...and? So? That's what I'd have done. What's there to explain and what does it matter whether or not he "ignored their explanations".

It really sounds like as if he was there trying to get something through to you people and that you didn't get it and even ignored what he had to say.

But not entirely. I'm sure the appropriate notes where taken on his account and that various people at SBC were (and have been) fully aware of what he was wanting to inform SBC about.

SBC apparently only ignored what he said to the extent that they wouldn't do the right thing afterwards unless he were to oblige SBC in their little game of Simon Says.

"Simon says call the (anal) Retention department or we continue to charge you for what we know you never used." And this guy just wouldn't do it!!! Can you believe it?!

I can. I wouldn't of done it either. You were notified. You were aware. You elected to continue to ask this man to pay for something that you know he never received.

Sort of has a ring of fraud to it in my opinion. There is no misunderstanding apparently. Everyone involed knows exactly what transpired and yet SBC refuses to stop asking this man to pay for something that he didn't receive or use.

Because why? Because...

>> "He was denied credit for not following advice"

Ohhhh! For not following advice! Why didn't you just say so in the first place? That would've saved a lot of back and forth and everyone would've known straight away that SBC is intending to use extortion to get this man to pay them money for nothing.

Why wouldn't he just follow the advice?!! I guess that he just doesn't understand what could happen to him if he doesn't.

Afterall...

>> "our billing reps have it stated, rather boldly, that he will not get credit"

And if SBC billing reps state it...especially boldly then thats the final word on the matter. Neither the customer, a court of law or even God Himself can change it after that.

Like SBC cares whether he has received or used what he is being billed for. As if that even matters at all.

Why won't this guy just pay the money?!!! Who cares about what is right and wrong or legal or not. What does that have to do with it? SBC wants it. The billing reps have stated it...boldly even. Its time for this guy to both put up and shut up and pay the money right?!!

WRONG. Who do you people think you are anyway? A secondary government or something? Or do you imagine that you operate outside the law? Or is it that you people just try to get away with whatever you can no matter what it takes? Like following this guy to 3rd party forum where he is supposedly able to post his opinion and to further attempt to prove him wrong and SBC right...when its painfully obvious to begin with.

God...how did we all get stuck with people like you running our communications companies? The day that someone else comes to buy you people out (like you did to pac bell) can't come a moment too soon. Who could possibly be any worse?

-Another dis-satisfied SBC customer

Thank you for choosing SBC...My name is Bruno and I think that you should follow our advice and pay the money that we ask...otherwise we might become very *disappointed* with you and who knows what could happen.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9449248 Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:50:25 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9449031
2. It *IS* perfectly reasonable, and commonly accepted practice, to return all such materials with a brief note of explanation which *DOES* constitute non-acceptance of terms or service.

3. The DSL contract is not completed until the subscriber performs the initial installation which involves picking a member ID and establishing a corresponding account. All further DSL service adjustments refer to this member ID in order to identify the account (per the SBC TOS).

4. The installation *obviously* was not even attempted never mind completed. In fact all materials were returned with a note of explanation which SBC acknowledged having received. The DSL account was never formally established.

5. Simply plugging the equipment in to the wall will not establish a DSL connection without such an account having been set up. In fact in order for DSL communication to occur the connection must be established by providing the member ID (username) and the associated password.

6. SBC does log each and every connection attempt and so is fully aware of whether or not the service had been used.

7. Verbal agreements bear the least legal weight in the state of California and are only admissable in court if: the agreement was *acted on by both parties* AND there is some other form of legally admissable evidence (such as check stubs, service logs, etc.) that verify that both parties subsequently took action to fulfill the agreement.

8. Its NOT the customers responsibility to be aware of SBC's (or any other companies) internal structure. SBC was contacted both in writing and directly at their published customer service number(s). Therefore more than one agent of SBC was *fully aware of the customer's intentions*.

9. Having been informed both in writing and verbally it was then *soley* SBC's responsibility to make sure that the proper action was taken. In this case proper action shouldn't have even required *disconnection* since the DSL agreement and account had never been formally established.

10. Just because SBC says this or that is required does not make any such "requirement" a matter of actual legal obligation or responsibility. In fact this customer could have quite easily and legally decided to have their lawyer deal with *ANY* authorized representative of SBC.

11. The customer in this case is being harrassed. The customer acted in good faith, following standard commonly accepted practices of doing business in the state of California, and so is not required to do anything further in relation to the DSL service that was never established.

12. SBC has the burden of proof. Since SBC is claiming that the customer owes money for goods or services rendered and the customer clearly (by SBC's own admissions) did not use any such service and returned all equipment and gave written explanation. SBC then has the burden of proving that this customer owes anything toward that end.

Here again, just because SBC says so, that in itself does NOT constitute legal obligation although we all know that SBC would like to think otherwise.

13. If SBC were to take any additional acction such as submitting such information to TRW or other credit information bureaus or otherwise affect the customers credit rating or ability to obtain credit or even limiting, preventing or cancelling other services based on that aborted agreement then SBC *IS* legally REQUIRED to take all reasonable measures to rectify the situation and if it fails to do so by neglect will be liable for slander.

14. To the customer: you may want to investigate your options at your local municipal court, probably small claims. Naturally you would want to seek legal advice before doing so, which is usually available for free by various legal assistance organizations (where lawyers intern/volunteer before completing the bar, etc.)

If you would want to do it yourself (as I have done) then you would want to spend some time in the legal library. Simply list the facts & your position. For each and every point do include the relevant section number from the California Civil Code. You should be able to *easily* find a CCVC for each and every point here as they are quite simple (only mitigated by SBC's harrassment...not any legal theory...SBC has no "legal leg" to stand on...ask any lawyer).

You people at SBC are unbelievable. This must be why most people seem to loathe SBC and their pigheaded, customer UNFRIENDLY practices and policies.

You are not fooling anyone you know. All of these bad decisions related to customer service will come back to haunt SBC. In fact, in some cases (class action suits) they alredy have.

Enjoy!
-Avid SBC fan

Thanks for choosing SBC...as if you had a choice...now shut up and get out of here...what do you mean calling us back for a second time...you have no rights except to do what we say, the way we say it and when we say it. Is there anything else we can do you for?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9449031 Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:38:43 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439635 --
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439635 Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:37:13 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439604 I recommend that to all. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439604 Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:33:38 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439409 --
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439409 Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:16:14 EDT Re: Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439317
I am sure I am the only person that has ever had this experience with that upstanding institution.

I chose the route of emailing, and had those bounced back.

Please go to the SBC website and find the Retention Center . . . . . . . . ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Common-Sense-9439317 Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:06:03 EDT Re: Is this customer friendly service? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9438776
Anyways, you can say what you want. I am not a billing rep and our billing reps have it stated, rather boldly, that he will not get credit.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9438776 Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:56:19 EDT Common Sense http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Common-Sense-9437562
And sending a cancellation note with returned equipment is just absurd! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Common-Sense-9437562 Thu, 19 Feb 2004 04:38:01 EDT Is this customer friendly service? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9435059
This is a great example of why I use DSL Extreme for my DSL service on my SBC phone line.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Is-this-customer-friendly-service-9435059 Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:03:56 EDT Re: We can help! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9431846
Many users have their own equipment and some choose to return it. As has been said, unless you call to cancel, your not cancelled.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9431846 Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:20:40 EDT Re: We can help! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9431824
" never called into our Retention dept. to cancel.

Beautiful, just beautiful !]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9431824 Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:18:33 EDT Re: We can help! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9430809 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9430809 Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:40:41 EDT Re: We can help! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9430737
You called billing twice and both times refused to speak with Retention. You kept emailing them after they explained to you that you have to verbally request a disconnect.

If you would have called and said you wanted your service disconnected because it was not compatible, we would not have charged you any of that. If it wasn't for that I would and could get you credit. Unfortunately it's beyond my call.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9430737 Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:32:48 EDT Re: We can help! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9430684
Looks like SBC will still charge for the service I never connected or used.
It is time to complain to California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC can be reached at (800) 649-7570

Beware of SBC and their tactics by switching you from one agency to another inside their company and be prepared to stay on "Terminal Hold".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-We-can-help-9430684 Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:27:49 EDT We can help! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/We-can-help-9430237 --
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/We-can-help-9430237 Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:09 EDT