Slashdot Mirror
Telcom Fraud: The Previous Generation
theodp writes "Remember back in the day when telcom firms were charged with simple, good old-fashioned consumer fraud? AT&T and Lucent got a history lesson Friday, agreeing to a $300 million settlement related to claims that they used confusing billing statements to mislead consumers into paying lease charges for their home telephones, including the timeless rotary Traditional, that totaled many times more than the actual value of the phones."
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
Cable companies charging a $15 rental fee/month for cable modem rentals...
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
Just got a class action notice the other day from Verizon wireless. It said essentially "if you do nothing, you'll receive some coupons worth $10 - $20, and give up your right to receive settlement. Or you have to send a opt-out letter to provided address to participate in class action settlement".
I don't know what piece of legislation allow companies to do this. It is better for consumer that settlement is opt-out (do nothing and you'll participate in settlement).
Of course I actually send my name address to opt-in to this particular settlement. Darn thing that postal service raised postage again I end up using 2 32cent stamps.
Somehow I'll be had...
--- You make things foolproof, and they'll find you a damn fool.
Well great, so a practice that appears questionable at best is coming to a close.
Here's my problem with the universe of class action lawsuits: out of this $300 million, the lawyers are going to take 30% or so. This is a tidy little sum. The people who were gouged are going to end up with not-so-much relative to the amounts they were "overbilled". Probably less than the inflation-adjusted price of a Princess telephone.
The article even mentions that some of the settlement money comes in the form of calling cards donated to charity. This doesn't remediate the damage to the class in any way whatsoever, but it does help to pump the total value of the settlement (and hence the total value of 30% of the settlement.)
The class-action phenomena is great for lawyers who can come up with new and innovative reasons to sue companies for large sums of money.
Where it's abused, they cost all of us (the end users) a little bit of money, earn the litigators a lot of money, and often accomplish nothing more than what could be accomplished with a press conference or two to bring pressure on the company to stop.
Perhaps I am just growing cynical.
Yet Qwest is still doing what they have been doing for the past several years.
I rather like how they handle the situation, have shitty customer / telecom service, get fined, go to court, negotiate w/ govt, say that they will add more phone / data lines to rural areas (which they were already planning to do anyways), get their fines reduced and pay almost nothing.
That and piss away shareholder money like a college student at a kegger, forcibly switch their dsl customers to MSN, and sell your personal information.
Same shit, bigger pile methinks.
(perhaps I'm still a little bitter about the whole msn thing)
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Another class action settlement. No doubt this will be like most others in which consumers get nothing but the recognition they've been cheated (and maybe a 75 cent check), and a few lawyers get to buy cliff houses in Miami.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Note that comparatively tiny Lucent actually had to pay money in its part of the settlement.
I like how the phone companies used to charge extra money for touch tone dialing. Nevermind that it saved the phone companies millions, if not billions, of dollars per year.
Notice how banks do the same thing. I'm sure sure ATMs and Internet banking save them money (no tellers to pay), but they add service charges for "the convenience". When was the last time you could ask an ATM a question?
Nah, you just don't have the proper faith. Deregulation only fails because we don't go far enough. If deregulating industry A screws the consumers and deregulating industry B screws the consumers, it must be that if we deregulate all industries, it will help the consumer...
Deregulations has been a long-term failure in each of the industries in which we've tried it since the late 1970s (with, admittedly, the partial exception of the telecom industry, where at least prices have generally come down -- although lack of vigorous oversight has allowed the re-emergence of local monopolies). Business clamors for it and certain elements in the government eagerly give it to them. But those same elements don't believe in spending dime one on enforcement of the associated conditions, and so the model collapses. Then we're left with the same old monopolies, but now they don't have any silly Public Utilities Commission breathing down their necks and "hampering their efficiency" with quaint oddities like fair practice regulations.
The deregulation zealots bring to mind Santaya, but I don't know which quote is more a propos: "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it"
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Ok, here's what this is about. Some people just realized that they have been paying the phone company every month to lease telephone equipment. Over the years, they've paid many times what the phone itself was really worth.
And?
If you've walked into a store anytime in the last 20 years, you would find that you can, in fact, purchase your very own telephone and don't need to continue to rent one from the phone company. And even if you continued to rent the telephone, you're not just renting the particular phone sitting in your house but also buying protection from that phone breaking. If it does break, the phone company will supply you with another one.
This should be filed under "Oh, come on!"