Slashdot Mirror
Congress Investigates Carriers' Debt Collections
Julie188 writes "'Tis the season for the government to crack down on abusive practices by your secretly evil national wireless carrier. Next up: a congressional committee will be looking into a debt collection practice that prevents customers from filing lawsuits. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will be examining a contract clause that forces customers to waive their right to sue and instead agree to forced arbitration. He is hot on the tails of the carriers after a similar investigation of credit card companies lead to nine banks removing the forced arbitration clause from their contracts. This follows the week's earlier news that the FCC was going to try to come up with new rules to prevent wireless bill shock."
I think Dennis Kucinich is someone that can be trusted to look after the people instead of pandering to business.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
At least this shows congress doesn't deepthroat the corporations dicks They just go halfway in
Tis the season for the government to crack down on abusive practices by your secretly evil national wireless carrier
That is the worst kept secret EVER. They are all evil, every last one of them, and if you don't know this by now then you must not have ever had a cellphone before.
They should ban forced arbitration clauses in any one-sided contract including credit cards, telecommunications service, cable service and utility service.
How many slashdotters *don't* spend more than 100 bucks a month on their evil carrier overlord of choice...
Go ahead, ask around, I will wait.
I know I don't, and anyone with a smartphone is lucky if they are under the 100 mark (god help them if they have a family)... Smartphones are the new geek gold standard, and I for one want to keep an eye on carriers. They are up to some sneaky shit.
Since Libertarianism gained credibility around here. I think this has more to do with geeks and our wireless toys. It's not particularly useful to have an iPhone if you don't have a carrier. Although, you can use a Nexus One completely without carrier if you wish. But that basically makes it a very expensive PDA/Skype client.
Let me remind you that Slashdot carries "news for nerds, stuff that matters" a category in which I believe this story falls.
Verizon Droid: $40 voice, $30 "unlimited" data = about $85 after fees, insurance and taxes.
Cell phones and mobile networks are technology. They are some of the most complicated consumer technology we have today, in fact. Anything and everything relating to such technology is surely fair game here at Slashdot, even if it involves the companies who provide the technology, or the consumers who use it. After all, they're the ones who drive the technological developments.
Arbitration is essentially a system of parallel, private courts run by corporations, for corporations and for the express purpose of denying justice and avoiding the laws of the land. It's an absolutely corrupt system and should not be allowed to exist in any form whatsoever. Allowing seemingly innocuous instances of this practice has lead to private companies forcing rape victims to give up their rights. Corporation employees can abuse people in any way they please and can rely on their own private courts to avoid any reprecussions. Judges support this creeping privatisation of the judiciary as they are rewarded with handsome salaries as the private magistrates of these twisted courts.
Around the time of the Jamie Leigh Jones rape arbitration scandal, I remember speaking with someone in management about arbitration--I live in Ireland. He claimed that the trend in business--magazines, conferences and so on--was pushing arbitration heavily. As the "modern" way of doing business. The conversation sent a chill down my spine. The laws of my country and the people in it were being put in dire jeopardy, our legal protections being replaced right under our noses by this latest innovation in American savagery. At least I live in the EU; I can only imagine what must be occurring in Latin America or indeed the US itself.
Arbitration is lawlessness. It is rule by the powerful over the weak. It's not even a form of order, as arbitration courts have no strict rules, no obligation to consider precedent, no means of appeal, and are not even obliged to publish their rulings, let alone have an open court. The North Koreans have a more enlightened legal system--and again that is not hyperbole. Any society that accepts the rule of such courts has abandoned all pretence of justice and equality and has turned the clock back a thousand years before even the Magna Carta. And no other society should follow them down the path to ruin.
May the Maths Be with you!
There's nothing inherently wrong with mandatory arbitration -- it is a cheaper way to resolve a dispute than going to court. However, like all decisions, even one made by a judge or jury, the decisionmakers have inbuilt biases and/or philosophies (I have no desire to argue over semantics, thank you very much).
The problem with mass arbitration is that the ordinally sensible rules of arbitration are susceptible to gamesmanship, and the repeat player, i.e., in these cases the phone companies, have superior information that permits them to shift the odds of a favorable decision substantially towards them.
In normal binding arbitration, each side has some ability to shape the arbitrator by objecting to the randomly assigned arbitrator (if there is a single arbitrator), or some of the members of the panel (if there is a panel of 3, the usual but less common alternative).
Joe Schmoe may have been to arbitration once before in his life. He has no reason to object to an arbitrator that he doesn't know from Adam. MegaCorp keeps records of all its arbitration results. It knows that Arbitrator X rules against it in some non-trivial percentage of the cases before him/her. It objects in the hope of pulling another Arbitrator who is more favorable to it. Arbitrator X does not get paid for being an arbitrator in that case. Lather, rinse, and repeat. On average, the panels can be shifted to be more favorable to MegaCorp by strategic objection (object if record is unfavorable, do not if record is favorable), and Arbitrator X is not making nearly as good of a living as Arbitrator Y because he/she keeps getting removed from potential arbitrations. Arbitrator Y is making a good living due to a good record. You do not need to assign 'evil' motives to Arbitrator Y -- the pool of arbitrators will naturally enrich with those who are philosophically favorable to MegaCorp.
And that, my friends, is why one never ever agrees to binding arbitration involving a repeat player who is permitted to object without cause. Of course, if you are facing a take-it-or-leave-it situation where the practice pervades an entire industry, then you need to turn to those dirty interventionist liberals (says the generally libertarian lawyer -- individuals have liberties, corporations not so much).
Maybe I don't want to pay higher phone bills to cover the costs of lawsuits from other customers.
Arbitration is less expensive, and more predictable as you're not throwing things in front of juries all the time. That's not to say it hasn't been abused, but how about tweaking the process a bit instead of tossing it completely?
Maybe you can have forced arbitration, but the customer gets to choose the arbiter, the company pays for the arbitrator, and the customer can still bring a lawyer if they want to?
Also make forced arbitration not applicable to class action suits and allow for judicial review, by a judge, but with some deference to the arbitration decision.
paintball
Here and Here
>>>How many slashdotters *don't* spend more than 100 bucks a month on their evil carrier overlord of choice...
I don't. My phone costs $0.00/month, and I'm billed per minute of use It's actually cheaper than my wired phone ($15).
I don't use the data features, because I'm almost always sitting in front of a computer when I need net access.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The problem is that the Federal Government did not do anything to get arbitration removed by Credit Card issuing banks.
What happened was that the banks used an organization called NAF which was literally funded by the banks. Of course NAF found for the banks 99% of the time. Then the MN Attorney General looking to make a name for herself took NAF to task and NAF folded. That left 2 arbitration forums that were more expensive for the banks and more consumer friendly than NAF.
Some consumers actually read their contract and when they were brought to court for not paying their debts, used the contract against the banks to force the banks into paying 5-figure arbitration fees for 4-figure debts. The court judges in some states started to go along with the consumers. Hence, the banks removed arbitration from their contracts because they could not outright use it to screw over the customer anymore. Of course, the banks have a 98% success rate in court but that is because people do not answer the cases when summoned and even if they do answer, most answer "I cannot afford to pay".
Do a search on credit debt collection boards and you will find what I mean about the above.
So, since congress did not remove the arbitration clauses, why are they saying they did. Are they trying to turn this into something like the Providian case where they OCC entered at the last minute then turned around and said that state AGs cannot take banks to court for violations using that case as a success (again, look up Providian Credit Card Case)? I wonder if they are trying to protect the cell phone companies rather than the consumers.
TheMidget is the receiver at Goatse - don't click unless you really want to see him nekkid.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Verizon prepaid. I keep it because I'm on call every 4th week. I don't want to be tied to the house for that weekend. It costs me about 50 cents a day, I guess, unless I actually USE it. Then, it's about a dollar a day. Don't need or want any more than that, unless I can get unlimited data and tether it to my home computer. Since there is no tower close enough to me, that isn't happening.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'd care MORE about employment contracts and forced arbitration.
note: sorry for the very long post, but its important as it deals with employment in the tech field.
I spent a good month dealing with an asshole company who would not give in on basic simple concepts. they created an employment contract, I rejected many lines in it and asked them to rewrite it. at first they understood that what they were asking for was illegal in california and unenforceable. a week later, their legal 'team' refused to edit even a single line in the employment contract. we tried another tact and gave them our own (I was going thru a middelman at the time) contract which I believed was a lot more fair to both sides. they refused.
this went around and around for over a month. in the end, I walked away, at the advice of pretty much everyone.
cellphones are BS, I can (and do) live well without one. nope, I don't own or carry one (at all). but I do need to have a job and the jobs are coming with 'strings attached' when you read the current crop of contracts.
even if you say 'this is not enforceable in XYZ state' they won't back off.
I learned one thing: when you get an employment offer, say 'thanks!' and then follow it with 'as soon as my lawyer reviews this, I'll get back to you'. non-confrontational but do NOT EVER EVER EVER sign an employment contract (these days) without YOUR legal guy looking it over.
the way it has to work (again, as I learned my lesson) is: my 'guy' will call your guy and they'll talk legal shit to each other. 'where did you go to law school? oh yeah, did you know so and so?' etc etc.
they connect and they review the doc and say 'you don't REALLY think its legal or fair to ask for clause #3, do you?' and it progresses with both lawyers comparing dick sizes (so to speak) and eventually coming to an agreement. what makes this work is that they both know that they know the laws and you can't BS a BSer. that's one key concept. the other is that you have to allow your layer to be the 'bad guy' and you should NEVER come off to the new company as the bad guy. you WANT to sign that contract but your lawyer (the 'bad guy') won't let you. you appear good to the new company but you also do NOT give up your rights.
in the end, the company respects you, you KNOW you have a fair contract and no 'cannot work for competitors for next 10 years' BS clauses in there. your lawyer played good cop/bad cop with you and the company and you get a straight deal.
if you do not do that, dollars to donuts you signed an indentured servant contract and didn't even realize it.
especially NOW when the econ is in the dumps, companies are trying to screw you over with your employment contract. they count on the fact that you are 'desparate' enough to sign anything.
don't object to HR when you are there. smile, thank them and tell them that as soon as your 'guy' checks this over, you'll be happy to sign it. then let your hired guy defend you before you sign that rotton scummy endentured servant agreement.
lesson learned! please use this procedure next time you get an offer letter. I've found that in sofware (my field) almost NO ONE reads or even tries to cross out any lines in their contract. get a lawyer. its not just for 'top execs' anymore. we ALL need those guys to review our docs and fight for us.
(you would not believe the legally unenforceable things in the text of my last contract. it made me and my recruiter pretty sick, I'll tell you.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I saw them on television recently, discussing all the things they had in common.
How they are both fringe loonies that few people take very seriously? I've met Dennis Kucinich in person. Not a guy I'd vote for.
For example, both think the Federal Reserve (central bank) is a business monopoly that screws the customers by devaluing paper money...
A retarded notion. First off, only a tiny percentage of the money in the economy is actual paper/coin currency. We're talking single digit percentage. Second, the fed adjusts the amount of money in circulation both up and down to respond to the needs of the economy. Devaluing (usually called weakening) the currency is not necessarily bad because it makes exports more competitive. This is exactly what China has done with their currency - they hold it below its natural market value because it makes their exports cost less in other markets. Conversely, if you strengthen the dollar (take dollars out of circulation) you make imports cheaper but you hurt exports.
, and should be audited at least once per decade to find out where the money is being spent, and possibly dissolved.
While there are limits which are deserving of criticism, the Fed is regularly audited by the GAO. There are as we speak transparency laws and some (recently successful) lawsuits that should address some of these issues.
As for dissolving the Fed, you'll need to first address how you are going to resolve the issues that the Fed currently exists to handle including check clearing, being a lender of last resort, managing nation wide payment systems, balancing the interests of private for-profit banks with that of government, keeping reserve funds for the banking system, adjusting the money supply, providing liquidity to lending institutions, reducing the chance of and impact of bank runs, controlling systemic financial risk and more. While the Fed is hardly a perfect institution (far from it), it serves a number of vital purposes. I have yet to hear anyone who proposes eliminating the Federal Reserve System actually address in any detail a replacement system. Central banks exist for some very good reasons.
Here is what AT&T charges above the advertised rate for my wireless:
Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges:
* Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge: 0.66
* Federal Universal Service Charge: 1.04
* TX Franschise Tax Recovery: 0.30
* Texas Universal Service: 0.65
Taxes:
* 911 Service Fee: 0.50
* Tx State Telecom Tax: 2.72
* City Telecom Tax: 0.44
* City District Telecom Tax: 0.29
The important thing to note here is the "Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges" section is not taxes. They are fees with names made up by AT&T to sound like taxes so customers won't complain. In reality this section is just an additional $2.65 monthly charge not included in the advertised rate. They should clearly state a rate for everything that is not taxes. But, of course, they are evil and regulation is weak so that will never happen.
Me? Up until recently, I spent ~$30 per month (including all the extra taxes and charges), but I decided that this was tossing money out the window, considering that I spent around 2 minutes of talk time and 5 minutes of data time each month.
One phone is a necessity.
Two is a convenience.
Three is a luxury.
None is heaven.
Forced arbitration is already unenforceable in provinces such BC and Ontario. Why don't they just bury in the contract that you forfeit your first born in the event of a dispute. Contract language needs limits, market forces alone are insufficient.
Normally the Constitution is taken to mean that a person maintains their rights even when they do not want those rights. The expectation of the right to trial by jury is normal. The notion that one can sign away one's right to the protections of the justice system holds no water at all and has only been tolerated because the big money players wanted it in place.The worm has turned.
I pay $39.99/month including taxes for "T-Mobile Total Internet Voice Bar".
Unlimited data (I have regularly exceeded 1GB a month, and occasionally much higher when tethering).
SMS is enabled, but charged at $0.12 each. I don't use it anyway.
Voice calling is barred.
I bought a Nexus One at launch, and I have free incoming and outgoing voice and text courtesy of Google Voice.
I have a free SIPgate account to give me a number to forward GV to. I also have a Gizmo5 account, which is better integrated with GV, but introduces higher latency to voice calls and has noticeably poorer call quality.
I now also run Skype on the handset, as do my family abroad. No more international call charges.
I have a predictable phone bill every month, which is all I ever wanted.
"There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
Arbitration is a system for settling disputes easier, with less cost to parties involved, and less weight on the justice system. Doesn't mean it should be used for everything (or perhaps even for most things) but it is useful, and isn't an invention of companies. The government can use arbitrations too. Where I live, any traffic insurance suit under $25,000 goes to arbitration, not court. That is state law, not private companies saying anything. The reason is there's a lot of that little shit that happens. People get in an accident, the insurance of the person at fault pays all the costs, however someone wants more money, hires an ambulance chaser, waits till right before the statute of limitations is up and sues. That small shit gets remanded to arbitration so that a trial doesn't have to happen. It is just the clients, their lawyers, and an arbitrator, which is a neutral lawyer.
At the end of the fairly short proceeding (takes much less time then a trial) the arbitrator will decide how much is owed. If the defendant doesn't like that, they can demand a trial with no negative recourse. That is their right as per the constitution. However if the plaintiff doesn't like it, they can also demand a trial, but should they fail to secure an award larger than what the arbitrator gave by a non trivial amount (20% I believe) they are fined.
The whole point is just to keep costs down. A real trial requires a courtroom to be booked, a judge to be tied up, a jury to be selected, and so on. Arbitration just requires an arbitrator and a meeting in their office.
So I'm not saying it hasn't been abused, however this out and out hate for it is stupid. It is useful for things that don't need to go to court. The real problem is the concept of binding arbitration, saying that the results cannot be appealed to a court period.
Also please note that the KBR case is a bit of an oddity. The reason is that you are dealing with US personal in a country without much of a functioning justice system. That means that the company has to be relied upon to a large degree. In the US itself, this wouldn't be an issue. The rape complaint would be made to the police, who would investigate and prosecute as they saw fit. No agreement would matter, as it is the state itself that handles criminal prosecutions, and they have unquestionable jurisdiction. Also this wouldn't be an issue in a functioning foreign country, like say England. Again the complaint would go to the state (the Crown over there) and handled as a police matter. Doesn't matter if it was Americans involved, that the crime was committed on English soil would mean their courts would have jurisdiction.
The problem was that there was (and really is) no Iraqi justice system to go to. That's why KBR is involved and why the arbitration contract is involved. Not saying it is a good thing, just that you need to recognize it is an edge case, one the laws didn't consider since it is a rather new thing. Had she been raped by KBR employees while they were all in Texas, any agreement with KBR would be irrelevant, the Texas police and courts would investigate and prosecute the case.
The Universal Service Fund really is a tax. The bill was written specifically to make the phone companies look bad (ha ha I know) by taxing them above and beyond normal federal tax rates, then giving them the option to pass the charge onto their customers. Every business on the planet is going to pass that tax on, but congress can look good by saying "Hey your evil phone carrier is not voluntarily taking this tax out of their profits!"
When possible, politicians try to have someone else collect their taxes so they're not the ones getting shot in a "shoot the messenger" situation.
How many slashdotters *don't* spend more than 100 bucks a month on their evil carrier overlord of choice...
Go ahead, ask around, I will wait.
I pay ZERO for my telephone services. I'm disabled and used my lifeline benefit to get a free cell phone, via reachoutwireless, that includes 60 minutes per month. I use about 10 minutes each month and the unused minutes DO roll over. I have a Google Voice number that I give out to everyone so they can leave messages for me. But then, the only people who ever call are Doctor's offices reminding me of appointments.
I'm waiting for WOOT to offer an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. I need one.
This is the third 6-digit UID I've seen posting single sentences with Goatse goo.gl links... maybe someone is hacking /. accounts?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I pay $39.99/month including taxes for "T-Mobile Total Internet Voice Bar".
I asked about that in a Best Buy Mobile store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA. But they wouldn't sell me an Android phone up front, and they wouldn't sell me one subsidized by a data plan unless I signed up for $40/mo voice. I would use fewer than 10 percent of the included 450 minutes per month, and that'd be a heavy month for me. So I still have a dumbphone on Virgin Mobile.
>>>"Credits, Adjustments, and Other Charges" section is not taxes.
Uh, yes, yes they are taxes (and all it took was a google search to find this shit):
- "The Federal Universal Service pays for four programs: Lifeline/Link-Up, High-Cost, Schools and Libraries, Rural Health Care (fcc.gov)
- TX Franschise Tax Recovery is a tax (www.state.tx.us)
- Texas Universal Service - ditto (www.state.tx.us)
- "The Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge is a charge assessed by AT&T associated with payment of government imposed fees and to recover the costs of compliance with government imposed regulatory requirements." (att.com) It includes: Federal Regulatory Fee- annual fee imposed on AT&T by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) - AT&T is required to make into the Federal TRS fund. Enhanced 911 (E911) - surcharge inposed by certain states. And so on for about ten more government-imposed items.
Taxes. Every one of them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It's not particularly useful to have an iPhone if you don't have a carrier.
Then explain the iPod touch and its App Store. What's the closest Android counterpart to iPod touch?
no one NEEDS cellphones, those are toys for the rich
Unless you're competing with a hundred other people for the same position, and your employer picked someone else because someone else picked up the phone for a callback after the callback to your number went to an answering machine.
Is forced arbitration bad if both sides have equal say in the arbitration process?
The sides rarely have equal say. For example, the larger party often reserves the right to choose the state in which arbitration happens.
I did not pony up for a lawyer the last time around, so I don't know the rates.
I don't care about the rates. its a one-time fee, more or less, for the duration of the job.
some things to worry about: non-compete clauses; sections that talk about what the company 'owns' when it buys you (hint: if you do your own software work on the side or ANY business, the company you are applying for seems to think - these days - that they get to own ALL your efforts. even if not related to the core business!
example from my last contract:
"outside activities: while you render services to the company, you
agree that you will not engage in any other employment, consulting or
other business activity without the prior written consent of the
company"
I was shocked to see that! that was verbatim quotation from my last contract (that I refused to sign).
under that clause, if I sell a house, mow a lawn for a fee, fix a computer for a fee or write C++ code for someone on the weekends, the company gets to own all or any part of that 'work' they want. its absurd! beware of these 'no outside business' bullshit clauses.
and as for picking the right or best lawyer, I'm not sure that matters as much. what DOES matter is that you show up with 'same' so as to balance things. they have a lawyer and you'd be nuts to not have one, as well. they are TRYING to craft a document that expressly and clearly screws you. they hope you won't try to cross out lines. they KNOW what they ask for is technically illegal but they push it anyway.
ie, as engineers, we tend to see the world in a light of honesty. we want our code to be clean and run correctly and have no 'incorrect' things (bugs, malicious code, etc). BUT, big lesson here: much of the rest of the world does not follow our code of ethics. they TRY at every turn to lie, cheat and screw you over. such is the job of HR. I'm not kidding; I wish I was. their job is to create the most absurd contract they can get away with, legal or not. even if you sign it, you are not bound by illegal rules but they get you to THINK you are. quite evil.
the larger co's have optimized this and know what to back down on. the smaller ones are the ones you have to watch out for. they don't tend to have enough experience (as companies) to know what's fair and what they can and cannot get away with. smallers ones are very screwed up and you have to watch them like a hawk. they haven't been burned by their own bad behaviour enough to know better.
simply showing up (over the phone, I mean) wiht a lawyer is sufficient for most of what you are trying to do. its a show of force and also showing them you are SERIOUS about your job but you also realize that things must be done 'in a certain way' and that means if they have high powered lawyers crafting their screw-you document, you at least have to show up with SOMETHING other than your social security card and a pen. they count on the fact that you assume they have legally vetted their own doc. they have, but not in the way you think!
I'm nearly 50 and have been working in software for over 30 yrs. it took me a LONG time to learn this lesson. please benefit from this and save yourself a lot of hassle. no matter what, don't bypass this! you may think the company is above-board but corporate ethics are at an all-time low these days. you'd be surprised what a lawyer ON YOUR SIDE can find fault with, in those scummy employment one-sided contracts.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
T-mobile prepaid with no data plan and I pay about $15 a month on average.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
For a few months, I tried living without any phone service at all. It can be done.
Was pretty amusing whenever I was asked for a phone number. No one believed that I didn't have one. They took this attitude that I was just being difficult. The driver's license office was the worst. Would not proceed without a phone number. A valid passport wasn't enough for them. (Doesn't say good things about campaigning against cell phone use while driving, hmm? However I don't care for the implicit government support of the phone business.) Finally I gave in, sort of. Gave them a 555 number, and they refused to use it because it was obviously not valid. So I made one up that might have been valid, who knows? The bureaucrat knew it wasn't mine, but played along as it was good enough to satisfy their requirements.
You don't have to have a phone. You just have to have a phone number.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
>>>even if you say 'this is not enforceable in XYZ state' they won't back off.
If the clauses are unenforceable inside the state, then it doesn't need to be crossed out. It's automatically null-and-void. I would have signed the contract rather than lose the money, and only concerned myself with those bits that are legally enforceable (like how easy can you be terminated).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I know it's not a "modern" smart phone, but the Treo650 can be had for $100 new on Ebay. Quad band GSM, web, email, ebooks, music, calender and it backs up to my linux pc.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
They're taxes, yes. The thing is, they're taxes on the telco that they are passing through to you based on an estimation of your share" of their actual obligation. The money you pay the telco goes in their pocket and if they slightly over-collect from enough people they can pocket it. This is distinct from sales tax which mandates any over-collection to be turned over to the state. The "taxes" section is taxes you owe that the business collects on the government's behalf. This distinction is why they're separate.
Honestly, what a business should do when they get a tax increase is raise their rates. People object, of course, so the telcos lobby heavily to be allowed to "pass this on" directly so they don't look like the bad guy. In reality, it's a simple cost of doing business and should be rolled into the normal rate. At least, that's my opinion.
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
If I'm recalling correctly, the federal 9th circuit struck down the binding arbitration clause of the contract in a suit against Verizon, stating that a cell phone contract is a contract of adhesion, and that one can not sign away their rights to legal recourse. I'm sure read this from a story linked from a /. front page post. I don't have the time to find this, but hopefully my post will jog someone's memory and they'll get a +5 comment for recalling it.
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
follow-up as a point of clarification.
when first trying to negotiate with this company, I did not hire a lawyer. THAT was my mistake. while I was correct about this and that clause being technically unenforceable, the fact that I did not have a law degree meant that it was 'just my personal view' and it carries zero weight.
yes, you can be technically correct but if you don't posess 'credentials', others who don't have to believe you, won't.
that was the case here. I tried to explain why this and that was not acceptable in my contract and it got me nowhere.
I learned THRU this that, had I hired a lawyer at the get-go and had him be the 'bad guy' and dispute this and that clause, things might have worked out. as it were, I had already 'ruined' things by directly being the bad guy and disputing various paragraphs in the contract. I do feel confident that those exact same clauses would have been trimmed IF the lawyer on my side had requested it and not me. I thought I didn't need the lawyer and once I took on a part of his role, the job process was essentially done-for. that much I know now.
hopefully this is educational for others. don't repeat my last mistake and try to take on the contract modification yourself. very small and simple things might be do-able on your own but if you think you may need more, just smile, say thank you and have a lawyer, in the next day or two, look over the contract and comment on it. he'll be able to advise you of your chances of getting X or Y edited the way you want or at least to warn you of huge red flags that you may not be able to catch on your own.
if you start off doing any of this on your own, you can't later on get a lawyer; it will be too late. that's my lesson (and why that job could not be salvaged, in my case).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."