Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   FCC needs to just force them to list the terms

   

   The Cenobyte, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 5:47am

   
   

   All that needs to happen to fix this is have the FCC and/or the FTC to force broadband providers to give a listing of extactly what they are selling you in a simple to read english format. I am sure they mostly already do that, but in 200pages of crap. All I need is a half page of what exactly the service is. Also contracts with home service contracts should be blocked from change without the customers consent at the time of change until the end of contract. IE clauses in contracts that allow pricing and service changes on the part of the provider that do not null the contract should be illegal.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Mechwarrior, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 5:59am

   
   

   Wouldnt this be a breach of contract?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re:

   

   Nicholas Overstreet (profile), Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:09am

   
   

   Mechwarrior:
   In nearly every single type of service "contract" you enter, there is a clause in it that allows the provider to change the terms of the contract when ever they want and for any reason they want.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Re:

   

   lulz, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:27am

   
   

   ...and without having to notify you that they changed it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Matthew Henry, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:32am

   
   

   Wouldnt this be a breach of contract?

   
   
   Only if you can convince an arbitrator that is bought and paid for by AT&T that this is a unilateral and material change. ISP contracts all have mandatory arbitration clauses and prevailing over your ISP is almost impossible (and very expensive).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   It says it at the bottom of the box, after "monosodium glutamate"

   

   Joey Maloney, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:39am

   
   

   Well, I hardly think that is good enough. I think it would be more appropriate if the box bore a large, red label, "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!"

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Not a cap

   

   mike42 (profile), Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:40am

   
   

   The term, "cap" is a misnomer. I had Verizon, and it's a "ration at your monthly rate." A "cap" would imply that something happens when you hit the limit, which it doesn't. If you use more than 5 gig a month, you just pay more. Much more. As in $1 for every 4 meg.
   
   Oh, yeah, to check your usage you have a utility you can run (which fails 1 out of 5 times) or you can disconnect and check the log (which doesn't necessarily mesh with their records) It's a very fast connection, which means that you can use up your entire 5 gig in a 36 hour period if you leave your browser on a streaming news site, or if your kid decides to leave the browser on MySpace with a streaming video in the background.
   
   We really need some consumer advocates. My discussions with the Verizon help desk has led me to believe they nail people like this all the time.
   
   I canceled my service after this fiasco. Screwing your customers is not a sustainable business model.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Not a cap

   

   aguywhoneedstenbucks, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:50am

   
   

   It certainly is a sustainable business model if all the companies in a particular industry are doing it. They just all have to do it at the same time and destroy any newcomers to the space by either buying them or charging insane amounts of money to leave their service.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: It says it at the bottom of the box, after "monosodium glutamate"

   

   Greg, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:55am

   
   

   Crunchy Frog!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    When competing isn't your only option...

    

    Glurbie, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 7:13am

    
    

    If telcos have a tendency to throttle competing VoIP traffic, and cable companies have a tendency to throttle competing video and p2p traffic, then maybe it makes sense that a comprehensive service like U-Verse would tend to throttle the internet as a whole.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    bandwidth yadda yadda

    

    Matt, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 7:19am

    
    

    want to know how much bandwidth capacity they really have? Ask if they could handle every viewer watching HDTV at the same time, multiple rooms in a house even. Guess what? They already do handle this (and have for 5+ years).
    
    Yes, lets let them throttle for excuses of performance. sheesh. They just want to oversell it by a factor of 10 higher than they already do.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Frosty840, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 7:42am

    
    

    What has happened with this situation in the UK is that all the IRPs (Internet Restriction Providers) suddenly introduced a bunch of capped plans with very low prices, so that nobody complained ("it's cheap, it's crap, and I'm not interested, so I don't care") and then started slowly raising the prices on the uncapped services (which all have cap-like, crippling "fair use" restrictions on them anyway) until we got to the current, dreadful situation.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    alex, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 7:50am

    
    

    Would you expect anything less from a company that will give up your ass to the Feds without even blinking an eye.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 7:54am

    
    

    Why you all down on AT&T? They're just doing what their Lizard Overlords are telling them to do. I for one welcome our new overlords.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    Re: FCC needs to just force them to list the terms

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 8:18am

    
    

    should be illegal...
    
    Unless required by law such as tax changes on the state or federal level.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    Re: It says it at the bottom of the box, after "monosodium glutamate"

    

    Michael B, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 8:32am

    
    

    More like albatross on a stick!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Re: FCC needs to just force them to list the terms

    

    Michael B, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 8:34am

    
    

    The FTC and FCC are pretty toothless and gutless. The thing that will change AT&T's behavior is massive exoduses from its services... and those people who have bundles should drop all of the services.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Re: Not a cap

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 8:38am

    
    

    "Cap" is quite accurate. Something DOES happen when you hit the limit... you get charged more. Regardless of the semantics, caps or limits or rations are ludicrous in light of the always-dropping cost of providing the service, in conjunction with the experts' view that the ISPs insistence that we are running out of bandwidth is nonsense.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Griffon, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 9:13am

    
    

    My buddy in Reno is spitting mad about this. He signed up for uverse and never had the caps disclosed to him.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 9:14am

    
    

    AT&T = Evil
    
    This is not news.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    Lesser Evil

    

    that other Guy, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 9:33am

    
    

    While I am not a big fan of AT&T when I was forced to choose between Comcast and AT&T the choice was easy.
    Comcast has screwed too many people I know for me to ever consider paying them for crappy service.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Paul Brinker, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 9:33am

    
    

    "mandatory arbitration clauses" have been shown in several courts to be unconscionable. This is because the courts accecpt the thory that a business is generaly in a much better bargining situation then the customer.
    
    The Cell Phone companys already got hit with this:
    http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/11565671-1.html
    
    (note: I am a Washinton resident, your state might be differnt)
    
    The court felt that since arbitration paid for by the company had a 97% + rate of being in favor of the company that it was not fair to the consumer. As such the customer cant sign away their rights to lawsuit (including class action lawsuits) no matter what the contract says.
    
    Anyway, if you sign me up for a 2 year net access, then change my terms im just going to cancle under the grounds that you changed my contract and I had a right to accecpt the new contract (or not).

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    Re: Not a cap

    

    The infamous Joe, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 9:34am

    
    

    Oh, yeah, to check your usage you have a utility you can run (which fails 1 out of 5 times)
    
    Which I'm willing to bet only runs on Windows, and *maybe* Mac. Sorry Linux, none for you.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Rekrul, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 1:33pm

    
    

    This is a GREAT business model!
    
    I'm going to start my own house painting service, and I'll make people sign a contract before I begin. Buried in all the fine print will be a clause saying that I can change the terms of the contract at any time. Then, I'll paint one small area, claim that their house is taking too much paint and quit. When they complain that I didn't deliver the service that they paid for, I'll just point them to the contract and tell them that I changed the terms.
    
    That way, I can charge big bucks and hardly have to do any work or use much paint. I'll be rich!
    
    If they try to sue me, I can point out the anti-sue clause that they agreed to and use AT&T as an example of other businesses that work this way.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    Re: Re: FCC needs to just force them to list the terms

    

    Jason, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 2:32pm

    
    

    mass exoduses = redundantly repetitative

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 3:05pm

    
    

    Yep, get 'em hooked, then jack up the price. Then run an ad campaign villainizing 'pirates and other illegal bandwidth hogs' as the reason your service already sucks; Just keep trying out different lies 'till you find one that'll keep your 'customers' from burning down your corporate headquarters, and go for it!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    What contract?

    

    Dan, Apr 21st, 2009 @ 6:13pm

    
    

    AT&T will never breach a contract with the consumer because he will never see the contract or understand it without a K street lawyer on retainer.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    Re: Rekrul

    

    FakeName1986273, Apr 22nd, 2009 @ 12:17pm

    
    

    I'll tell you this much... I just signed up for U-Verse, and I like some things better than Time Warner, but other things I don't like as much. If they change my rates at ANY POINT or cap my broadband either by throttling it down or charging me after a certain limit is reached, I'll be leaving them, and I will not be paying them a dime. I've got two friends that are lawyers (one in intellectual property) and my dad is a senator. Bring it bitches. If you want to tussle, lets tussle.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment