|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 219 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Our Payments Were Automatic. Stopping Them Wasn't.
Phoning Home: The $32.39 Surprise
Deregulated phone market has its 'gotcha' moments
Massachusetts Supreme Court Strikes Class Action Ban, Rejects Texas Law
An Interview With David Vladeck of the F.T.C.
Fresh Views at Agency Overseeing Online Ads
And You Thought a Prescription Was Private
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 12:37:58 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Our Payments Were Automatic. Stopping Them Wasn't.
Message-ID: <p06240826c6a4ab4f5887@[10.0.1.3]>
DIGITAL DOMAIN
Our Payments Were Automatic. Stopping Them Wasn't.
By RANDALL STROSS
July 26, 2009
MY wife likes to anticipate things going awry. When she signed an
auto lease agreement three years ago, she authorized the leasing
company to pull its monthly payments directly from our checking
account. But once the final payment had gone out, she gave me an
assignment: cancel the automatic payment authorization with our bank.
She was concerned that the payments would continue.
A world-class worrier!
Her premonitions came to pass, however. The week after she mailed her
check to buy the car at the end of its lease and we thought that all
was settled, we got a surprise: an extra, 37th monthly payment went
to the leasing company. How was this even possible logistically? I
had done as my wife asked and put in a preventative stop-payment
request just in case with our bank, Citibank.
In an e-mailed response, Citibank attributed the failure to stop
payment to a mistake made by an employee, "an isolated incident due
to human error." (It later restored the funds, but by that point the
bank knew that its customer was a reporter; asked whether it was bank
policy to always make customers whole when payment isn't properly
stopped, a Citibank spokeswoman declined to answer this or any other
questions.) At least Citibank owned up to having made a mistake. The
leasing company, U.S. Bank, said that no mistake was made: it asserts
a right to withdraw payments indefinitely until it declares a
lessee's account closed.
When my wife called U.S. Bank after discovering the surprise debit,
she learned that her check to buy the car had been deposited two days
earlier but that a refund for the 37th payment had not yet been set
in motion. The refund eventually came in an old-fashioned paper
check, which didn't show up until 22 days after U.S. Bank had
processed the purchase check.
When funds transfer automatically as all parties wish and expect, we
are well served. Automatic direct payments like those lease payments
are but one small part of the vast electronic payments system in the
United States, known as the Automated Clearing House network.
Direct deposits are another part of the system - and a wonderful
invention indeed. A system that brings money automatically into an
individual's account is efficient, and a vast improvement over the
time when banks would lock up the funds for three to five days. But
when the money moves in the other direction and goes out as a direct
payment - again, automatically - the door is opened to potential
problems.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/business/26digi.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 12:45:22 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Phoning Home: The $32.39 Surprise
Message-ID: <p06240828c6a4ad68d679@[10.0.1.3]>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/your-money/12haggler.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
July 12, 2009
THE HAGGLER
Phoning Home: The $32.39 Surprise
By DAVID SEGAL
Q. My mother was recently delayed while traveling and, not having her
cellphone, called me collect in Ithaca, N.Y., from a pay phone in
Newark Liberty International Airport. For a collect call lasting
one or two minutes, I was charged $32.39 on my credit card. The
company, Legacy LD International, never posted its rates or offered
to explain its charges. Its customer service is rude and
hostile. Why is an airport allowing it to operate there? The
Internet is crawling with similar stories about this company. Would
appreciate any help. Rahul Krishnan
A. Mr. Krishnan isn't kidding about the vast quantity of Legacy
LD-related rage on the Internet. The company, which is based in
Cypress, Calif., has generated so much ill will that when you
Google its name, the first link is the collected fulminations of
customers on a Web site called complaintsboard.com.
The complaints are variations on Mr. Krishnan's theme: "I got charged
$31.09 for a five minute collect call from my boyfriend at a pay phone
from Legacy LD INTL." "Legacy billed me $262.88 for five 3rd party
calls ranging up to $11.62 per minute." Etc.
Those who demanded an explanation or a refund wound up even
angrier. When Mr. Krishnan gave it a shot, he told the Haggler last
week, he asked to speak to a supervisor and the customer service rep
said: "You can try calling back later. But you'll probably just get me
again."
The Haggler hears all this and thinks: It is on.
But before we commence the Three Stooges-style whoop and slap attack
that is Legacy's due, a bit of back story. The company, it turns out,
is basically a room full of telephone operators. The phone used by
Mr. Krishnan's mother is actually owned by Global Tel Link, which last
year won the rights to install and run pay phones in La Guardia,
Kennedy and Newark Liberty airports, having submitted a winning bid to
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Global then contracted
with Legacy to handle operator services, and gets a cut of billing
revenue.
Which, though dwindling, comes in startlingly large chunks, judged on
a dollar-per-minute basis. In 1996, Congress essentially deregulated
the price of pay-phone calls, hoping to make this shrinking business a
little more enticing.
The upshot is that today, making a collect call on a pay phone is like
stepping in one of those net traps that ensnare people in every other
movie set in a jungle. Dial "0," ask for an operator and, suddenly,
you're dangling from a rubber tree.
So Legacy is within its rights to charge huge sums. But, seriously,
$32 for a quick collect call? And then brush-off rudeness on top of
that? Is this how Legacy does business?
Initially, the Haggler had a hard time finding out. Calls to the
company's media relations guy - yes, the guy whose job it is to return
calls like the Haggler's - were not returned. There were a few more
tries, and enough time on the line for the Haggler to all but memorize
the company's on-hold voiceover patter, which refers unironically to
Legacy's "sincere, honest customer support" and "problem-free
communication services."
Ultimately, the customer service manager, Luis Garcia, got in
touch. The Haggler conferenced in Mr. Krishnan, who is 21 and about to
start teaching high school chemistry through Teach for America.
Mr. Krishnan opened by voicing his frustrations with rather admirable
restraint, prompting Mr. Garcia to apologize in the vaguely mechanical
tone of man who deals with the livid for a living. But Mr. Garcia also
said his records show that the $32 call lasted for nine minutes, not
two, and that because Mr. Krishnan has a Canadian phone number, he was
charged the international call rate.
Mr. Krishnan agreed about the Canadian-ness of his cellphone - he
hails from Calgary, Alberta - but he's adamant that he hurried his
mother off the line right after she said her flight was delayed. Two
minutes, tops.
For what it's worth, several of those ranting about Legacy at
complaintsboard.com also cite disputes about the lengths of their
calls.
We were at an impasse. But after more talking, Mr. Garcia tried his
hand at an olive branch by offering to just rip up the Legacy rulebook
and, yes, take 50 percent off this $32 bill. That's right, a $16
giveaway.
The Haggler suppressed a giggle, and Mr. Krishnan called this gesture
insufficient.
Mr. Garcia said he could go as far as 75 percent off. Mr. Krishnan
sounded less than impressed. Mr. Garcia then said, "Let me see what I
can do." After a pause - for what, we know not - he agreed to a total
refund.
On to the next question: what's up with our two enablers here, Global
Tel Link and the Port Authority? Global Tel Link checked records and
decided not only that Legacy had charged the correct sum, but that
Mr. Krishnan had received a second call that day from Newark
airport. (Suffice to say, he neither remembers nor was billed for it.)
A spokesman for the Port Authority took a couple days to offer up this
cup of weak tea: "The Port Authority is looking into the matter."
Fair warning: you're on your own, people, and no matter where you
call, or how long you talk, Legacy isn't cheap. Mr. Garcia says a
typical five-minute state-to-state collect call using its operators
costs about $17.
Caller beware.
E-mail: haggler@nytimes.com. Keep it brief and
family-friendly. Submissions may be edited for length and clarity.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:10:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Deregulated phone market has its 'gotcha' moments
Message-ID: <p06240829c6a4b2bc1632@[10.0.1.3]>
Consumer 9.0: Deregulated phone market has its 'gotcha' moments
By Jeff Gelles
Inquirer Business Columnist
Posted on Sun, Aug. 2, 2009
It's easy to find examples of deregulation that has helped consumers.
Unfortunately, it's also easy to find instances where it seems to
have done them harm.
Rarely does one case perfectly illustrate both sides of the coin - a
good deal and a "gotcha" rolled into one. But so goes the story of
Bob and Angelika Egan, a Delran, N.J., couple caught between the
rewards and risks of today's mind-boggling market for international
phone calls - a category of calls that the United States deregulated
in 2001.
Angelika was born in Germany, and her elderly mother still lives
there. But because of an accident several years ago, Angelika finds
it tough to travel back. So, dutiful daughter that she is, she calls
her mother regularly - for about 30 to 60 minutes a day.
That's where the good news about open markets comes in. Thanks to
growing competition that began with the 1980s breakup of the old Ma
Bell phone monopoly, the price for international calls has dropped
dramatically over the years.
Bob, a retired customer-service agent and supervisor at Northwest
Airlines Corp., knows his way around a computer. By shopping around
on the Internet, he was able to find a way to keep his wife's calls
from breaking the bank. He found a dial-around service, www.tel3.com,
that charged 2 cents a minute for the calls.
Rather than dial her mother directly, Angelika dials a domestic
toll-free number first, then her mother's number in Berlin. A
60-minute call costs about $1.20.
The system works simply, with just one flaw. If Angelika forgets to
dial the access code first, her domestic long-distance carrier,
Verizon, charges what it calls its "Basic International Rates." Those
rates are a little pricier for calls to Germany.
OK, a lot pricier: $3.20 a minute. The first time she made the
mistake, on a 34-minute call on Christmas Day in 2006, her lapse
brought a bill for $109.
...
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/jeff_gelles/52275117.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:10:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Massachusetts Supreme Court Strikes Class Action Ban, Rejects Texas Law
Message-ID: <p06240825c6a4aa5c1fb3@[10.0.1.3]>
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2009/07/massachusetts-supreme-court-stikes-class-action-ban-rejects-texas-law.html
Massachusetts Supreme Court Strikes Class Action Ban, Rejects Texas Law
by Deepak Gupta
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Just before the holiday weekend, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court issued an opinion in Feeney v. Dell Inc., holding that a
statutory right to participate in class action lawsuits may not be be
foreclosed by a provision in a consumer contract compelling individual
arbitration. The court reached that conclusion based not on
unconscionabilty doctrine, but on Massachusetts public policy. It
emphasized the strong state policy in favor of class actions and
relied on cases such as the First Circuit's decision in Kristian
v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25, 54 (1st Cir. 2006), which reject class
action bans because of their interference with consumers' ability to
vindicate statutory rights: "Allowing companies that do business in
Massachusetts, with its strong commitment to consumer protection
legislation, to insulate themselves from small value consumer claims
creates the potential for countless customers to be without an
effective method to vindicate their statutory rights, a result clearly
at odds with our public policy." The decision joins the rest of the
state and federal appellate courts in holding that the Federal
Arbitration Act does not preempt its holding, relying on the analysis
of the Ninth Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Feeney opinion is also noteworthy for its choice-of-law
analysis. The Dell contract at issue specified that Texas law--which
appears to allow class action bans--would apply. The court held that
Massachusetts' fundamental policy in favor of class actions for
small-value consumer claims outweighed Texas's interest in blocking
consumers' access to the courthouse doors. As the court put it, "[w]e
likewise have little trouble concluding that the interest embodied in
this policy--the protection of large classes of consumers and the
deterring of corporate wrongdoing--is materially greater than Texas's
interest, which the defendants identify as 'minimizing its companies'
legal expense.'" Massachusetts joins a growing chorus of courts that
reject corporate efforts to use choice-of-law clauses to enforce
otherwise impermissible class bans. Another recent example of this
trend is the Third Circuit's decision in Homa v. American Express.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:35:31 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: An Interview With David Vladeck of the F.T.C.
Message-ID: <p0624082ec6a4b8a0778d@[10.0.1.3]>
An Interview With David Vladeck of the F.T.C.
By THE EDITORS
AUGUST 5, 2009, 2:24 PM
David Vladeck, the new head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at
the Federal Trade Commission, met with reporter Stephanie Clifford on
Monday to discuss his plans for the post. Here's more on Mr.
Vladeck's views on privacy.
...
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/an-interview-with-david-vladeck-of-the-ftc/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:35:31 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Fresh Views at Agency Overseeing Online Ads
Message-ID: <p0624082fc6a4b9399b70@[10.0.1.3]>
Fresh Views at Agency Overseeing Online Ads
By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD
August 5, 2009
Most of the online world is based on a simple, if unarticulated,
agreement: consumers browse Web sites free, and in return, they give
up data - like their gender or income level - which the sites use to
aim their advertisements.
The new head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal
Trade Commission, David C. Vladeck, says it is time for that to
change. In an interview, Mr. Vladeck outlined plans that could upset
the online advertising ecosystem. Privacy policies have become
useless, the commission's standards for the cases it reviews are too
narrow, and some online tracking is "Orwellian," Mr. Vladeck said.
After eight years of what privacy advocates and the industry saw as a
relatively pro-business commission, Mr. Vladeck, has made a splash.
In June, the commission settled a case with Sears that was a warning
shot to companies that thought their privacy policies protected them.
In just over six weeks on the job, he has asked Congress for a bigger
budget and for a streamlined way to create regulations. And he said
he would hire technologists to help analyze online marketers'
tracking.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/business/media/05ftc.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
As I've said before, the Internet users who participate in
social-networking sites, text-messaging sites, etc. are giving up
something that they didn't even know they had, and they're going to
regret it soon. The social maps being constructed by major marketing
research firms allow salesmen to jump over the last wall of privacy
that surrounds pre-Internet Americans: they will soon be able to get a
printout that tells them the names of your friends.
If a salesman calls me and says I need life insurance, it's a 50/50
bet whether I'll listen to his shpiel and then ask why he doesn't
respect the do-not-call list, or if I'll just push one of the
touch-tone buttons while I hang the phone up.
However, the odds are good that if he calls me and mentions the name
of one of my friends, that I'll give him that all-important sixty
seconds he needs to make his pitch and set his hook, and now, or very
soon, he'll have a long list of names to drop.
This is not new: charitable organizations have been using 'local'
fundraisers for years, involving well-meaning busybodies who call
their friends, their neighbors, and their cow-orkers to push the
worthy-cause-du-jour. The victims don't want to offend, and even if
they don't choose to participate, the charity hasn't lost anything
they were ever going to get by another means.
What is different with the Internet is the scale, and what it can
deliver as targets for the pitchmen: the victims are
tweenty-somethings(TM) who don't have enough life-experience to spot a
pirate on the horizon. These new-to-the-market lambs are, by sharing
personal information online, lining up for shearing as they prepare
for the biggest buying spree of their lives - their first house, their
first car, their first health-care choice, their first hospital stay,
their first insurance contract, their first chimney cleaning, their
first offer of eternal rest, their first swimming pool, their first
roof repair, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
That's the funny thing about privacy: we don't miss it until it's gone.
Bill Horne
Copyright (C) 2009 E.W. Horne. All rights reserved.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:39:37 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: And You Thought a Prescription Was Private
Message-ID: <p06240831c6a4ba12ce2c@[10.0.1.3]>
And You Thought a Prescription Was Private
By MILT FREUDENHEIM
August 9, 2009
MORE than 10 years after she tried without success to have a baby,
Marcy Campbell Krinsk is still receiving painful reminders in her
mail. The ads and promotions started after she bought fertility drugs
at a pharmacy in San Diego.
Marketers got hold of her name, and she found coupons and samples in
her mail that shadowed the growth of an imaginary child - at first,
for Pampers and baby formula, then for discounts on family photos,
and all the way through the years to gifts suitable for an elementary
school graduate.
"I had three different in vitro procedures," said Ms. Krinsk, now 55,
a former telecommunications executive who lives with her husband in
San Diego. "To just go to the mailbox and get that stuff, time after
time after time, it was just awful."
Like many other people, Ms. Krinsk thought that her prescription
information was private. But in fact, prescriptions, and all the
information on them - including not only the name and dosage of the
drug and the name and address of the doctor, but also the patient's
address and Social Security number - are a commodity bought and sold
in a murky marketplace, often without the patients' knowledge or
permission.
That may change if some little-noted protections from the Obama
administration are strictly enforced. The federal stimulus law
enacted in February prohibits in most cases the sale of personal
health information, with a few exceptions for research and public
health measures like tracking flu epidemics. It also tightens rules
for telling patients when hackers or health care workers have stolen
their Social Security numbers or medical information, as happened to
Britney Spears, Maria Shriver and Farrah Fawcett before she died in
June.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/business/09privacy.html
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (7 messages)
******************************
|
or 