Consumers strike back.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <VNmdnViKbdVM-iHdRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"D Duddles" <Doug@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

>
> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-8C7B02.05254801062004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Many states have adopted "No-Fault" laws.
> >
> > http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/fs/fs000160.php3
> >
> > At it was hardly a panacea. Of course General Motors (with exploding gas
> > tanks), and Ford (with collapsing Drivers seats and bad tires) want to
> > change the system so they can continue to crank out known defective
> > vehicles.
>
> Oh yes, that's it! They live to kill people. That's just the kind of
> rubbish that I would expect from you, based on your earlier posts, I guess.
> The infamous 'exploding gas tanks' argument. Puh-lease!

Ford continuing to use Firestone tires after knowing about its problems
is hardly rubbish, as the families of those killed in accidents caused
by those tires can attest.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-8C7B02.05254801062004
@news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@faq.city says...
> At it was hardly a panacea. Of course General Motors (with exploding gas
> tanks), and Ford (with collapsing Drivers seats and bad tires) want to
> change the system so they can continue to crank out known defective
> vehicles.
>

You just wound up proving the opposite of your intended point, I
think.

Exploding gas tanks? That hysteria was launched by falsified tests
that cost ABC News several million dollars.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-8C7B02.05254801062004@news03.east.earthlink.net...

>
> Many states have adopted "No-Fault" laws.
>

And some states have repealed them, as it dramatically inflated insurance
premiums. Once repealed, premiums dropped by as much as 30%.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:a437d378201d01d0a3859e3a559e6315@news.teranews.com...
In article <rmarkoff-8C7B02.05254801062004
@news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@faq.city says...
> At it was hardly a panacea. Of course General Motors (with exploding gas
> tanks), and Ford (with collapsing Drivers seats and bad tires) want to
> change the system so they can continue to crank out known defective
> vehicles.
>

You just wound up proving the opposite of your intended point, I
think.

Exploding gas tanks? That hysteria was launched by falsified tests
that cost ABC News several million dollars.

Quoting a falsified ABC story would be the most credible source he's ever
referenced.

 

[trey]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:OO2dnV4C4IPUsifd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
>
> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-EF758F.13463530052004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > The basic common law principle involved is fitness for purpose. AT&T (or
> > other cellular carriers) sell you a pehone with the implied warranty
> > that its usable. They have your home address, they shouldnt sell you a
> > phone if you cant get service. They typically are not allowed to hold
> > you to q contract for service when they can not provide the service.
> > Thats what the lawsuit is all about. From where I sit its a slam dunk
> > for the plaintiffs, and if Cellular Carriers had their feet held to the
> > fire, maybe they'd provide the services they promise, rather than play
> > the lame "It'll cost extra" card when they are forced to keep their
> > promise.
>
> Funny- my cell company has my home address, and technically, I fall
outside
> their coverage. But, I don't use it at home. Are you saying that they
> shouldn't seel to those who live outside their coverage area?
>
> Fitness of purpose means something much different than a blanket guarantee
> of service. You are given a chance to try the service, and if it suits
your
> purposes during that trial period, you accept the terms of agreement. The
> cellular company is not responsible to provide blanket coverage, and is
not
> responsible for actions of others that affect the quality of coverage.
This
> is something you have never addressed.
>
> Your 'slam dunk' is anything but that, and is something you probably
> shouldn't wish for. Imagine if somebody could walk into court and sue the
> company you work for, saying that the business had grown too quick. If
this
> lawsuit is allowed to trial, what basis would you expect the court to use
to
> detrmine this aspect of the complaint? And wouldn't the decision apply to
> all businesses doing business in California- if you grow faster than the
> court determined ATTW should have, wouldn't you be open to the same type
of
> lawsuit?
>
>
I want to sue Disneyland! they have grown too fast, they charge too much to
get in, and the lines are too long! Yeah, that will fly!
Suing a company for growing too fast would provoke a complete lack of
motivation for California companies to grow, or even continue doing business
in California.
As for us poor saps trying to buy service. Do you think ATTWS will take a
financial hit? no, they will just pass the legal costs on to the
subscribers, so we all get to pay more.
The new breakdown on the bill:
Taxes, Surcharges and Regulatory Fees




Item
Description
Charge




1
UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY CHARGE
0.93

2
STATE E911 TAX
0.28

3
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITY FEE
0.04

4
UNIV LIFELINE SVC SURCHARGE
0.30

5
RELAY SERVICE SURCHARGE
0.08

6
HIGH COST FUND B SURCHARGE
0.59

7
HIGH COST FUND A SURCHARGE
0.04

8
FEDERAL TAX
1.13

9
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT FUND
17.04

Total Taxes, Surcharges and Regulatory Fees
20.43

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <cIkxc.1050$Ko5.120@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"Trey" <treydog90spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I want to sue Disneyland! they have grown too fast, they charge too much to
> get in, and the lines are too long! Yeah, that will fly!
> Suing a company for growing too fast would provoke a complete lack of
> motivation for California companies to grow, or even continue doing business
> in California.

If they sell you a ticket and then you can't get on any rides, you might
have a good case.

If a cell phone carrier sells you a phone, and you can't make calls, you
might have a good case.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:56:06 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city>
wrote:

>If a cell phone carrier sells you a phone, and you can't make calls, you
>might have a good case.

Reality says otherwise.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <j85ec094ofksovmo45gkrsf8ia406qd71v@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:56:06 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city>
> wrote:
>
> >If a cell phone carrier sells you a phone, and you can't make calls, you
> >might have a good case.
>
> Reality says otherwise.

No; Cellular Carriers might want to mislead you to believe that, but
a simple letter to a State's Attorney General works in most cases.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-C286AA.10085809062004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <j85ec094ofksovmo45gkrsf8ia406qd71v@4ax.com>,
> Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:56:06 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >If a cell phone carrier sells you a phone, and you can't make calls,
you
> > >might have a good case.
> >
> > Reality says otherwise.
>
> No; Cellular Carriers might want to mislead you to believe that, but
> a simple letter to a State's Attorney General works in most cases.

No it doesn't- I have yet to see coverage improve as a result of that kind
of letter, and all the carrier has to do is explain the intent of the trial
period that the customer was given to show that they gave ample opportunity
for the customer to test the product before committing. All you are doing
is promoting a practice that clogs the system with needless work, and
prevents those who really need help from receiving it in a more timely
fashion.

Government is not meant to compensate for people's laziness or stupidity,
and yet you keep promoting it as the easy solution. As a matter of fact,
Google says you have promoted it a couple of hundred times under just a few
of your 100+ ID's. God forbid that you should actually try to work things
out with the company.