Telcom Fraud: The Previous Generation 213
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."
had one of those (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:had one of those (Score:3, Informative)
The phone company wanted to "Lease" my DSL modem to me too.
Fortunately I can do math and determine that purchasing the modem is better than leasing if I intend to use it for more than a year.
Re:had one of those (Score:1)
They'll find a way to screw you over still. Wait until you want to switch ISPs or upgrade to a higher bandwidth connection. You're going to hear: "You have a Cisco 675? You need a Cisco 678 to upgrade your account. Do you want to lease or purchase it?"
I work at an ISP and Qwest has already tried to pull that over on some of our customers. We ended up talking to a few people at Qwest and convincing them it wasn't needed.
Check your house for leased items (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Check your house for leased items (Score:2)
Maybe they'd be a good target for yet another law suit. Not that they'd be an especially deep pocket to go after in their current condition...
Re:Check your house for leased items (Score:2)
Where I live, I can get a water cooler rental at $8/mo with a cold tap, and $14/mo with a hot tap. Most people just go ahead and rent the water cooler, and get the water delivered.
On the other hand, you can get a water cooler with both cold and hot taps for $150. I just found a friend of mine who owns a small business has been paying $8/mo for five years now. He cut that out pretty quickly.
History repeating itself (Score:1)
The Telcom Industry - yet another possible source of a large-scale collapse of civilization as we (might) know it.
Technology can be so depressing at times...
That's why we need to switch to a... (Score:1)
Whee (Score:1)
"On the next episode of 'Telcom Fraud: The Previous Generation'.."
Re:Whee (Score:2)
-TNN Exec
The leases are a scam. (Score:1)
BTW: I really am considering getting a rotary with a big-ass ringer back in the house. Those were the bomb. And it'll keep the kiddies away from the phone -- they won't know how to use it!
This is going to sound pitiful (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is going to sound pitiful (Score:1)
Anyone who's never used a rotary phone doesn't know what they're missing. I used to have fun as a kid just turning the dial and listening to it spin back... 'clickclickclickclickclick'
Re:This is going to sound pitiful (Score:2, Funny)
My phone number back in the day (when I had to walk 17 miles in the snow to school.. uphill.. both ways) was Five. There were only 10 phones in the world, and I had one of them. And you!! Always dialing my number and hanging up.. I'll get you yet, you darn kid!
Re:This is going to sound pitiful (Score:2)
Hehe, I remember the old slogan "German Engineering" and I think of those old phones that work forever. Even thou they are american made.
Re:This is going to sound pitiful (Score:1)
Re:This is going to sound pitiful (Score:2)
sorry my 13 year old daughter has one. when she saw it in a old box of junk she had to have it. she thought it was sooo cool
Re:The leases are a scam. (Score:4, Funny)
A few years back (1992-4) I worked as a counselor at a summer camp. We had a fairly strict policy about not letting kids phone home unless there was a really good reason. One of the kids in my cabin was given permission to phone home, but he then started crying. It took me a while to find out his problem: The phone at the camp was one of the classic rotary wall phones and he didn't know how to use it.
I would guess this kid was 8 or 9 at the time.
I dialed for him, and all was well. He'd be 16 to 19 now. I hope he's learned to use a rotary phone since then.
-srw
Re:The leases are a scam. (Score:2)
This sounds a bit like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Groucho tells Harpo... (Score:1)
Re:This sounds a bit like... (Score:1)
I think not, they'll pin the entire problem on your faulty modem.
Let me guess (Score:5, Funny)
Settlement, opt out or opt in (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Settlement, opt out or opt in (Score:2)
Re:Settlement, opt out or opt in (Score:1)
Cable Companies (Score:1)
Re:Cable Companies (Score:1)
That means that if/when they finally cancel their cable service, they'll get socked with an inflated damage fee to top off their 20 years of expenditures.
Re:That's not unreasonable actually (Score:1)
Re:That's not unreasonable actually (Score:1)
Re:That's not unreasonable actually (Score:1)
Re:That's not unreasonable actually (Score:1)
Great for the lawyers. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Great for the lawyers. (Score:1)
The money's usually well-spent. (Score:2)
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".
Which is a fair amount more than they would have had if the lawyers hadn't done the footwork.
Don't get me wrong, I'll grouse about lawyers' jackpots just as much as the next guy--but lawyers do work for their money, and most of them don't get windfall cases like this one. A database administrator is just as likely, in most cases, to make a salary competitive with a lawyer; but we don't complain that the DBA makes too much. Add to that the fact that lawyers do have a significant place within our society. I don't have statistics for how many of our current Supreme Court justices practiced law before they became judges, but I'd make a bet that all nine of them did.
I'd rather see lawyers make the money than professional athletes. Two or three generations, what do we have to show for the hundreds of millions of dollars we wasted on them?
Re:Great for the lawyers. (Score:2)
I once had a Providian credit card with like a 5.9% intro rate that was supposed to last for a year, and a 9.9% rate after that. Another bank bought them and raised the rate immediately to almost 27%. I got quite upset and tried to talk to them and they said there was no record of the 5.9% rate was supposed to go on for some time. Well I paid down the balance which took a few months since I had transfered all my other balances to the card. So I was out a few hundred bucks.
About a year and a half later I get a statement saying I can get a real low rate for a year if I sign up again because of a settlement in a class action. I could also refuse that and get a check for like $25, but the lawyer already took a $100 on my part for the $300 value of my settlement.
Still I'm happy that the new bank paid someone for their evil. And the $25 is better than those $1000 rebate checks people get to buy another car from the same company that sold them the auto-kill-passengers model.
I think I also received a bunch of coupons from some phone monopoly a while back too, never used any. They had billed $2/mo for some imaginary service for a couple years. It seems to me that these settlements are always too low, it shouldn't pay to commit fraud. Criminal charges are the only real solution. But if that were evenly applied our president would probably still be in prison.
leased phone (Score:2, Funny)
Read your bill! (Score:1)
It's about time this issue was resolved but... (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point it will no longer be cost effective to treat their customer base in these two wildly divergent ways, and telecom carriers will be forced to bring their pricing into allignment elderly customers, althoufh this will have the down side of pringing down on these customers, that deluge of telemarketing calls from competing providers - a joy to whih they have been to some degree spared thus far.
--CTH
Slamming... (Score:2)
Not all are sleazes. (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's the whole cupon strategy, if clients think thier saving $0.10, they'll spend an extra dollar. I wonder how it's worked out for them, personally, I appreicate it.
Re:It's about time this issue was resolved but... (Score:2)
$1800 Rotary Phones (Score:2)
The sad thing is, they still work...
Telco -or- Telecom (Score:1)
As a side note, remember way back when you could actually dial a number, and it would ring your phone? I think it was something like 057-and then your phone number, or something like that.
We had a rotary phone in our house until it was fashionable for people to have those new fandangled cordless phones.
Re:Telco -or- Telecom (Score:3, Interesting)
Most areas do have a ringback number (rings your phone, usual procedure is dial it and N digits of your number, get a dialtone, hit the hook or flash, get another tone, hang up) and an ANI number (automatic number identification; a voice reads out your phone number), which the service technicians use frequently.
For instance, in central (charlottesville) virginia, the ringback for sprint is/was 511 and 7 digits of your phone #; the ANI is 118. Numbers for many areas can be found in the 2600 FAQ, but it's not complete or up to date. These numbers sometimes change when switching equipment is replaced.
Re:Telco -or- Telecom (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Telco -or- Telecom (Score:2)
We would dial a number, hang up, and a few minutes later we would get a return call that would be all random noise.
I realize now that what was happening was a modem was picking up and attempting a dial back.
After a few months the number didn't work anymore. No "out of service" message, it just didn't respond, just dead air.
My Grandfather JUST got rid of his... (Score:1)
Consumer fraud is old news? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Consumer fraud is old news? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
'Princess'? (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, there it is, in all its pink glory... The Princess-phone! How I have longed to possess one of these beauties, how I have sought for its rare splendor, no price's too high for this baby...
Re:'Princess'? (Score:1)
Check out this rare yellow beauty [ebay.com], complete with call AT&T for service sticker, 1-800-222-3111. I wonder, This looks to be a leased phone, if you lease a home you can't sell it, so it stands to reason that you can't legally sell a leased phone, No?
how about the worst of the worst. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Not the Last Time Either (Score:4, Interesting)
What part of "more than twice the price" doesn't translate as "much more expensive" in any sense of the term? Sounds like fraud and false advertising to me...
Re:Not the Last Time Either (Score:2)
Stupid math trick (Score:2)
Well, actually, that would result in a discount, albeit a small one. Assume the original price is p and the advertised percent markdown is f. Then the internal price (before the markdown) would be p'=p(1+f) and the sale price would be p''=p'(1-f)=p(1+f)(1-f), which of course is p(1-f^2). For f > 0, p'' < p... but by much less than the advertised amount.
(So, the really said thing is, I formatted those equations by hand in HTML. Ugh.)
Re:Stupid math trick (Score:2)
you know what I meant
speaking of fraud... (Score:2)
Not only that, but I got a letter from a fucking collection agency - on a bill for a VOLUNTARY magazine subscription DUE IN JANUARY OF 2004! If they try docking my credit, I'm so suing...
Angrily worded letter is on the way as we speak...
Re:speaking of fraud... (Score:1)
Re:speaking of fraud... (Score:2)
So, in conclusion... fuck off.
Re:speaking of fraud... (Score:2)
I wish there was a website like gettingFuckedBy.com or something witty that devoted itself to showing how companies are screwing us everyday.
t.
The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:5, Interesting)
I used them successfully for two years, and paid very little for phone service. 5 cents a minute national long distance and comprable local rates.
How, you ask? De-regulation, which happened under Clinton in the mid '90's. However, once de-regulated, the baby bells immediately began testing the resolve of the federal regulators to force them to deal fairly with their "client competitors" for local & long distance service. You see, they wanted the good parts about de-regulation (being able to diversify, charge whatever they wanted, etc.) but not the bad parts (actually having to give up their monopoly status). They fought tooth and nail battles over various regulations and did their level best to kill their competitors... by bribing regulators to get call-completion charges, by systematically failing to service their new clients properly, and, now and again, by slamming their customers.
Clinton's people were going to stick it out and fight the bells into submission. The Bush people had a more, shall we say laissez faire attitude about it, and the last two years have all but brought about the end of competition among the bells, first as the feds looked the other way while they turned their embrace with their competition deadly, and now as the FCC is actually going to rubber stamp their new "pseudo-monopoly" status, enshrining the notion that bells need not lease their lines to anyone, just like they already did with cable.
Econophone is bankrupt. Many of you remeber the Northpoint fiasco; Econophone was very similar. Not content with stealing their customers and bludgeoning them to death with sabotaged service, the bells had to make a show of violently disconnecting them from the network, without warning. The message: don't deal with the independents. You just never know what might happen to your calls.
This industry makes billions of dollars a week. They are _printing money_. Their margins are _incredible_, and that's with some of the worlds most notorious bureaucracies. I've dealt with AT they just _hemorrhage_ money. Why not? They get paid most every time someone makes a call.
De-regulation was a failure. Not exactly because it was inevitable, but because it was never really intended as anything but ideological cover for more and better price fixing. $5/mo for call waiting service anyone? Or how about $3.50 for _not_ publishing your number in the phone book?
You might say the little carriers like econophone went out of busines because they didn't charge enough. But I don't think those people made a math error when they founded their company and calculated what they could charge. I think we got a brief glimps of what we _should_ have been paying all along, before the Bells furiously covered it up.
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:1)
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:1)
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:3, Insightful)
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"
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:2, Interesting)
In the particular case of power, it's very simple: the incentives are exactly the opposite of what you want, since distribution over long distances is so inefficient.
If you build power plants, the power supply goes up, and your product is worth less. Hence, your profits go down.
If you do not build power plants, and/or take some of your plants off line, the power supply goes down, and then your product is worth more. Supply and demand! Whopee! Time to raise the rates! This is more or less what's happened everywhere this scheme has been tried; the only difference is that in California the distributor couldn't pass on the rate hikes because its end-prices were capped. Enron et al didn't mind, they just ran their rates up astronomically, ridiculously high for a few months, then turned off the lights (a negotiating tactic which actually took lives!), and even now they're probably still going to get the proceeds of the "utility bailout," so it's all the same to them.
The only possible way the "private" power generation companies can fail to get rich is by doing what they're supposed to... which is, provide ample, cheap, environmentally sound generating capacity. If you want to make money, on the other hand, the opposite is true; it's in the private utility's best interests to use the cheapest, dirtiest power generating techniques available, to encourage as much waste as possible, to cultivate their most profitable volume buyers at the expense of their least profitable low and middle income customers, to run as close to 100% capacity as they possibly can, and, of course, to create artificial shortages. If the consumers don't like it, there's always electric blackmail.
It's interesting to me that there did seem to be some early success in the telecom deregulation regime. One thing I would really like to spend more time doing is going over the actual laws involved... I have a feeling there must have been some interesting rules in there about how the incumbents have to operate for it to have worked at all.
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:2)
Unless, of course, we change the economics through (sensible) regulation. For example, massive penalties for pollution. (I'm actually a fan of tradable pollution credits coupled to absolutely devestating fines for failure to comply.) Another example: massive penalties for failing to provide universal access.
The legitimate issue is, how do you ensure that the regulation is sensible? Obviously that's a judgement call. And, in pure Adam Smith terms, you're going to build in some economic inefficiency. If you're a free market ideologue who thinks government == Evil, then of course the only "sensible" regulation is none at all...
Which is how we got into this mess in the first place: a generation of "government leaders" who hate the very jobs they occupy.
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:2)
I must be slipping. It's "suggestive" of that regime because I happen to feel that regime served the public interest more than this one does. I guess I should be (more?) explicit: I think deregulation has been a failure in essentially every industry to which it has been applied. It has created short-term lower prices, at the cost of any consumer protection and with the long term result of reemergent -- but this time unrestrained -- monopolies.
Since the "free market" does not seem to produce what might be the best outcome -- many, small suppliers of these services, in a field of true competition -- then I think it reasonable to wonder whether private investors are likely to look after the public good as well or even as consistently as oversight agencies do.
I believe firmly that (a) free market capitalism is the most efficient way to produce services and goods and (b) left to its own devices, unrestrained free market capitalism is inimical to human freedom and human dignity. The market is a wonderful engine, but for two decades, we've been treating it like the driver. The right way to harness market forces is to set the economic rules of the game so that socially favorable outcomes are the simplest way to make a profit. In that manner, the drive -- even avarice -- of capitalists can also produce real benefits: Doing good while doing well.
But if you remove all government oversight, you shouldn't be surprised when the wickedest of men doing the wickedest of things do, in fact, produce the wickedest of outcomes.
DIY phone service (Score:2)
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate that as well. It's $3.50 a month to be unlisted in the phone and the operator. Luckily, it's still free to tell them what name to list the phone number under. I know many a minor-league athelete that use their first name and their mother's maiden name as their last name. This allows relative anonymity from overzealous fans, as well as allowing their families to locate them in their new city should they get traded...
Personally, I use a completely fictioal name that everyone in my family knows. It's also amusing because it shows up on people's caller-ID as well. Several of my friends are now doing the same thing, using Bart Simpson's imagination as a guide.
Re:The rise and fall of phone company competition (Score:2)
[which btw does NOT work for "toll free" 800,888,877,866 numbers] Something about the person paying for the call has the right to block it or see who is making the call....
Funny story about telecom fraud... (Score:5, Interesting)
There was only one pesky problem. The bells were now theoretically obligated to "compete" with other carriers. The nerve! Wasn't everyone informed that they don't share their playground? Wasting no time, they immediately set to work on the FCC and congress to try to roll back the regulations (or at least the enforcement regime) that allowed competitors to re-sell some of the network and compete.
They came up with a great idea. Oh, it was a real doozy, and very simple. They convinced the feds to allow them to charge a "call completion" fee.
It works like this. If a customer in one local phone company calls the customer of another, the originating carrier has to pay a fee to the receiving carrier for "completing" the call. This, reasoned the bells, was *it.* Who can start up a competing local carrier, if (since they're new) every call from their customers terminates at a bell-controlled phone, and they're saddled with 3c fees for every call! It's a classic "screwing the little guy with the power of math" scenario.
It was a perfect plan. And it only had one fatal flaw.
The metropolitan ISPs of New York City were some of the phone company's most enthusiastic enemies. And why not? Have you ever tried to get the NYC Bell to do anything more complex than a residential hookup? How about manaing hundreds of lines in a hunt chain... let me tell you. You lose a few every few months for no discernable reason, and during one of your dozen hour-long calls to the bell for support, you discover that in trying to "fix" your hunt, they've now disconnected your office phones as well. True story.
The NYC ISPs were desperate to deal with someone, _ANYONE_ other than the local bell. So what did they do? They got together with a tiny, unknown little local carrier. And they became its first, and practically only, customers.
And do you know what happened then?
ISPs need lots of lines, and they're willing, nay desperate, to pay a premium for any kind of service exceeding the Soviet-block standard of the bell. They hardly ever make any calls out. But everyone calls an ISP. In fact, they get thousands and thousands of calls a day.
Within days of getting their first 8 figure "call completion" bill from the tiny little independent local phone company (that the bells had just been gloating over murdering), the bells were back in Washington, and back in court, desperate to break the deal.
Now, exercise for the reader: where they successul in weaseling out of it? What do you think?
Re:Funny story about telecom fraud... (Score:1)
"How about mangling hundreds of lines in a hunt chain"
Freudian slip? I think so.
Re:Funny story about telecom fraud... (Score:2)
Re:Funny story about telecom fraud... (Score:2)
Re:Funny story about telecom fraud... (Score:2)
Re:Funny story about telecom fraud... (Score:2, Interesting)
Recip Comp was supposed to balance out. Instead startups tried to take advantage of it. In a move of pure greed, they went for the quick buck and ignore the intent of the law. But then the bubble burst and they had no solid business plan. And now many of those little telecoms have gone bankrupt. There are a LOT of bankrupt little telecoms now.
It appears.... (Score:1)
Pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
How much is AT&T making on this settlement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that comparatively tiny Lucent actually had to pay money in its part of the settlement.
Re:How much is AT&T making on this settlement? (Score:2)
In any case, make that:
Who would want to lease a phone? (Score:1)
I don't suppose this could be setting a precident or anything?
this is not bad as.......... (Score:2)
Is this really fraud? (Score:3, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Is this really fraud? (Score:2)
Except some of these old phones simply don't break. I find good old AT&T touch phones at thrift stores every now and then. Follow that "timeless rotary traditional" link, and look at that upper-right phone. I've got one of those red desk phones, and the handset wire looks just as gangly as the one in the picture.
About the only one I have that doesn't work is a rotary phone. It doesn't work because the phone companies don't support rotary any more, except in special cases. And then they charge you less for going to the trouble of providing rotary-only service.
Re:Is this really fraud? (Score:2)
Sometimes this goes awry the other way. Back in 1975, I was moving on very short notice (to a location with no phone lines at all) and Mountain Bell couldn't get a guy out to disconnect my service in time, so they told me to just cut the line and bring the [rented] phone back at my leisure. So I did, and a week later dragged their phone to the office to return it. The gal peered at the ledger and told me, "But it says here you've already returned it!" Well, if you insist... so I picked up the phone and left. I still have the phone. (It's a rotary that can handle party lines.)
Not just US telecoms (Score:4, Interesting)
Next time you see an older telephone in Canada, flip it over and see if it has a "Property of Bell Canada" sticker on the bottom. If it does, warn its owner.
Re:Not just US telecoms (Score:3, Interesting)
Back when the divestiture happened a lot of customers opted to purchase the equipment.
There is no phone on the market for a reasonable price that is as durable and well made as a Bell System phone.
Taking one apart, you'll find different date codes on each component, sometimes with varying dates that span decades. These things were built to last, to standards at least as good as Mil-Spec. Any time a phone was returned to Bell, it was broken up and reassembled from interchangable components.
The Touch-tone phones of the early 70's aren't even digital. They have inductors and LC oscillators to generate the tuned frequencies.
They're available for $3-5 at thrift stores, and easily servicible.
Other than one spread-spectrucm cordless, I won't allow any of the post-breakup crap-phones into my house.
Re:Not just US telecoms (Score:2)
In 1996 I was the last person with rotary (Score:5, Interesting)
It is my one small victory agains the MAN.
Re:In 1996 I was the last person with rotary (Score:2)
On the other hand, almost every phone in the house says "PROPERTY OF BELL TELEPHONE" under it. We've got one wall mount traditional rotary, and about 6 desktop traditional touch tone phones.
Re:In 1996 I was the last person with rotary (Score:2)
Now let's get rid of the Touch-Tone fee (Score:2)
But you're still paying extra for the phone company to provide a service that costs them less money! It's about time to switch that around and charge rotary customers (aside from grandfathering current customers) extra instead of Touch-Tone users.
Of course this will never happen, since they already consider it part of the regular phone fee, and writing it up as an extra service is just a billing formality. Rotary customers are so rare these days that they can afford to eat the extra costs.
"Sale" in the ads, "lease" in the gray print (Score:4, Funny)
And taking another page out of MS's playbook.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And taking another page out of MS's playbook... (Score:1)
But part of the settlement (I am assuming here) must only apply to the US, considering how much they're screwing our UK schools [theregister.co.uk]. Not sure on how the rest of the world fares, but I bet they recoup their losses either way.
Re:And taking another page out of MS's playbook... (Score:1)
As I recall, they tried to do exactly that and everyone screamed bloody murder that it would just be handing them another monopoly, since it would increase their presence in education (much to the dismay of Apple and others), an area where their monopoly is not nearly as strong as it is in other market segments.
Re:true story from ex-Lucent employee (Score:2)
Re:We pay extra for touch-tone - after 40 years! (Score:2)