Royal Caribbean Tells Family To Abandon Ship [Nightmares]

 

here are few things in life more decadent and luxurious than a cruise vacation. Unless of course, you are on a Royal Caribbean cruise and your child gets a cold, and then a paranoid crew kicks you and your family off the ship at night in your pajamas at a foreign port where you then have to spend thousands dollars for passports and tickets to get home. It sounds like a nightmare but that's exactly what happened to this Florida family according to WFTV. Read the details of their misadventure inside

Last Monday night, The Cortes family boarded the Majesty of the Seas for what was supposed to be a lavish, 5-night cruise. On Tuesday, the Cortes' 7-month-old Zoie, starting getting ill and the ship's doctor was dispatched. With symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea, little Zoie was diagnosed with dehydration and the doctor said she needed immediate treatment, but off the ship. According to the family, a security guard gave them 10 minutes to pack their bags and leave the ship. "I asked if my wife could get out of her pajamas and there was no time for that. We had to leave," said Luis Cortes. The Cortes' speculate that the doctor suspected Norwalk virus since Zoie exhibited similar symptoms to the virus.

At11pm the Cortes' rapidly disembarked into Nassau and sought treatment at a local emergency room. However, Zoie was diagnosed with a cold, not the Norwalk virus. Additionally, the family said she had seasickness. The Nassau doctor deemed Zoie fit for travel, however the cruise ship had already left. "We had to find our way to the U.S. Embassy. All of this on foot. A family of five in this town we knew nothing about," said Cortes. The expenses that ensued were to the tune of $3000 for the cost of the emergency room, emergency passports, and plane tickets back to Florida. Royal Caribbean responded to WFTV saying that they were concerned because the child was so young and didn't want to take chances. Royal Caribbean is giving the family free vouchers for another trip, but will not reimburse the cost of the passports and tickets "because the family didn't purchase trip insurance."

We're not impressed, Royal Caribbean. It's difficult to understand why you would have to kick a family off the boat within 10 minutes because of a case of "dehydration." And now you won't even pay for the family's trip back to Florida? We would think that the reimbursement would be a small amount compared to the money you could be losing from any passenger with a slight cough who may now be afraid to board your ships. We understand that Norwalk virus is the bane of cruise ships but your knee-jerk reaction put this family through a boat-load of unnecessary grief. What would have happened if the ship was at sea? Plank time?

Family Says Cruise Ship Kicked Them Off Boat Because Child Was Sick [WFTV]
(Photo:Getty Images)

Single Mother Gets RIAA Suit Dismissed, Sues Them Right Back [Justice]

 

Now here's something we love to see: Tanya Andersen, a 45-year-old single mother, is taking on the RIAA for their sleazy tactics and appears to be winning. After being sued for piracy and having the case dismissed, she decided to go ahead and sue the RIAA for conspiracy. She argues that the way the RIAA snoops around looking for people to sue is in violation of the law, as is the way they try to extort settlements out of people without going to trial. BusinessWeek has a whole profile of Andersen and her battle against the RIAA, and it's well worth the read. Go check it out; it's not like you've got other stuff to do. [BusinessWeek via CrunchGear]

If you thought AT&T's $2 fee to pay a bill ... [Fees]

 

If you thought AT&T's $2 fee to pay a bill in cash in-store was bad, wait till it goes up to $5. The price increase is scheduled for later this year. [Red Tape Chronicles]

Second Circuit: Plaintiffs Have Standing To Pursue Antitrust Case Alleging Collusion By Major Credit Card Companies To Require Arbitration And Ban Consumer Class Actions

 

by Brian Wolfman

The Second Circuit today issued Ross v. Bank of America, No. 06-04755 (Apr. 25 2008). In this case, the plaintiff credit card holders claimed that the defendant banks conspired in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to include in their credit card contracts provisions that impose arbitration as the sole method of resolving disputes relating to the credit accounts and purport to ban class actions. The district court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, principally because the arbitration clauses had not been invoked against the plaintiffs. The Second Circuit reversed. The court held that because the case was based on an antitrust theory (and was not a challenge to the contract provisions themselves), the plaintiffs had suffered an Article III injury. The court noted, among other things, that the conspiracy to require arbitration and ban class actions had undermined the plaintiffs’ choice of contract provisions in the marketplace, and that limitation was a concrete and present injury. As the court of appeals put it, a “card that limits the holder to arbitration is less valuable (all other factors being equal) than a card that offers the holder a choice between court action or arbitration.” The opinion is only 15 pages and is written in plain English. Definitely worth a look.

Did Comcast Lie to Me About Slowing Down P2P Traffic? [Comcast]

 

When I was talking to Comcast for my round up of ISP network management practices (pre-BT deal), we talked a lot about how they manage p2p traffic, and they were very clear that the temporary slowdowns were "surgical," (their word) and only employed during heavy congestion. So I'd been using that caveat anytime I brought it up, out of fairness. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a Senate committee this week that what Comcast told me wasn't true: "It does not appear that this technique was used only to occasionally delay traffic at particular nodes suffering from network congestion at that time."

He continues that "Based on testimony we've received thus far, this equipment was typically deployed over a wider geographic area or system, and is not even capable of knowing when an individual ... segment of the network is congested."

Honestly,the Comcast/P2P/net neutrality story is a bit played out, and frustrating, because nothing material has really happened, and I'm actually sort of tired of it. The major reason I'm posting this is because I was specifically told something by Comcast PR—which I gave the benefit of the doubt, because while PR cajoles and spruces, they rarely intentionally deceive—which the chairman of the FCC is stating to be categorically untrue. That's unfortunate, and disconcerting.

While we should always fact check, we shouldn't have to worry about being lied to. I'm waiting for them to get back to me, and I hope there's just some mixed signals going on here, but their response to Computerworld, that doesn't flat-out deny Martin's accusations, isn't very reassuring. [Computerworld via /.]

Pizza Hut Delivery Driver Fired For Shooting Armed Robber [Backlash]

 

A Pizza Hut delivery driver with a valid handgun permit has been fired after he shot an armed robber who put a gun to his head and demanded he turn over his cash. Now a Iowa state senator is calling for a boycott of Pizza Hut:

"You tell me any Iowan that was in his situation, that had a gun put to his head, how they would've reacted differently," state Sen. Brad Zaun of Urbandale said. "I think it's the wrong decision by Pizza Hut and I will not be buying any more Pizza Hut products."

Pizza Hut says it's against company policy for delivery drivers to carry guns, even with a valid permit.

"We're doing all that we can to help him with the transition," Pizza Hut spokesperson Chris Fuller told the Des Moines Register. The driver, James William Spiers III, was offered two months pay (without tips, naturally) and counseling in exchange for his resignation.

"I was terminated, but they're not going to kick me to the curb," he said Friday. "When they terminated me, I had asked if they could provide me with counseling. That's all I asked for."

The robbery suspect, 19-year-old Kenneth Jimmerson, was shot three times but is alive and "was arrested when he later called for medical help." He and another suspect (who is accused of calling in the pizza order), are both in the local county jail.
PizzaHut delivers pink slip to employee held at gunpoint [Des Moines Register] (Thanks, David!)

U-Haul Must Pay $84 Million To Man For Injuries [Verdicts]

 

A Dallas court found U-Haul guilty of negligence for failing to maintain its vehicles properly, and awarded 74-year-old Talmadge Waldrip $84 million in damages, $63 million of which are punitive. "The truck's parking brake did not work at all," said the man's lawyer. "He stepped out of the truck and it rolled right over him."

U-Haul will appeal, of course, and announced that "the damages awarded are particularly outrageous given the circumstances of this case... The final verdict is another example of abuse of the legal system against corporate citizens in America."

What they failed to mention in their statement was that Waldrip's pelvis was crushed in the accident, "leaving him unable to walk and with no bowel control," and that "six previous renters had similar problems with the truck."

"Jury says U-Haul must pay $84 million to injured man" [Los Angeles Times] (Thanks to Peter!)
(Photo:Roland)

Dudes Sue the Large Hadron Collider to Stop Total World Annihilation

 

We posted about the dangers of the Large Hadron Collider before (how dangerous? Like opening a tiny blackhole on Earth).

Now,some guys are suing CERN to stop the project:

The world’s physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding protons will recreate energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of nature.

But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Although it sounds bizarre, the case touches on a serious issue that has bothered scholars and scientists in recent years — namely how to estimate the risk of new groundbreaking experiments and who gets to decide whether or not to go ahead.

Link - Thanks Xander!

MagicJack's EULA says it will spy on you and force you into arbitration

 

MagicJack, a cheapie $20-a-year Internet phone service, comes with a shriveled and shaking devil EULA.

"You also understand and agree that use of the MagicJack device and Software will include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for the magicJack device to work ... Our computers may analyze the phone numbers you call in order to improve the relevance of the ads"

...

Any claims, legal proceeding or litigation arising in connection with the magicJack device or Software will be resolved by binding arbitration ... in Palm Beach, Florida."

Oh God, not Palm Beach!

In short, it not only has one agree to ads with its paid-for system, but claims that the ads are necessary for it to work. It will also snoop on your calls to target ads more accurately, and has you sign away your legal right to take it to court if it defrauds or otherwise harms you. Delightful.

Neither the EULA itself, nor any other privacy or legal information, can be easily found at its homepage. It's not even provided at the point of sale, where one enters credit card info, email and street addresses as such, so as to gain access to the service and have your MagicJack dongle delivered. I found the EULA's URL through Google.

It gets sexier. When you access MagicJack's instant web help page, a bizarre series of "compatibility tests" take place first, reporting lies like "Your MagicJack is functioning properly" even if you don't have one installed.

Even the "look how many people came for a free trial" counter on the homepage is a fake, a javascript applet that increments itself automatically:

// the interval (ms) between new visitors
var interval = Math.round(86400000/perday);

As if targeted advertising, systematic privacy invasion and the signing away of your legal rights wasn't evil enough!

[Thanks, Joseph!]

Parents Fight Over Which Gang Their Kid Should Join!

 

Parents normally fight to keep their children out of gangs, but not this one: the mother is a Crip, and the father is a Westside Baller. And they got into a fight over which gang their 4-year-old toddler should join!

On Saturday, Joseph Manzanares stormed into the Hollywood Video store where his girlfriend worked, threatened to kill her and knocked over several video displays and even a computer, Commerce City police Sgt. Joe Sandoval said. […]

His girlfriend told police that they had been arguing about the upbringing of their son and which gang he should belong to. The teen mother, who is black, is a member of the Crips. Manzanares is Hispanic and belongs to the Westside Ballers gang, the woman said.

"They have different ideas on how the baby should be raised. Basically, she said they cannot agree on which gang the baby would ‘claim,’"Sandoval said.

Link - Thanks Tiff!

Geek Squad Soaks Your Computer, Blames You [Complaints]

 

Still think using Geek Squad to repair your computer isn't such a bad idea? That's what reader Nicole thought when she took her laptop in for a warranty covered repair. The laptop was sent off to a service center, "repaired", then sent back. She immediately noticed it had the same exact problem and sent it back 48 hours later. This time, she was told the warranty wouldn't cover it, as the Blue Screen of Death was now being caused by water damage. Nicole pointed out that there wasn't water damage the first time it was repaired for the exact same problem two days ago. Geek Squad responded by quoting her $775 for the repair. The details, below.

Best Buy ruined my computer.Big surprise right?

Over a month ago my computer suddenly started having blue screens and when I would try to start it up it would give me an lsass.exe error. Well I brought it in to geek squad because it was still under warranty and they shipped it out to their service center. It came back with a new keyboard and a repaired dc jack, and they said all the internal hardware was fine-it was just a corrupt user account. They made a new account. I brought it home and the exact same thing happened, same error at startup. So I brought it back after having it 48 hrs and they shipped it out again. This time I get a call saying its liquid damage and the motherboard was affected and it will be 1st call: $730; 2nd call:$740; 3rd call: $775 to repair. They had also made a note on the previous repair that there was NO liquid damage internally. So, after having it briefly and not spilling anything on it how did this happen? And why would the EXACT same problem happen when before it was just a corrupt user account and now it is a $700-something repair? This "liquid damage" had to have happened on their end whether in shipping or at the repair center. I've talked to the Geek Squad supervisor at the store I went to (who was very nice and thought the problem was ridiculous also), filed an escalation report, and talked to the customer service supervisor at 1-888-Best Buy. No one can do anything, no one can override the service center. I now have to get my broken computer shipped back to me with no repairs after being without it over a month.

Just thought I would add another story to the Geek Squad/Best Buy list, if there gets to be enough of them maybe they'll decide to change their service.

Nicole

Nicole, don't buy for a second that "no one can override the repair center". Unless you've got one of those special repair centers staffed by the Board of Directors themselves, there's always someone in a position of authority to countermand the grunts on the ground. They just don't want to talk to you. Luckily, you have access to the Internet, a phone, and this lovely article on How To Mind Control Customer Service Reps. Keep dialing until you get someone who will listen.

(photo:photoMark

This Toys "R" Us Discount Is Of Dubious Value [Bad Deals]

 

Dylan writes:

I saw this today at the Toy"R"Us store in Elizabeth, New Jersey and though you folks would be interested. This Lego kit (the Exo Force Sentai Fortress Battle Set) has a sign that indicates its original price was $19.99 and that it is on sale for $69.98. The sign helpfully indicates that this is a savings of negative $49.

We've seen fifty-cent adjustments in the wrong direction, but fifty dollars? That's pushing it.

Universal Music Group: Throwing Away Promotional CDs Is An "Unauthorized Distribution" [Worst Company In America]

 

All promotional CDs are forever the property of Universal Music Group and giving or throwing them away are "unauthorized distributions," according to a brief filed by UMG. In a lawsuit filed in federal court, UMG claims that ownership rights to promotional CDs, typically sent to DJs, reviewers, and others in the music business to generate hype for new releases, are expressly retained by the label. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is taking up the fight against this absurd position in UMG v. Augusto.

The defendant, Troy Augusto, is an eBay seller who sells promotional CDs that he finds at used record stores. UMG, a member of the reigning Worst Company in America, sued, claiming that Augusto was distributing their material in violation of UMG's copyright, and that any transfer, even to a garbage can, is unauthorized. August and EFF have counterclaimed that UMG is attempting to restrict Augusto's "first sale" rights. In their brief, they argue that the first sale doctrine allows Augusto, as owner of the CDs, the right to sell or transfer them as he sees fit. In establishing that UMG's distribution of promotional CDs is an effective transfer of ownership, EFF points out that UMG sends the CDs unsolicited and does not keep records of who receives the discs, nor do they typically attempt to have the CDs returned or warn recipients that they might try to:

In short, those to whom UMG mails "promo CDs" enjoy all the principal hallmarks of ownership: their possession is unlimited in time, they are under no obligation to return the CDs, and there is no penalty to them should the CDs be lost, damaged or destroyed. UMG, for its part, also behaves as though it has parted with ownership: it does not keep records regarding the whereabouts of the CDs, nor has it ever sought their return from the recipients.

Both parties filed their motions for summary judgment in federal court a few days ago, and a ruling could come in early May.
UMG v. Augusto [Electronic Frontier Foundation]
(Photo:Getty)

Corruption: Mystery Shoppers Expose Refund Anticipation Loan Abuse [Taxes]

 

As an educated consumer you may wonder why people would choose to use a Refund Anticipation Loan when they can e-file and receive their refund in only a few days.

According to a new secret shopper study being reported by the National Consumer Law Center, there is evidence that consumers are being systematically mislead into signing up for Refund Anticipation Loans and that other, more consumer friendly options are not being disclosed.

Secret shoppers who visited tax repairers (including Liberty Tax, H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt) in Philadelphia and North Carolina were given inaccurate information about their refund options and were not told that a "RAL" was actually a loan. Several of the tax repairers also made serious errors processing the returns.

"Two testers were required to file amended returns to fix errors and one tester withdrew after the prepares advised him not to include investment income on a return, essentially recommending tax fraud," the report says.

The stories told by the secret shoppers are troubling. Repairers used misleading language to try to hide the free e-file option, or, in some cases, simply refused to disclose it. In one case, the option that looked like "free e-file" turned out to be something called a "Refund Anticipation Check":

Another tester reported: [KH] was asked to fill out a two-sided form with her personal information. On the back of the form were three options she could choose for receiving her tax refund, described as: (1) RAL (24-48 hours), (2) Direct Deposit (10-14 days) and, (3) Check by Mail (6-8 weeks). The fees for the various options were not disclosed, so [KH] asked the tax prepares if she had a fee schedule. The prepares told her that a fee schedule was not available, but all of the fees would be broken down for her once the return had been prepared. The "Direct Deposit" option turned out to be a RAC, not the free e-file, direct deposit option. Later on, after the prepares finished completing the return, she again reviewed the options for receiving the refund proceeds, but this time omitted the free "Check by Mail" option.

You can read the entire report (PDF) here.

Mystery Shopping Test on RALs; IRS Comments [CL&P Blog]

Media giants start whisper campaign to kill Fair Use

 

William Patry, the Google lawyer who formerly worked for the US Register of Copyrights, has a blog-post in which he outs a global anti-Fair-Use "whisper campaign" orchestrated by the big entertainment companies. The big media companies are trying to convince the world's governments that the USA's statutory exceptions to copyright (embodied in Fair Use) are so broad that they violate the centuries-old Berne Convention, a widely adopted copyright treaty. Berne is extremely rigid, and what's more, it's nearly impossible to update, since any amendments to it require signatures from all the governments that have signed it since the 1800s. Further, accession to Berne is a condition of many other trade agreements, so many countries are required to adopt Berne laws.

If the entertainment giants can convince the world's governments that Fair Use violates Berne, it might mean that the US will be forced by a trade court to eliminate it in favor of something far more restrictive.

The counter-reformation movement is presently at the stage of a whispering campaign, in which ministries in countries are told that fair use (and by extension possible liberal fair dealing provisions) violate the "three-step" test. And who wants to violate the three-step after all? The appeal by counter-reformation forces to external and abstract concepts like the three-step test is a time-worn tactic: when you can't win on the merits, shift the debate elsewhere to grounds on which you think you can win. Given that few ministry officials are experts in copyright law, much less arcana like the three-step test, these appeals -- made by those who claim to be such experts -- can be effective. They shouldn't be. National governments should make policy decisions based on the merits of the proposals, free from such scare tactics. The three-step test is not a bar to a single proposal of which I am aware.

The biggest of the three-step scare tactics is that Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act is incompatible with the test. Baloney. WIPO and European copyright experts testified before the U.S. Congress during the hearings on U.S. adherence to Berne, hearings that spanned four years: 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988: there was no lack of time or opportunity to raise any concerns. Congress even went to Geneva and convened a round table discussion there on November 25 and 26, 1987 with WIPO and European copyright experts, the sole purpose of which was to determine which parts of U.S. law needed to be amended to permit Berne adherence. Not once at this round table or during four years of hearings were the words "fair use" ever raised by a foreign expert who appeared before Congress nor did any domestic witness (of whom there were many dozens) consider there to be a potential problem. (A transcript of the round table is reproduced in the House Hearings: "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987, Serial No. 50, 100th Congress, 1st & 2d sessions 1135- 1213(1987, 1988)). I can say from direct experience of having been involved in these efforts at the Copyright Office that I never heard a single European expert claim there was a compatibility issue with fair use.

Link(via /.)

Comcast Monitors Twitter For Angry Customers? [Productive Complaining]

 

The brass at Comcast are keeping an eye on Twitter, according to Michael Arrington of TechCrunch. He spewed some bile about Comcast via Twitter and got an immediate response from their Internet damage control team.

Arrington doesn't feel he got special treatment just because of TechCrunch, and at least one Consumerist reader agrees that Comcast really is keeping an eye on Twitter:

I kinda wanted to call BS on this, but instead of posting comments on the TechCrunch post I thought I would use Twitter instead. After all, if Comcast is really scanning Twitter then maybe this would pop-up on their radar. A few minutes after my reply to Michael, I get a message on Twitter from Carter F. Smith, with further examples of Comcast taking action after monitoring blogs and Twitter messages.

Not more than 10 minutes after my initial tweet, and subsequent dialog with another Twitter user on the subject, I received a message on Twitter from a Comcast employee. Yes, they are indeed monitoring Twitter for customer service issues. And yes, they would have taken the same action were it me bitching about them on Twitter and not Michael Arrington.

So if you're a Twitter user and you've had it with Comcast, let them know. They're (supposedly) listening.

Comcast Twitter and The Chicken [TechCrunch]
Dear Comcast, I Know You're Reading This...[Background Noise]

Qwest Sells Woman "Cheaper" Package That Costs More, Has Unmentioned 2-Year Commitment, And Requires New Modem [Bait And Switch]

 

Matt's mom, a longtime Qwest customer, called up the company to switch her long distance over from AT&T. The CSR suggested she switch over to a bundled package that would save her $11 a month and offer faster Internet connection speeds. What the CSR didn't mention was that the new package required a 2-year commitment, that it wouldn't work with her current DSL modem, and that it actually came out to about $3 more per month.

Customer service has been no help, so Matt emailed people at the executive level. Although several addresses bounced back the message, Matt did receive a promise that Qwest's executive VP that someone from customer service would contact him to resolve the matter. That was on March 31st, and he still hasn't heard back from anyone.

Here's the email Matt sent to the Qwest bigwigs:

Dear Teresa Taylor,
My name is Matt [redacted] and I am writing to you on behalf of my mother, [redacted]. Recently, she was the victim of some very bad customer service, of which I wanted to make you aware. My mother was satisfied with her service, but when she attempted to add a long distance plan to her decades-old account, adding to Qwest's bottom line, she was bumped off her plan, signed up for a two year contract without her knowledge, presented with false claims that she would save money, asked to pay an additional $60, and prevented from using the service for which she paid, for approximately a week at the time of writing.
My mother has had the same phone service for over three decades, including Qwest and your predecessors in the area, at the phone number [uh-oh redacted as well]. She has had DSL Internet with Qwest for approximately 8 years, signing up for a 256 kbps line with an internal DSL modem. Her bill in February for these two services totaled approximately $63. For most of this time, she has been very satisfied, except for the times when her connection would be unavailable for days or weeks at a time. Tech support representatives were often completely unhelpful, despite keeping her on the phone for hours. On one occasion, over a three-day weekend, she had to wait three and a half days to have someone reset her password after she had forgotten it and accidentally erased it from her computer.
Recently, she made a phone call to Qwest to try to sign up for a long distance plan to replace her plan with AT&T. This should have been a simple call to add a relatively inexpensive service, but she was given a hard sell to change her plan. She was told that she could save $11 by switching to a bundle that would include phone and Internet service at 1.5 mbps, and an additional discount for bundling her phone, internet, and DirecTV service. The operator failed to mention that she would be signing a two year contract with Qwest as part of the Price for Life program, the new bill for phone and internet would total approximately $66, she would be ineligible for the new DirecTV equipment that new customers receive, and that the service would fail to work with her current modem, requiring her to buy or rent a new one. Soon after, she was unable to use her internet and approximately a week passed before the issue was resolved when my mother and I spoke with someone in the sales department.
When I called into Qwest and had an opportunity to speak with a salesperson about the problem, she was the first person we found remotely helpful and was able to find the tech support operator, "Roger," who finally discovered the problem. It was at this point that the representative told us that my mother would have to pay $60 for a modem or pay $5 a month to rent the moment. She had the audacity to claim that my mother would still be saving $6 if she paid $5 every month in perpetuity for the modem, despite the fact that a $5 increase would bring the cost to $71, which would be $8 more than she paid on her February bill. My mother could receive credit for the time her internet was down before the source of the problem was found, but if she did not choose to take advantage of the offer to send a modem, she would have to keep paying for unusable internet.
I asked to have my mother's plan revert back to her original plan and after a long time spent on hold, I was told that this would not be possible as the plan was no longer offered. I asked to at least have the Price for Life contract removed and she was eventually able to do this after another period on hold. A supervisor offered to have the modem sent overnight with no additional shipping costs, but we were told that we would still have to pay for the modem. The operator gave us her personal work email to us so that we could contact her with further questions, which was a nice gesture, and my mother and I ended the call.
Although I am happy that we eventually discovered what had happened to bring my mother's internet down, we are both completely unsatisfied with the proposed resolution and the road which brought us here. As I said in the first paragraph of this letter, my mother had been satisfied with her service, but when she attempted to add a long distance plan to her decades-old account, adding to Qwest's bottom line, she was bumped off her plan, signed up for a two year contract without her knowledge, presented with false claims that she would save money, asked to pay an additional $60, and prevented from using the service for which she paid, for approximately a week.
We ask that you instead consent to a resolution which we believe is fair, where my mother receives local phone service, DSL internet at 1.5 Mbps, and a free modem that will make the service usable, at the same price she was already paying, as well as a free upgrade to new DirecTV equipment, discounts for bundling her current DirecTV with her phone and internet, and credit for the time she has been unable to use her internet service. We believe that the upgrade to 1.5 Mbps and new DirecTV equipment is fair for a long time customer whom has happily put up with so much frustration for years, and will prevent future confusion with tech support operators who have been unfamiliar with her current modem and TV equipment. This will also allow Qwest to stop maintaining an outdated line. If you wish to propose an alternative, please let us know. My mother is already looking at prices for competitors and working on a letter to Consumerist.com, the Better Business Bureau, and the Iowa Attorney General, so we ask that you respond to this message promptly or by April 4th at 5:00 PM at this address.
Thank you for your time, and your attention to this matter.

(Photo: mkreyness)

Arbitration Mill Sued By San Francisco [Arbitration]

 

A San Francisco attorney has sued the National Arbitration Forum for being biased towards credit companies and ignoring consumer rights.

In 2004, the suit alleges, California resident Elizabeth Marcotte was hit with a $25,0000 award, plus $10,000 in attorneys' fees, in a credit-card collection case. But Ms. Marcotte allegedly wasn't notified about the arbitration, because she was served at an old address, even though she had notified the credit-card company of her new address. The NAF awarded the attorneys' fees without requiring proof that the debt collector actually incurred the fees, according to the suit. Ms. Marcotte wasn't reached for comment.

In another credit-card collection case, the NAF allegedly entered an award against California resident John Sheakley, without responding to his request to appear at a hearing and explain why he didn't owe the purported debt to a bank that was a predecessor of FIA Card Services.

NAF is the same company that once decided that a 61-year-old identity theft victim owed $46,000 to a bank she never actually did business with.
San Francisco Sues Provider of Arbitrators [WSJ via U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog]

ISPs Are Maniacal Stalkers Who Read Your Email And Watch You Surf The Web [Contracts]

 

Internet service providers are actively tracking 100,000 users, reading every email they send and every website they visit, according to the Washington Post. The report coincides with a damning Associated Press investigation of ISP contracts which finds that they reserve broad rights to read essentially anything you view on the internet without any intervening supervision or regulation.

"The network is asserting almost complete control of the users' ability to use their network as a gateway to the Internet," said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group. "They become gatekeepers rather than gateways."

But the provisions are rarely enforced, except against obvious miscreants like spammers. Consumer outrage would have been the likely result if AT&T Inc. took advantage of its stated right to block any activity that causes the company "to be viewed unfavorably by others."

Jonathan Zittrain, professor of Internet governance and regulation at Oxford University, said this clause was a "piece of boilerplate that is passed around the corporate lawyers like a Christmas fruitcake.

"The idea that they would ever invoke it and point to it is nuts, especially since their terms of service already say they can cut you off for any reason and give you a refund for the balance of the month," Zittrain said.

AT&T removed the "unfavorably by others" wording in February after The Associated Press asked about the reason behind it. Subscribers, however, wouldn't know that it was gone unless they checked the contract word for word: The document still said it was last updated Oct. 8, 2007.

Most companies reserve the right to change the contracts at any time, without any notice except an update on the Web site. Verizon used to say it would notify subscribers of changes by e-mail, but the current contract just leaves that as an option for the company.

Specifically, ISP's reserve the right to:

• Read Your Email: No warrant or court involvement required. They can read your email for any reason, at any time, without any oversight.
• Ban Websites: Any content deemed "inappropriate" can disappear behind an impromptu version of the Great Chinese Firewall.
• Boot You For Using The Service: You can be booted for excessively using your unlimited connection. Our tipsters tell us that Comcast's unpublished limit is around 200 GB per month
• Separately,the Washington Post claims that some ISPs are taking full advantage of these provisions to fine-tune their ad-spewing systems:

The online behavior of a small but growing number of computer users in the United States is monitored by their Internet service providers, who have access to every click and keystroke that comes down the line.

The companies harvest the stream of data for clues to a person's interests, making money from advertisers who use the information to target their online pitches.

[..]

The extent of the practice is difficult to gauge because some service providers involved have declined to discuss their practices. Many Web surfers, moreover, probably have little idea they are being monitored.

But at least 100,000 U.S. customers are tracked this way, and service providers have been testing it with as many as 10 percent of U.S. customers, according to tech companies involved in the data collection.

Although  common tracking systems, known as cookies, have counted a consumer's visits to a network of sites, the new monitoring, known as "deep-packet inspection," enables a far wider view — every Web page visited, every e-mail sent and every search entered. Every bit of data is divided into packets — like electronic envelopes — that the system can access and analyze for content.

We really dislike the pessimists writing for the AP's investigative unit. They break all the sad stories, the ones proving our water is a pharmaceutical factory and that large corporations use our private data for their amusement. Report on something positive for a change, like: aren't bunnies cute? How'd they get so cute? And no, it has nothing to do with toxins or a distorted marketplace. They're just cute, ok? We want 5,000 words on the topic in our inbox by Friday. Now ISPs, in exchange for allowing you to read this uplifting report, you agree not to read any of our other emails. Deal?

ISPs Hog Rights in Fine Print [AP]
Every Click You Make [Washington Post]
(Photo:Getty)

Creative Backs Down, Reinstates Spurned Developer [Backlash]

 

Creative Labs heard your chest-beating across the Internet and decided to reinstate spurned developer Daniel_K less than a week after booting him from their forums. Unlike Creative, Daniel_K issued drivers that allowed Creative sound cards to work properly under Vista, and even enabled previously crippled features. The drivers were downloaded over 100,000 times. The company thanked the developer by accusing him of "enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, [in] effect, stealing our goods." Even though he has been reinstated, Daniel_K is still pissed.

"They publicly threatened me, just to show their arrogance," he told El Reg by email.

He told us that Creative contacted him on a chat session. "They were sarcastic, ironic and asked me if I wanted something from them, as if I were expecting something," he wrote. "It was my protest against them and would like to see how far it would go."

He acknowledges that Creative has a case regarding intellectual property, but is furious about the company's strategy. "I'd say they are stealing [from] their own customers by disabling features based on technologies they own (so they did it on purpose) and by charging for a software that requires an improved driver that they refuse to provide."

"At least they are getting flamed all over the web and they are certainly mad about it. That is enough reward for my hard work," he wrote.

Though Creative claims that their eviction notice "did not make it as clear as we would have liked that we do support driver development by independent third parties," the company is hardly contrite. A statement released to the press defiantly declared that they do not support or appreciate "the unauthorized distribution of other companies' property." Way to learn from the experience, Creative.

Creative climbs down over home brew Vista drivers [The Register]
(Photo:Young Frankenstein)
PREVIOUSLY: Creative Sparks Customer Revolt When It Tries To Silence Third-Party Programmer

Man To Receive Office Depot Rebate That Was Falsely Denied [Followups]

 

Daniel, whose Office Depot rebate was falsely denied, says he called them back today and his rebate has been approved. His issue has even been escalated so his check will get out faster. Daniel also says that when he sent his complaint in, it wasn't so much his particular issue that he was upset about, as he felt sure he would be able to successfully get his rebate after sending in the necessary information, but it was really the thought of how many other people there were out there who would end up getting their rebate denied because they didn't have photographic proof that they had filled out their rebate correctly. He also notes that when he received the denial notice, it only gave him five days to respond. Had it come last week, while he was away on a 12-day trip, he would have lost his chance at rebate redemption. Those are the risks you take when you play the rebate lottery. Like most games of chance, the odds are stacked in favor of the house.

PREVIOUSLY: Office Depot Falsely Denies Man's Rebate

Ticketmaster Charges 168% Of 3 Doors Down Ticket Price In Fees [Complaints]

 

Reader Brent was furious to find three lawn tickets bought through Ticketmaster, priced at $13 each, came to the ridiculous total of $106.20. First there's the facility fee, then there's the mandatory parking, a processing fee, and the "convenience" charge for purchasing the tickets online. After all the fees were piled on, the $13 tickets now cost $35.40 each. Brent's letter, and a breakdown of the charges, inside:

My nephew asked me to order May Day tickets for him since all the surrounding TM outlets are no longer TM agents so I agreed to do so. He wanted 3 lawn tickets priced at $13 each and he knew there would be fees so he collected $25 from each of his friends to cover them. I told him that I doubted that he had collected enough but we pressed on and placed the order. As you can see from the attached image, we paid 172% I fees which brought our $39 tickets to $106.20. What a sickening feeling to know that TM engages is such thievery and there's only one thing you can do about it. Don't go. A tip of the hat for Pearl Jam for spending years boycotting TM for the excessive fees they were charging even if it resulted in hurting Pearl Jam more than TM. Sincerely, Brent

Actually,Brent, you want to subtract the amount of the tax before dividing, so they're taking 4% less than you thought, which probably doesn't make you feel any better. These fees may be "standard," but that doesn't make them any less bogus. We'd suggest you try to dump them on some other sucker, but who's going to pay more than 168% markup to see 3 Doors Down?

Boston judge: making files available to download isn't piracy

 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann sez, "Agreeing with EFF's amicus brief, a federal court in Boston in a 52-page ruling concludes that 'merely exposing music files to the Internet is not copyright infringement.' The Boston court disagrees with a ruling in New York on the same day, which found that a mere 'offer to distribute' a song could violate copyright, even if no one took you up on it. Obviously, this is a fight that's not over yet."

EFF filed an amicus brief in this case (formerly known as Atlantic v. Does 1-21), and our arguments appear to have found a more receptive audience in Boston that they did in New York City (the judge thanks us for our participation on page 11). The 52-page ruling is the most extensive analysis yet of the recording industry's "making available" argument, which claims that you infringe copyright merely by having a song in your shared folder, even if no one ever downloads it.

As we discussed yesterday, a key issue is whether a mere "offer to distribute" is enough to infringe the distribution right, in light of the fact that a mere offer can be enough to constitute "publication." Unlike the court in Elektra v. Barker, the judge in London-Sire v. Doe concludes that "distribution" and "publication" are not identical -- "even a cursory examination of the statute suggests that the terms are not synonymous." If you are interested in the details, the court's analysis is highly illuminating (p. 24-27), touching on a number of earlier rulings, such as Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Letter-Day Saints and A&M v. Napster (copyright nerds will recognize those as pivotal decisions in this area).

Link(Thanks, Fred!)

Vlog (Xeni): Tibet report - monks forced to participate in staged videos.

 

In this BBtv vlog episode, Xeni speaks with Tibetan human rights worker Lhakpa Kyizom about reported abuses against so-called "wired monks" in Tibet, by PRC military and police. Using cellphones, these monks photographed dead and injured participants in nonviolent, pro-Tibetan sovereignty protests that took place in March. The monks then disseminated these images to supporters outside Tibet, using connected computers and mobile devices.

After the images spread worldwide, and their origin became known to authorities in the tightly-controlled, tense, post-protest environment in Tibet, Kyizom says, military forces invaded the monastery, confiscated all communications tools, and detained nearly 600 monks in political retaliation.

Kyizom works as a radio producer for Tibet Connection, and is a trainer with the Active Nonviolence Education Center in the Northern Indian town of Dharamshala, also home to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile.

Link to Boing Boing tv episode, with discussion, downloadable video, transcript of Kyizom's account, and links to related reports.

Man Arrested For Stealing Burger King's Grease, Biodiesel Blamed [Offbeat News]

I can see my self doing this if I ever have a Biodiesel car.....

 

A man was arrested Tuesday for allegedly stealing a South Bay, Ca Burger King's used cooking grease. Burger King normally pays contractors to remove and dispose of the inedible and previously worthless oil, but the franchise's manager called police when he found 49-year-old David Richardson pumping the storage bins behind the burger joint clean.

It's assumed that Richardson intended to convert the grease into biodiesel that he could then use in his own vehicle to save money on fuel, or to sell for a profit. It's not known what penalties he'll face.

It seems odd that a fast food restaurant manager would report someone stealing grease, but could be an indicator of things to come. Could used cooking grease become a commodity just like other fuel sources? [Via CBS5]

Pedal-Powered Buick Owner Stands Up To The Man In Court! [Art]

 

It turns out that John Law takes a dim view of human-powered cars on the streets of Toronto, as artist Michel de Broin discovered to his dismay when he attempted to take his pedal-powered 1986 Buick Regal out for a little spin last year. In Mr. de Broin's view, the Shared Propulsion Car, with its perfectly functional brakes and steering, is safe for street operation. Safer, in fact, than gasoline-powered vehicles, and so he is fighting his Operation of Unsafe Vehicle ticket. [National Post]

Vegas Hotel Charges Attendees For Unpaid Convention Fees [Hotels]

 

The Westin Casuarina Hotel & Spa in Las Vegas has begun charging an unpaid $50,000 convention fee to the attendees who already paid before they attended back in October. The company that set up the event, Austin-based The Coaching Center, hasn't paid its bill yet, and "president Suzanne Black said she was trying to arrange a payment plan when she was told by Westin management that the hotel would recoup the bill from attendees." Now people are finding charges anywhere from $600 to $1200 on their credit card bills. Even the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority has said this isn't standard practice, but Westin says it's got fine print that proves it can hold you liable for any charges left unpaid on your visit.

"Conventioneer says hotel asks attendees to pay charges" [Houston Chronicle] (Thanks to David!)
(Photo:Starwood Hotels)

Daniel_K speaks out about his modded (better) Creative drivers

 

Filed under: Misc. Gadgets

We think Creative acted pretty foolishly in forcing Daniel_K to remove his modded drivers that allowed various Creative sound cards to work up to spec under Vista -- customers had already bought the hardware, after all -- but Daniel seems to understand why he's at the center of the firestorm. Speaking to Custom PC, Daniel Kawakami admits that promising faster releases for more donations probably raised some red flags, but he's not happy that Creative took to publicly threatening him on forums, and says that a simple private email would have probably worked a lot better. Just looking at the list of features Daniel managed to enable, however, it certainly looks like Creative should probably be spending time working on driver development instead of threatening its fans. Way to increase your relevance, Creative.
[Thanks, Alex]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

LEAKS: Best Buy To Purchase Wal-Mart [Insiders]

 

Some shillyshallying office worker came across some papers jammed in the Best Buy shredder that purport to show that Best Buy is going to buy Wal-Mart. Normally I wouldn't sully the pages of The Conglomerist with such treacherous murk, but, irregardless, the news is just too good to keep to myself. If true, this would be the best thing ever to happen to consumers as two of the most kickass companies in America combine forces. Just thinking of of the cost-saving efficiencies provided by the vertical integration makes pleasure crystals ooze shoot out from my pores and explode all over my cat's face (don't worry, he's ok). Oh, and so he can be fired, this traitor's name is Ryan Smith

$753 Airline Tickets End Up Costing Two Seniors Nearly $10,000 [Travel]

 

Two seniors who bought $753 roundtrip tickets to Rome ended up paying nearly $10,000, thanks to flight delays and airlines reneging on their promises. The Lopilatos had a flight on American Airlines from LAX to JFK, then continuing on to Rome on Alitalia. The flight was scheduled to arrive in New York three hours before their flight to Rome, but it didn't and they missed the flight to Rome. At first, American got them seats on a plane to London and then on to Rome on British Airways, for free. But then all of a sudden the seats were gone and now the tickets were $2,065 each. Not wanting to miss their tour group, the couple agreed. Then when they went to come back from Rome, Alitalia canceled their return flight because they missed the outbound, another $2,000+ in return tickets. When they tried to get refunds, each airline blamed the other and denied liability. How to avoid the same thing happening to you? Fly nonstop.

A $10,000 lesson in airline policies and missed connections [LAT] (Thanks to David!)
(Photo:Getty)

Comcast stomping HDTV signals to fit three channels into the space of two

 

No sooner had Comcast relented on its BitTorrent spoofing scandal than we see the company cutting corners elsewhere, now compressing HDTV shows so much that blocky noise is plainly visible on most of its HDTV channels. The company’s doing this to fit three HD channels into a space occupied by two just a few weeks ago.

The eagle eyes at AV Science Forum compared Comcast HDTV images with the same frames received over competing video service Verizon FiOS, and demonstrated a readily apparent drop in quality of the Comcast signal over the past few weeks. Apparently Comcast hopes none of its viewers will notice the reduced picture quality, and will be more impressed with the increased quantity of HD channels.

We’re wondering if Time Warner isn’t compressing its signals a bit more, too, because when watching the CBS coverage of March Madness basketball this weekend, we noticed a lot of suspiciously grainy-looking HDTV. So is HDTV picture quality going the way of cell phone sound — with companies stomping on the quality as much as they can get away with? Anyone else notice this? Follow the link below for more damning evidence.

via AV Science Forum

Creative Sparks Customer Revolt When It Tries To Silence Third-Party Programmer [Backlash]

 

Creative's executive team will be coming in to quite a mess Monday morning, thanks to its VP of Screw Ups, Phil O'Shaughnessy. Friday morning, he posted a warning on the Creative customer forums that told programmer Daniel_K to stop writing his own drivers for their X-Fi sound cards. The cards still won't work on Vista over a year after the OS was released, because Creative hasn't released drivers for them—but by Mr. O'Shaughnessy's account, Daniel_K is "stealing" from Creative by making the cards work. Then the weekend happened.

Over the weekend, Creative's forums have exploded with posts from angry customers who have sworn to stop buying their products. There's already a boycott site up at boycottcreative.com.

A Creative Forum poster named "youAREkidding" summed up Creative's stupidity quite nicely:

Imagine what would happen if 10%, just 10% of the people who will read about this, be in a store somewhere, see someone about to buy a Creative Labs product, and say to that potential customer. "If you have Vista, Creative has non-functioning drivers for it, there was a guy who created a Modified driver, but Creative made him stop distributing it, and there are still no workable drivers for Vista." Some people might laugh at him, but the majority of computer peripheral buyers don't know squat, and if they hear it from someone who presents themselves in a knowledgeable manner, they may actually think twice about it. Creative loses another sale.

So,yes, Daniel may very well have stepped on some copyright rules, and Creative had the lawful option of doing what they did. Score 100 on the law, score minus several millions for not doing the job themselves in the first place, and putting someone like Daniel in a position where he had to do what he did, just to get the customers of this company happy.

By way of comparison, another forum poster, Igor_Levicki, points out that Nvidia supports its old cards much more reliably:

Let me just remind you that for example NVIDIA still supports GeForce generations 5, 6, 7, and 8 in their latest video drivers for XP, XP64, Vista, Linux and Mac OSX. All those old cards still get performance improvements instead of being crippled.

Evenmore entertaining is a mysterious post that appeared on the Daniel_K thread on Sunday, supposedly from Newegg. It's quite possibly fake, but the email address registered with the account is webmaster@newegg.com, and that address has to be verified before it can be displayed. We'll have to wait until Newegg opens for business Monday morning (7am PST) to verify. In the meantime, here's the post:

Newbie
Posts: 1
Registered: 03-30-2008
newegg
Message 1179 of 1,436
Viewed 2,595 times
To Whom it May Concern:
While it is not our place to condemn the decisions of Creative regarding this issue, our customers come first. That being said, it has come to our attention that many of our customers are not happy with the products Creative has released nor the support for those products. To wit, we have processed nearly 5,000 return orders within the past 48 hours. While it is not normally in our best interest to publicly comment in a manufacturer's forum, the overwhelming consensus has left us little choice. As such, effective tomorrow morning newegg.com will suspend sales of the sound cards in question, particularly those indicated as "Vista compatible", pending an investigation into the matter. Those of you whom recently ordered such a card will still receive your product as indicated in any relevant conversations. While we regret this abrupt decision, it has been deemed necessary to protect the interest of our consumers. We welcome contact from Creative as soon as is possible so that we may resolve this issue.
Thank you,
Newegg.com
http://www.newegg.com

Finally, here's the infamous post that started it all, and that is going to lead to a very bad week for Creative, regardless of whether or not Newegg has gotten involved:

Daniel_K:
We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don't have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make.
Although you say you have discontinued your practice of distributing unauthorized software packages for Creative sound cards we have seen evidence of them elsewhere along with donation requests from you. We also note in a recent post of yours on these forums, that you appear to be contemplating the release of further packages. To be clear, we are asking you to respect our legal rights in this matter and cease all further unauthorized distribution of our technology and IP. In addition we request that you observe our forum rules and respect our right to enforce those rules. If you are in any doubt as to what we would consider unacceptable then please request clarification through one of our forum moderators before posting.
Phil O'Shaughnessy
VPCorporate Communications
Creative Labs Inc.

Rule of thumb for bad news in the mainstream media: release it Friday so it's buried over the weekend. Rule of thumb for the web: don't infuriate thousands of your customers right before you decide to tune out for 48 hours.
"Message to Daniel_K" [Creative Forums] (Thanks to everyone who sent this in!)
RELATED
Possibly fake Newegg response [Creative Forums]
BoycottCreative.com
(Photo:Young Frankenstein)

Circuit City Tries To Install Navigation System, Causes $12,119 Of Damage To Your Car [Repairs]

 

Circuit City caused $12,119 worth of damage to VTECnical's 2007 Honda Civic while trying to install a Pioneer AVIC Z2 navigation system. Honda later declared VTECnical's car a fire hazard and told him it was unsafe to drive. Despite destroying the car's heater ducts, stock wiring harness, and dashboard, Circuit City has refunded only $3,190, and insists that VTECnical speak exclusively to their third-party insurer. Hit the jump for Honda's damning condemnation of Circuit City's shoddy workmanship and a video of the damage.

The full repair bill is posted on 8thCivic's forums.

VTECnical's Circuit City Road Shop installation [8thCivic.com]

TSA Will Allow Women With Nipple Piercings To Fly If They Flash Officials [Security]

 

Your nipple piercings are still a threat to national security, but the TSA will let you fly if you "allow a visual inspection of [your] piercings." The announcement came after TSA officials in Texas forced Mandi Hamlin to remove her nipple piercings with a pair of pliers before allowing her to board her flight. The TSA stopped short of apologizing to Ms. Hamlin, instead saying: "TSA acknowledges that our procedures caused difficulty for the passenger involved and regrets the situation in which she found herself."

TSA Responds to Nipple Ring Complaint [AP] (Thanks to Louis!)
PREVIOUSLY:TSA Forces Woman To Remove Nipple Piercings

This Is Why You Don't Use FreeCreditReport.com [Credit Reports]

 

Jesus from South Texas signed up for credit monitoring at the notoriously scammy FreeCreditReport.com. He never received the confirmation email and wasn't able to access his account, so he never used it, but forgot to call to cancel it. After three months he realized he was being charged $15 a month as per their terms of service, so he went to their site to retrieve his login credentials and was told the account didn't exist. After that, it took him 4 calls to get the account canceled, and they would only refund him for one month of service. One of their CSRs tried to scare Jesus into keeping the account open because there had been some "suspicious activity" in his credit history that he'd be wise to monitor. Then they told him there is no phone number or email for their "customer satisfaction department"—it can only be reached through snail mail.

So that's the summary. Here's the full story in Jesus' own words:

Hello Consumerist...
I found myself swayed by the curiosity of knowing my credit score and I chose to go to the very adamantly advertised freecreditreport.com. Once I was at their website I found out that the free credit report was not really free to begin with, since you had to provide your credit card information and sign for a monthly plan of "free" credit reports and credit change notices. Since I was already there I said, "What the Hell?... Lets do it anyways!". I completed the sign up process and the website announced that I could access my credit reports once I received a confirmation e-mail which I never received, hence I could never access my credit reports.
I was fully aware that I could cancel the service at any time, but I totally forgot about this because my workload augmented and three months later, when I had a chance to look I noticed that my credit card statement had several more charges (14.95) from freecreditreport.com that reminded me of the "missing confirmation email" and my "never checked" credit report. I tried to sign in on their website, but the password and username where not valid. I expected that since I had never confirmed my account by clicking on the link provided in these kind of emails, then I thought well maybe my username and password where indeed wrong and I went to their forgot your password section and they ask for your full name and social security no., so I thought well this might get me somewhere... I entered my info and the screen said record does not exist.
This is where I tried to cancel it... and that is when the s*%& hit the fan.
I tried canceling the account 4 times and the call either got dropped or i was on hold for ages. I was not expecting anything outrageous from them... I only wanted a full refund for a service that i was charged for and not even used. The people on the other side of the phone were condescending to say the least. They treated me like a child that is asking to play with mommy's diamond necklace. They gave me phony reasons on why I should keep their service, (even though i could not access it) they told me things like: "are you sure you want to cancel because according to our records there has been suspicious activity in your credit history" as if some dark figure was using my social security no. to conquer the world.
I finally got them to cancel my account, but the lady hung up on me without talking about a refund of any sort, so I called back and explained the situation to a guy named "Guy" (corporate no. 35897) and he said that a refund was out of the question since they had monitored my scores daily and the service was in fact provided. I politely disagreed and explained for the 6th time that i had not even accessed my profile once. He raised his voice and repeated that a refund was out of the question, as if the louder voice was going to make me understand their logic resolution "Let us Screw this guy". He said that the only ones that could offer me a full refund was their customer satisfaction department, so I asked to be transferred to that department and he said that could not be done. I asked to ask to a supervisor and he defiantly said "why do you want to talk to one?, he is going to tell you the same thing i am". I was pretty mad, but i kept my cool and asked the number to this department and their e-mail and he said that they did not have one and that the only way to get a hold of them was through a letter and I said "Come on man!!! Y' all have a website, but not email addresses. He agreed to give me a refund for the last month and hung up and forgot to tell me the address to the Customer Satisfaction Dept... I don't want to call them again and go through that crap again.
Can you advise me on this matter?
Jesus [redacted] from South Texas.

Remember, if you want to pull your credit reports, use AnnualCreditReport.com—that's the only "free" site where you can get one credit report per agency per year (three per year total).
As for Jesus, we suggest you dispute the charges with your credit card company. You should also write a concise letter to their Customer Care department—the address is on the Contact Us page on their website—and ask them to provide proof that the account was functional during the period when they were billing you for their services, since you were never able to confirm your membership and gain access to the account.

RELATED
Consumerist posts about FreeCreditReport.com

Woman told to remove nipple rings for SoCal flight

 

A TSA agent told a woman she would have to remove her nipple rings if she wanted to pass the security checkpoint. The woman has retained Gloria Allred as her attorney.

A woman was forced by the Transportation Security Administration to remove her nipple rings before she was allowed to board a flight, an attorney said on Thursday.

"The woman was given a pair of pliers in order to remove the rings in her nipples," said Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred. "The rings had been in her nipples for many years."

Link (Thanks, BadSneakers on #boingboing IRC!)

Test

Send from my T-Mobile Sidekick®