Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

patrick at zill

Jul 31, 2008, 8:46 AM

Post #1 of 21 (962 views)
Permalink

Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers

Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.

They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on
the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are
explicitly not taxable.

When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message it is
not a tax at all, but a surcharge, and if you want to dispute it you are
supposed to quote back their own contract terms to them via email (i.e.
you cannot reach a human).

I would expect this kind of scamminess from Verizon's cell-phone
billing, but a contract is a contract and I can see no provision for
arbitrarily tacking on fees, illegally labeling them as "taxes" and then
putting the onus on you to prove that they can't charge you.

Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?

(It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want to
act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)

--Patrick

eslerj at gmail

Jul 31, 2008, 9:04 AM

Post #2 of 21 (933 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

At what point is regulation okay?

J

On Jul 31, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:

> Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.
>
> They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes"
> on the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services
> are explicitly not taxable.
>
> When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message
> it is not a tax at all, but a surcharge, and if you want to dispute
> it you are supposed to quote back their own contract terms to them
> via email (i.e. you cannot reach a human).
>
> I would expect this kind of scamminess from Verizon's cell-phone
> billing, but a contract is a contract and I can see no provision for
> arbitrarily tacking on fees, illegally labeling them as "taxes" and
> then putting the onus on you to prove that they can't charge you.
>
> Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?
>
> (It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want
> to act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)
>
> --Patrick
>

--
Joel Esler
 http://blog.joelesler.net
 http://www.dearcupertino.com
[m]

lorell at hathcock

Jul 31, 2008, 9:48 AM

Post #3 of 21 (939 views)
Permalink

RE: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

I saw the same kinds of behavior from WorldCom years before their collapse.

I was the technical manager at a small ISP in Houston and was presented with
the WorldCom invoices and was shocked to find 20% per month in phony
charges.

2.5% is a far cry from 20% but that 20% had to start somewhere.

Lorell

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patrick[at]zill.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:47 AM
To: nanog[at]nanog.org
Subject: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers

Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.

They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on
the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are
explicitly not taxable.

When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message it is
not a tax at all, but a surcharge, and if you want to dispute it you are
supposed to quote back their own contract terms to them via email (i.e.
you cannot reach a human).

I would expect this kind of scamminess from Verizon's cell-phone
billing, but a contract is a contract and I can see no provision for
arbitrarily tacking on fees, illegally labeling them as "taxes" and then
putting the onus on you to prove that they can't charge you.

Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?

(It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want to
act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)

--Patrick

dhubbard at dino

Jul 31, 2008, 9:48 AM

Post #4 of 21 (940 views)
Permalink

RE: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patrick[at]zill.net]
>
> Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?
>

We're going on three months of trying to get billing
issues resolved; and yes, no way to talk to a real
person anymore, nor are there any sales reps left
that have any interest in talking to their customers
as far as I can tell. If it weren't for positive
experiences with tech support, they would be Verizon.

David

jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus

Jul 31, 2008, 10:04 AM

Post #5 of 21 (937 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

Peer1 has a similar charge but actually labels it "LA
Telecommunications Surcharge" or something to the effect.

(David: Sorry for sending to you personally at first instead of to list).

--
Jeffrey Lyon, President
Level III Information Systems Technician
jeffrey.lyon[at]blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc.

Talk for 4h 45m from the U.S. to Latin America for $10.00:
http://www.defensecalling.com

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:48 PM, David Hubbard
<dhubbard[at]dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
> From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patrick[at]zill.net]
>>
>> Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?
>>
>
> We're going on three months of trying to get billing
> issues resolved; and yes, no way to talk to a real
> person anymore, nor are there any sales reps left
> that have any interest in talking to their customers
> as far as I can tell. If it weren't for positive
> experiences with tech support, they would be Verizon.
>
> David
>
>

ge at linuxbox

Jul 31, 2008, 10:31 AM

Post #6 of 21 (936 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.
>
> They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on the
> bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are explicitly
> not taxable.
>
> When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message it is not
> a tax at all, but a surcharge, and if you want to dispute it you are supposed
> to quote back their own contract terms to them via email (i.e. you cannot
> reach a human).
>
> I would expect this kind of scamminess from Verizon's cell-phone billing, but
> a contract is a contract and I can see no provision for arbitrarily tacking
> on fees, illegally labeling them as "taxes" and then putting the onus on you
> to prove that they can't charge you.
>
> Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?
>
> (It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want to act
> like a scum-sucking ILEC.)

I wouldn't automatically assume malice here, although it is tempting.
Further, escalating past low-level support or machines in corporate
america is difficult and infuriating, but we know that.

In Israel we have a name for such methods: shitat matzliach.
Loosely translated it means "the succeeding method". You try something,
see if it works. Then try something a little bit less, see if it works,
and so on.

How many folks do you think:
1. Notice this irregularity.
2. Call.
3. Endure the process of complaining, staying on the phoen for hours and
emailing in the contract?

And these are just the steps you went through so far.

Gadi.

> --Patrick
>

jmaimon at ttec

Jul 31, 2008, 10:56 AM

Post #7 of 21 (935 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

Gadi Evron wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>>
>> (It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want
>> to act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)
>
> I wouldn't automatically assume malice here, although it is tempting.

>You try something,
> see if it works. Then try something a little bit less, see if it works,
> and so on.

If what you are saying translates to

"How much pain can we inflict on our customers before they break
(whether or not it increases revenue or decreases costs)?"

Then yes, it is inherently malicious, but of a natural predatory sort.

It may not be a shareholder board member meeting conspiracy kind of
malice, but still the verdict: malicious.

And yes, the larger a telecom gets, the more they look like the "scum
sucking ILEC."

jfmezei at vaxination

Jul 31, 2008, 11:12 AM

Post #8 of 21 (934 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

Joe Maimon wrote:

> "How much pain can we inflict on our customers before they break
> (whether or not it increases revenue or decreases costs)?"

I see it in a different way.

At one point, a corporation's accountants decide that growth through
acquisition of new customers will slow and the only way to continue to
grow revenus is to start nickel and diming existing customers to death,
cutting customer support (aka: outsource to a different country where
the folks there are given a simple 2 page script and no other training)
and implementeing strange new billing schemes.

And in the past, such schemes have worked with minimal customer
complaints (of course, the customer service side in in cahoots and
aren't about to report to the board that the decisions made have been
highly unpopular) and those measures become permanent.

The big problem is that upper management are more focused on pleasing
the Wall Street Casino analysts than they are running their company and
pleasing their customers.

rs at seastrom

Jul 31, 2008, 11:41 AM

Post #9 of 21 (935 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patrick[at]zill.net]
>
> Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?
>

Orthogonal to this discussion, Level(3)'s support, while never great
shakes compared to the exemplary service that I used to get from
Looking Glass Networks, has in recent months taken a sharp turn for
the worse. 52 hours for callback on hicap circuit outages,
technicians who can't read the ticket ("call only between 0600 and
2300 EDT; site contact needs to sleep too"), and just general apathy
and ennui more appropriate to an old-line incumbent (oh yeah, billing
screw-ups too) have brought my dissatisfaction to record levels.

Residential T-1 which I've had since 1996 - canceled yesterday. I'll
suck it up on the MSS lossage and tunnel my stuff over a cablemodem.

---Rob

ge at linuxbox

Jul 31, 2008, 11:45 AM

Post #10 of 21 (935 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> You try something, see if it works. Then try something a little bit less,
>> see if it works, and so on.
>
>
> If what you are saying translates to
>
> "How much pain can we inflict on our customers before they break (whether or
> not it increases revenue or decreases costs)?"

More like "let's give it a shot, see if they are on to us. Best case we
suceeded, worst case we give a little way and try again. In all likelihood
we will end up better off, and at the worst at a regular starting position
for the deal/negotiation/kick in the nuts.

> Then yes, it is inherently malicious, but of a natural predatory sort.

Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the recieving end a
few times.. you don't always know it is happening.

But now that we all released some steam, I don't think billing practices
is really our expertise here.. although many of us techies negotiate the
bandwidth and peering for some very odd reason.

Gadi.

jal at jal

Jul 31, 2008, 12:28 PM

Post #11 of 21 (931 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:

> Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the recieving
> end a few times.. you don't always know it is happening.

I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. I strongly doubt any vendor
has actual malice towards me (modulo some people I've pissed off at
times in panics). Ethics are what I hope for from partners, try to
demonstrate, and it is proven over time.

That said, inventing random fees, hiding them as "taxes" or "federally
mandated something or other", and seeing what sticks to the wall in
order to get that tiny percent profit boost is not going to make any
friends in a network community. It works much better with cell
customers or unaware bean counters, but netops folks are going to see
it. L3 have given me reason to not like them in the past, and this is
just more of the same. The problem is that the big boys seem to be
racing to the bottom, so there isn't anyone better to which to defect.

patrick at ianai

Jul 31, 2008, 12:34 PM

Post #12 of 21 (932 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Jul 31, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Jamie A Lawrence wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
>> Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the
>> recieving end a few times.. you don't always know it is happening.
>
> I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. I strongly doubt any
> vendor has actual malice towards me (modulo some people I've pissed
> off at times in panics). Ethics are what I hope for from partners,
> try to demonstrate, and it is proven over time.
>
> That said, inventing random fees, hiding them as "taxes" or
> "federally mandated something or other", and seeing what sticks to
> the wall in order to get that tiny percent profit boost is not going
> to make any friends in a network community. It works much better
> with cell customers or unaware bean counters, but netops folks are
> going to see it. L3 have given me reason to not like them in the
> past, and this is just more of the same. The problem is that the big
> boys seem to be racing to the bottom, so there isn't anyone better
> to which to defect.

Calling something a "tax" or "federally mandated" when it is not
sounds both like a class action suit waiting to happen, and illegal
enough to have the company at least fined.

Why doesn't Cuomo go after problems like this instead of the BS he
likes to chase. It's got to have an appeal to at least as many people
who vote.

--
TTFN,
patrick

web at typo

Jul 31, 2008, 12:34 PM

Post #13 of 21 (932 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

Hoping for a company which will put ethics above profit is like
looking for an honest politician. They're extremely rare.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:28:47PM -0400, Jamie A Lawrence wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
> >Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the recieving
> >end a few times.. you don't always know it is happening.
>
> I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. I strongly doubt any vendor
> has actual malice towards me (modulo some people I've pissed off at
> times in panics). Ethics are what I hope for from partners, try to
> demonstrate, and it is proven over time.
>
> That said, inventing random fees, hiding them as "taxes" or "federally
> mandated something or other", and seeing what sticks to the wall in
> order to get that tiny percent profit boost is not going to make any
> friends in a network community. It works much better with cell
> customers or unaware bean counters, but netops folks are going to see
> it. L3 have given me reason to not like them in the past, and this is
> just more of the same. The problem is that the big boys seem to be
> racing to the bottom, so there isn't anyone better to which to defect.

---
Wayne Bouchard
web[at]typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

patrick at ianai

Jul 31, 2008, 12:50 PM

Post #14 of 21 (930 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Jul 31, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:

> Hoping for a company which will put ethics above profit is like
> looking for an honest politician. They're extremely rare.

I'm just looking for a company that looks past the next quarterly
investor call. Because then at least some ethics come into play.
Doing things like this will have longer term effects, and they won't
be positive.

--
TTFN,
patrick

> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:28:47PM -0400, Jamie A Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the recieving
>>> end a few times.. you don't always know it is happening.
>>
>> I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. I strongly doubt any vendor
>> has actual malice towards me (modulo some people I've pissed off at
>> times in panics). Ethics are what I hope for from partners, try to
>> demonstrate, and it is proven over time.
>>
>> That said, inventing random fees, hiding them as "taxes" or
>> "federally
>> mandated something or other", and seeing what sticks to the wall in
>> order to get that tiny percent profit boost is not going to make any
>> friends in a network community. It works much better with cell
>> customers or unaware bean counters, but netops folks are going to see
>> it. L3 have given me reason to not like them in the past, and this is
>> just more of the same. The problem is that the big boys seem to be
>> racing to the bottom, so there isn't anyone better to which to
>> defect.
>
> ---
> Wayne Bouchard
> web[at]typo.org
> Network Dude
> http://www.typo.org/~web/
>

eddy+public+spam at noc

Jul 31, 2008, 12:57 PM

Post #15 of 21 (932 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

PWG> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:34:04 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore

PWG> Calling something a "tax" or "federally mandated" when it is not
PWG> sounds both like a class action suit waiting to happen, and illegal
PWG> enough to have the company at least fined.

I agree.

I'm probably not the only one who has read large communication company
shareholder reports and SEC filings. Class-action suits are listed as a
calculated risk, a cost of doing business, and factored in as part of
doing business. Yay for customers prepaying their opponent's legal
fund!

If we were to ask for a show of hands who's never been jerked around by
a telecom company, I don't think we'd see many folks on this list
uncrossing their arms. I'm even having some fun with one (re a small
personal/non-business account) that claims service cannot be terminated
in writing -- despite lack of any Contract terms, statute, or precedent
to substantiate their position. And then we have [what appear to me to
be] FCRA violations.

To answer Joel's "[a]t what point is regulation okay" question: At the
point where the regulators are less evil than those they are regulating.

There are two three reasons for reading statutes and precedent (or for
paying someone on your behalf):

1. To comply;

2. To find loopholes;

3. To find the best way to nail whomever has angered you.

When #2 or #3 becomes "excessive", someone cries for an overhaul. Of
course, a poorly-executed "overhaul" can exacerbate #2 and #3, but let's
not follow the recursion too far. ;-)

Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
________________________________________________________________________
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc[at]brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq[at]intc.net -*- sam[at]everquick.net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.

deepak at ai

Jul 31, 2008, 1:05 PM

Post #16 of 21 (930 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

We all have plenty of billing nightmares. Level 3 has tried this sort of
thing before. Their "property tax surcharge" or something. We got it
removed years ago since our MSA didn't support it -- their new ones do,
whether legal or not.

We were particularly frustrated with a traditional T3 international
circuit where you expect (and request) full protection, blah, blah only
to find the foreign leg was not protected. We had ordered it from
Broadwing before the acquisition and then had to cancel it when we found
out how L3 was going to engineer it.

Passing on these fees (even if challenged by many) would still end up
with 40-60% not challenging it. This is a vastly impressive move on
their side until the class action lawsuit and it'll grow as a percentage
too.

Reliance Telecom (formerly Yipes and others) has started passing on
"regulatory fees" without further description. Boo.

This is a market that is about go through another round of BKs and
consolidation, and to draw a parallel to the rest of the market -- no
one is too big to fail. All of the sins of the last companies to go
under are about to come to light again. I think the datacenter builders
are doing the same sort of thing with the overbuilding and telling Wall
Street how behind they are on capacity, but time will prove that
right/wrong too.

To make this operational. The reason techs negotiate bandwidth and
peering deals is because they are the only ones whose eyes don't glaze
over when the terminology is thrown around.

Most bean counters are used to mature industries where billion dollar
companies don't perpetrate this sort of fraud by whimsy (traditional
companies buy permission with lobbyists first). So they never challenge
taxes or "fees" because they have good reason to believe that if Verizon
is charging it, they have the legal authority to do so. Its these
also-ran companies like L3, Reliance and others that have the
"infrastructure" to deliver hicap services but they don't have the
patience or maturity of old school tyrants.

Another way to say this. You should keep complaining about it until one
of them clues in and asks the PSC in your area to make it legal.

Deepak

Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
> Hoping for a company which will put ethics above profit is like
> looking for an honest politician. They're extremely rare.
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:28:47PM -0400, Jamie A Lawrence wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't malicious, just not very ethical. Having been on the recieving
>>> end a few times.. you don't always know it is happening.
>> I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. I strongly doubt any vendor
>> has actual malice towards me (modulo some people I've pissed off at
>> times in panics). Ethics are what I hope for from partners, try to
>> demonstrate, and it is proven over time.
>>
>> That said, inventing random fees, hiding them as "taxes" or "federally
>> mandated something or other", and seeing what sticks to the wall in
>> order to get that tiny percent profit boost is not going to make any
>> friends in a network community. It works much better with cell
>> customers or unaware bean counters, but netops folks are going to see
>> it. L3 have given me reason to not like them in the past, and this is
>> just more of the same. The problem is that the big boys seem to be
>> racing to the bottom, so there isn't anyone better to which to defect.
>
> ---
> Wayne Bouchard
> web[at]typo.org
> Network Dude
> http://www.typo.org/~web/
>
>

frnkblk at iname

Aug 2, 2008, 7:12 AM

Post #17 of 21 (852 views)
Permalink

RE: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

At least they didn't label it a fuel surcharge. =)

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patrick[at]zill.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:47 AM
To: nanog[at]nanog.org
Subject: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers

Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.

They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on
the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are
explicitly not taxable.

When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message it is
not a tax at all, but a surcharge, and if you want to dispute it you are
supposed to quote back their own contract terms to them via email (i.e.
you cannot reach a human).

I would expect this kind of scamminess from Verizon's cell-phone
billing, but a contract is a contract and I can see no provision for
arbitrarily tacking on fees, illegally labeling them as "taxes" and then
putting the onus on you to prove that they can't charge you.

Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?

(It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want to
act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)

--Patrick

tomb at byrneit

Aug 2, 2008, 11:15 AM

Post #18 of 21 (848 views)
Permalink

RE: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

There's a big difference between the airlines hiking fares for future
flights, which you can see when searching, and choose the competition;
and companies adding "surcharges" to pre-existing contracts, some with
terms and penalties for termination; all of which have a relatively high
switching cost.

This is a way for them to raise prices above what they contracted for,
while preventing termination of contracts for cause.

It's sleazy.

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Bulk - iNAME [mailto:frnkblk[at]iname.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 10:12 AM
To: 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; nanog[at]nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers

At least they didn't label it a fuel surcharge. =)

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patrick[at]zill.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:47 AM
To: nanog[at]nanog.org
Subject: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers

Today I looked at my most recent bill from Level3.

They are now assessing a 2.5% surcharge, which is listed as "Taxes" on
the bandwidth bill I have. In the state of PA, telecoms services are
explicitly not taxable.

When you call Level3 billing, they admit in their recorded message it is
not a tax at all, but a surcharge, and if you want to dispute it you are
supposed to quote back their own contract terms to them via email (i.e.
you cannot reach a human).

I would expect this kind of scamminess from Verizon's cell-phone
billing, but a contract is a contract and I can see no provision for
arbitrarily tacking on fees, illegally labeling them as "taxes" and then
putting the onus on you to prove that they can't charge you.

Anyone else seeing this same behavior from Level3?

(It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want to
act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)

--Patrick

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date:
8/1/2008 6:59 PM

jam at zoidtechnologies

Aug 2, 2008, 5:24 PM

Post #19 of 21 (842 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:15:06AM -0700, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> There's a big difference between the airlines hiking fares for future
> flights, which you can see when searching, and choose the competition;
> and companies adding "surcharges" to pre-existing contracts, some with
> terms and penalties for termination; all of which have a relatively high
> switching cost.
>
> This is a way for them to raise prices above what they contracted for,
> while preventing termination of contracts for cause.
>
> It's sleazy.
>
>

agreed.

however, is there a provision in the contract that allows the rates, fees,
etc to be changed without notice?

regards,
jam

patrick at ianai

Aug 2, 2008, 5:38 PM

Post #20 of 21 (840 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Aug 2, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:15:06AM -0700, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
>> There's a big difference between the airlines hiking fares for future
>> flights, which you can see when searching, and choose the
>> competition;
>> and companies adding "surcharges" to pre-existing contracts, some
>> with
>> terms and penalties for termination; all of which have a relatively
>> high
>> switching cost.
>>
>> This is a way for them to raise prices above what they contracted
>> for,
>> while preventing termination of contracts for cause.
>>
>> It's sleazy.
>
> agreed.
>
> however, is there a provision in the contract that allows the rates,
> fees,
> etc to be changed without notice?

Usually there is something about having to pay whatever taxes &
legally mandated fees there are no matter what. Which is probably why
they called it a "tax", even though it isn't. (No comments on what
that says about L3.)

--
TTFN,
patrick

jra at baylink

Aug 5, 2008, 7:54 AM

Post #21 of 21 (792 views)
Permalink

Re: Level3 tries cell-phone style billing scam on customers [In reply to]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:34:29PM -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
> Hoping for a company which will put ethics above profit is like
> looking for an honest politician. They're extremely rare.

And, like Wiltel nd Mindspring, they tend to get bought out and ruined.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra[at]baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Josef Stalin)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com