I can see if tax was added and increased the bill by ~$15 or so, but double?

If they send this to collections, I'd sue them in small claims court.
__

I made my own bundle with Time Warner- 19.95 internet, 18.50 basic cable and 24.95 digital phone local. $68/month with tax!

Verizon is a POS cheating dishonest company. They are so huge and out of control I don't even know where to start.

If you do business with them you will get screwed. They have all of these marketing people and promos in place because they are losing subscribers at a record rate

I got rid of them at work and at home because they are completely terrible. Billing Issues, Service Issues, broken promises. Shutoff service. Collections. A mess!

Stay far away from Verizon. (Except Wireless)

No surprise Verizon rejected the contract she drafted. Contract law can be very complicated and contracts should only be written/signed after consulting with a qualified attorney. Simply writing a contract that says you are only paying $77.99 and having a Verizon employee sign it does not make it binding.

Did they check the bill and see if they are being charged for two months. Generally you are charged a month in advance with Verizon and any other provider. 2 Months of service at $77.99 would be $155.98. Odd's are the first month was a tiny bit prorated since they did not sign up on a bill cycle date and then you have to add tax.

They should make sure there aren't prorated charges on there. Especially if its a first bill, I wouldnt' be suprised to see that.

@sharkzfanz: I retract the statement.. Consumerist again does not give all of the details. It is amazing why they only give a few details in stories and expect us to decipher.. We should not have to read the link posed at the bottom to get the store...

@sharkzfanz: This exactly! When I worked for AT&T I loved it when people would call in screaming about false advertising and then be completely annoyed they had no leg to stand on because of the prorated charges.
Though I did have one woman tell me "you missed your opportunity to charge me last month" (when she wasn't even a customer) "and you're making it MY FAULT by charging me now". I lol'd so hard.

@fs2k2isfun:
yes, but it makes for a heck of an estoppel argument, even if the employee didn't have real authority to bind Verizon.

Not enough details to go on here, but with telecomm companies, the first month bill is often for the month in the past plus the one in the future. If the installation date was, e.g. June 1 and the billing date is the 30th of each month, then the first bill would cover June and July. If the customers only paid $77.99 on the first bill, then the next bill would still be for two months worth of service, plus a late fee. And so on and so on.

@fs2k2isfun: "Simply writing a contract that says you are only paying $77.99 and having a Verizon employee sign it does not make it binding."

So where did you go to law school? It's apparent you know nothing about contract law so I'm assuming you didn't go or maybe you slept during your contract law lectures.

@fs2k2isfun: As a lawyer who has spent more than 20 years fighting over contracts,let me assure you that contracts don't have to be all that complicated to be enforceable. I would need to see the agreement they prepared, but if it (a) describes what they get for the money, (b) says how much they will pay for it, and (c) is signed by a company employee authorized to sell services, then most decent attorneys could probably get a court to enforce it. Question is, for how long? Unless the contract also specifies the duration of service or tells how the contract can be terminated, then either party can probably back out at any time -- as Verizon did.

@fs2k2isfun: Actually it does.

If an agent of the company signs a contract, it's binding. Verizon tries to have it both ways; They claim their employees are not agents, but also claim that their employees can sign you up for services. These conditions are mutually exclusive.

If you walk up to a particular employee in person, verbally consent to services, supply a credit card and say your name, as the employee types into a computer, then that employee is acting as a corporate agent. Anything that agent signs is binding on the company. Depending on the exact terms of the contract, you could even charge Verizon an ETF...even send a collection agency against them for nonpayment.

@fs2k2isfun: The reason so many companies get away with foisting onerous contracts on people ... that end up being enforced ... is the inherent imbalance in any transaction like this one. Party of the first part, Verizon, has a massive legal department and outside counsel on retainer, to draft iron-clad contracts which serve its own interests. Party of the second part, the hapless consumer, has no such advice, and is given a "take it or leave it" proposition.

Maybe it's time consumers were able to give back what they get, as this couple did ... offer a contract of their own devising, that Verizon agreed to.

I didn't go to law school, so obviously I missed the part of the law that says the big corporation with the massive legal department gets to dictate terms in every contract, and that consumers' counter-offers are unenforceable even when agreed upon by everyone involved in the transaction. So I apologize for not knowing which statute(s) and/or precedent(s) established that. Perhaps an attorney out there would care to share those?

Perhaps the couple should charge Verizon the ETF. I would assume if the couple backed out of the contract Verizon would do the same.

ETFs should be forced to go both ways.

@wcnghj: FYI, there is no sales tax in the state of Oregon, so taxes are very low, something like a 2-3 dollar fee on certain "telecommunications" things...

I'm going to draft a contract and send it to Ben to sign to stop with the Target pricing failure blog posts.

Keep an eye on your inbox Ben.

@Oranges w/ Cheese needs guidance: From the linked story: But when the first bill arrived May 22, it asked for $158.49. The monthly charge grew to $186.33 in June and $183.03 in July.

This happened to me with Qwest - their explanation was that the promotional prices don't take effect until you're a customer for 60 days. No where in ANY documentation did it say this, plus I had the confirmation order stating what the monthly bill would be with no mention of a waiting period. They eventually credited the amount for the two months back to my account after I told them I wanted to cancel.

@sharkzfanz: So what would you prefer, the entire story reprinted verbatim?

The problem here is Qwest. They are the evil company of the west just google them for proof. Anytime they are involved everything is bound to go wrong. Qwest had their own wireless service for years and now they are working with Verizon for cell phones and directv for television. They are worse thann comcast but the only choice for land based phone lines in AZ. I stick with verizon by its self and avoid qwest like the plague.

@bkdlays: We have Verizon Wireless- My phone # was the primary line, his was secondary although the bill is in his name. (We opened the first number while he was in Iraq so he could reach me anytime)

We both were out of contract, my line (the primary line) was out of contract in February '09, his number has been out of contract since MAY 2007.

When he wanted to upgrade his phone, they used MY CREDIT FROM MY PHONE LINE to upgrade his phone to keep my number, the primary number, in contract. I found that completely underhanded. Now my number is under contract for another 2 years, and I was debating shutting my phone off since I hadn't used it enough. They said "Oh, well, you can give him your number, he can activate his phone under your number and shut the other one down. We just want to keep the first number under contract at all times if we can." Who the FUCK wants to give up a number they've had since 2006?

Tools.

@categorically: lol'ing uncontrollably.

Good luck with that ;)

Qwest can never tell you the correct billing amount when you first register for service, but it's usually about a $20 discrepancy. (Don't ask me why. Drives me nuts.) As others have indicated, the first Qwest bill is always astronomical and you have to wait until the next bill to see what the correct monthly pricing will be. I don't blame the OP for being confused tho--Qwest's bills are a solid mindscrew, and their CSRs are very accustomed to answering calls from customers that can't figure out how much they're being billed and for what.

Hmm.. but the new Consumer Protection Agency didn't think it was a good idea to require companies to spell out exactly what things will cost.

Maybe if Verizon (and other companies) made it clear in simple terms what people are being charge for, there would be such hatred from their customers.

@sharkzfanz: Your first month's bill is always double with Verizon, because they charge the first month's plus the second month's. I think almost all utilities that don't need meters do this (Cable and phone that is)

I have a Verizon bundle for $99, and with all the fees, my bill is closer to $140. I even called to ask them if they could lower it, and they said no. There aren't a lot of other options out here (Charter?! Hahaha), so I'm pretty much stuck!

@PsiCop: I worked for a wireless provider (not Verizon) doing retail activations and I was told specifically by my manager that customers were not allowed to alter any contract terms ever and if they tried to, we were to tell them they had to either agree to the contract as written or find service elsewhere, I believe his exact words were something like "it's a contract, not a negotiation, they have to sign it at is with no changes or we can't sign them up."

@pmcpa4: They do and I ran into this all the time during customer care with Sprint, even though it states on the contract in BOLD letters: Your first bill may BE HIGHER than normal due to activation fees and prorated charges, but hey, who reads the fine print anyway?

@dragonfire81: Fine print? pshaw. Who needs to read the bill!?
Seriously, I swear half the people I talked to in customer care would open the envelope, see the bill summary (i.e. what they owed) freak the fuck out and call without even bothering to look at the damn thing.

@sharkzfanz: Of course you should read the link for the full story. It would be wrong for the Consumerist to plagiarize in full the original reporting of another website.

Does the $158.49 include the 11.11% Verizon Executive Bonus Concession Recovery Fee?

@SNForrester: Plagiarizing would imply that the Consumerist would write the article in full and claim it as their original work. Writing the article in full, providing full credit to the original author, and linking to the story would not be indicative of plagiarism.

Am I the only one that wants a breakdown of ALL the charges levied?
Personally, I'm all for a law that forbids this type of deceptive practice. Unless it's an authorized government tax, they need to disclose it in the actual price, not some ridiculous price they concocked to make their advertised rate seem affordable and reasonable....

@Stomper:

Do you really think that most courts will agree that this employee had authority to bind Verizon? I confess that contracts is not really my area of practice, but i would have thought this was a case of apparent authority at best.

@dragonfire81:
But ... in this case, the employee *did* sign it, so who cares what their over-arching policy is--here, the document was actually signed. Enforceable? Hard to say, but I hardly see what the training you relatecould have to do with it.

@SabreDC: No, but it would be a breach of copyright. Crediting or no, you don't get to republish other people's stuff.

@treimel: Oh I agree in this instance the contract should be enforceable, I was just stating an example from my personal experience.

@rellog321:

I'd also like to see a breakdown as well. My first three FIOS bills were pretty high because of a prorated first month plus the second month being charged at the same time, along with installation fees. Eventually the bill stabilized at the $130 a month I'm currently paying (20/5 internet plus, their HDTV bundle and all the movie channels), but the first few bills were shockers. The initial bill was around $280, which was a shock.

@treimel: I'd call it a very strong case for apparent authority -- but you are right, the sales rep probably does not have express authority. Indeed, the sales rep probably violated policy by signing this. That's not the consumers' problem, and does not affect enforceability so long as they were not on notice.

Instead, the consumers are dealing with a sales rep expressly employed and empowered to sell these services to them, probably in a company store or kiosk and likely wearing a Verizon shirt (if so, then literally "clothed" with authority), who makes these cost representations supported by company brochures, who presents one contract with a company logo on it, and who then actually signs a contract purporting to bind the company. Everything in this scenario screams apparent authority. So long as you can survive summary judgment (and you should), then when you get this to a jury, most juries will want to help you hang Verizon. At that point it is your verdict to lose, though I'd be astonished if Verizon let it get that far.

@treimel:

Categorically, yes.

Agency law. It's crystal clear.

Verizon, and every other company in existence, will have very strict internal policies informing their employess that they are expected to NOT EVER sign anything...at all. Other than the legal team. The reason being that if an agent of Verizon (or whoever) signs *something* - that something is something that Verizon has to honor.

@floraposte:

I don't think that's the case. So long as they give credit where credit is due, it's fine. They just can't try to pass it off as their own work...AFAIK.

@YouDidWhatNow?: I'm pretty sure if you sat and typed up a book, for example, Harry Potter, and then put the author's name on it and publisher, then posted it on your website.. it would still not be a legal thing to do.

I realize that a news website or a blog may not be the same as a book, but the same principle applies.

SUE SUE SUE ... Where is SUE when you need her?

What customer would draw up their own contract and what Verizon employee would sign a customer supplied contract?? Sounds a little looney on both sides.

I believe Verizon (and AT&T from my experience) will say anything to get a customer to sign up for service and most won't complain when they get screwed.

However, I am not seeing where this consumer spoke to Verizon, what their full response was, etc. Also, that Verizon employee would be immediately teminated for signing a customer's contract.. that's for sure.

Feel free to draft a contract, because no sales rep ive worked with or know would ever sign one.

As a part of my wireless sales training with two different companies, it was stressed to me and all parties that we didnt have the authority to sign or modify the contract, and to send any inquiries to the legal dept of the carrier.

@YouDidWhatNow?: No, you're still thinking of plagiarism. Violating copyright is distributing someone else's intellectual property without their permission. There are some narrow exceptions, but reprinting a story from another website in its entirety would not count as fair use, whether or not Consumerist linked back to the original and explicitly stated they didn't write it.

Qwest outsources a lot of their sales/support to Focus Communications based out of Utah. I worked at a location in Rock Falls, Illinois which is just outside the area Qwest serves(pretty much west of the Mississippi). We were told to stress that the first bill WILL be higher due to proration, which is payment for the part of the billing cycle that you're jumping into.

I just signed up with a new Blackberry plan on US Cellular, and they gave me the option to pay the prorated charge upfront($97/change) which I did to keep the first bill where it would be manageable.

So the biggest issue here is probably a partial month of proration.

I was confused as hell by my first Qwest bill. The reason is that the service is billed one month in advance. Plus, your first month is pro-rated and discounts are not applied until the first full month. So if you signed up today, you'd get a pro-rated bill for Oct. 12-31 at full price, plus you'd get a bill for November (at discount). That could make the first bill look pretty big.

Doesn't anyone read the original article?? It WASN'T pro-rated.