Witteman said a key problem with AT&T's service agreement is that the company doesn't list all the terms and conditions that apply to customers. Rather, AT&T says customers must review a separate "guidebook."

That guidebook is available only online, Witteman said, and runs about 2,500 pages. "What consumer is going to slog through that?" he asked.

Moreover, the service agreement says AT&T will "generally" provide written notice of price increases at least 30 days in advance, except when such notice isn't "commercially reasonable."

Witteman said the online guidebook and ambiguous notification policy appear to violate a California statute requiring that consumers "be given sufficient information to make informed choices."

AT&T's service agreement is written in dense legalese and essentially gives the company as much latitude as possible — while limiting customers' ability to seek redress.

[..]

An analysis of the agreement prepared for PUC staffers found fault with a variety of AT&T's provisions, including this one: "You also agree to pay for all charges for services provided under this agreement even if such calls were not authorized by you."

The analysis said this "is in direct violation to cramming laws," which protect consumers from having unauthorized charges placed on their bills.

Under the provision, the analysis concluded, "AT&T, or any other billing agents, could impose unauthorized phone calls on a consumer's bill." It said consumers would have "little chance in both avoiding and fighting against this type of fraud."

Unlike mandatory binding arbitration agreements—which are included in the guidebook—you can't simply opt-out of these new terms. "If you do not agree with the provisions of this agreement, your sole option is to cancel your services . . . within 30 days after receipt of this agreement."

Go free market, go!

AT&T buries customer rights in 2,500-page 'guidebook' [The Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: jetsetpress)

Deregulation refers to the point at which the U.S. government threw up its hands and said "all right banks, power companies, airlines, etc., do whatever you want!" and the deregulated industries had a big party. Eminent jurist and economic theorist Richard Posner says that might have been a mistake: "a tighter ceiling should be placed on the risks that banks are permitted to take."

The problem? The ever-present bailout guarantee. Banks' money comes from depositors (us). Deposits are insured by the FDIC so that if the banks lose our money, we get it back. We are insured. So we don't care if the banks lose our money or not, which means nobody is really pressuring the banks to behave.

And why would they, since they can expect a bailout from the government. If they fail, they take the economy with them? But the only entity that is not insured—the government, including its own depositors, the taxpayers—gave up by deregulating. (Okay, not completely, but let's be honest, the government is regulating the banking industry about as much as I regulate my cats.)

Posner says he thinks the big banks knew exactly what they were doing: that it was risky, but that they could get away with it because they "are . . . considered by federal regulators too large to be permitted to go broke."

(Also, Greenspan was apparently a huge Ayn Rand fanboy.)

(photo: zieak)

The New York Times describes the passing of the rules as a victory for FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin, but then goes on to point out that in the process, "he has expended significant political capital and made political enemies of powerful industry groups and influential lawmakers." Both rules are expected to be challenged considerably in the coming weeks, so they may not last long into 2008.

"F.C.C. Reshapes Rules Limiting Media Industry" [New York Times]
(Photos: Getty)

"Currently, a company can own two television stations in the larger markets only if at least one is not among the four largest stations and if there are at least eight local stations. The rules also limit the number of radio stations that a company can own to no more than eight in each of the largest markets.

The deregulatory proposal is likely to put the agency once again at the center of a debate between the media companies, which view the restrictions as anachronistic, and civil rights, labor, religious and other groups that maintain the government has let media conglomerates grow too large."

"Mr. Martin faces obstacles within the agency to overhauling the rules. One Democrat on the commission, Michael J. Copps, is adamantly opposed to loosening the rules. The other, Jonathan S. Adelstein, has said that the agency first needs to address other media issues, including encouraging improved coverage of local events and greater ownership of stations by companies controlled by women and minorities.

Advisers to Mr. Martin said he hoped to gain the support of at least one of the Democrats, probably Mr. Adelstein, but Mr. Adelstein said in an interview on Wednesday that Mr. Martin's proposed timetable was "awfully aggressive."

"If in fact the chairman has indicated that he intends to do media ownership by December of this year, there is going to be a firestorm of protest, and I'm going to be carrying the wood."

Verizon To Market Cable Television...
Comcast And Time-Warner To Sell Cellphone Service

Communications industry deregulation, this is your play date with destiny.

Theoretically, increased competition will mean lower prices and better service. Verizon we're okay with, but the Comcast and TimeWarner's poor cable customer service records bode ill.

Will we have to stay home from work several times in one week just for a technician to come by our house and install a cellphone in our hands? — BEN POPKEN

Comcast and TW Rolling-Out Wireless Services [Teleco Industry News]
Verizon steps into cable fray [Boston Globe] (Thanks to something_amazing!)

Yesterday, we foolishly asked the question "Who knew that bottles of urine were biohazards?" In response, loyal reader Non-Meat-Stick pointed our attention to this 2005 article over on MSNBC of the wide spread use of urine jugs by truckers, which are charmingly called "trucker bombs."

Essentially, trucker bombs are nearly ubiquitous in the stressful world of trucking, where — since deregulation in the 80s — many drivers are only paid for miles driven. Every pit stop is money flushed right down the toilet, as it were. Consequently, our nations highways find themselves strewn with millions upon millions of milk jugs filled to the brim with tepid urine. The article is filled with numerous charming anecdotes about highway cleanup teams having some anonymous stranger's pee jug burst all over them, or horrified landscaping teams hitting them with their mowers, leading to a poor landscaper suddenly find himself caught in the middle of a trucker's golden shower.

It's just so hilariously disgusting. You can tell the writer had a lot of fun with it too — the article ends with the discouraging news that a new European technology allowing diesel engines to process animal urine probably won't work with humans, sadly preventing truckers from just pissing in their gas tank when they want to refuel.

Urine trouble, some states warn truckers [MSNBC] (Thanks, Non-Meat-Stick!)
Related: For Today's On-The-Go Urinator