Uncle Sam

To be fair, illustrating the personal finance page is a difficult and thankless job. Being asked, week after week, to draw a picture of abstract ideas like "the importance of maximizing your 401(k) contribution" -- on deadline -- is not an easy task. There are only so many giant piggy banks, ladders and staircases one can get away with.

So I'm not trying to pick on hj, our paper's talented illustrator, for coming up with the drawing to the right to accompany a year-end article that carried a headline of something like "Keeping your nest-egg safe from Uncle Sam."

On the other hand, though, just look at that picture. Uncle Sam is terrifying. The bear markets carrying off the family's retirement savings are smiling and almost cuddly, but the usually patriotic symbol of American government looks cruel and demented.

Removed from the context of the accompanying article, this could easily be mistaken for a piece of anti-American propaganda whipped up by an uncharacteristically whimsical member of al-Qaida.*

This article had very little to do with al-Qaida, of course. If it had then this depiction of Uncle Sam would have created a massive outcry. Subscriptions would have been canceled, front-page apologies would have been published and people would have gotten fired. As a general rule, any portrayal of Uncle Sam accompanying an article about terrorists or Iraq or Afghanistan or Grenada must show him as powerful and benevolent. It's only when the subject is taxes, as it was with this drawing, that he is allowed to be portrayed as a cruelly perverse predator menacing innocent families. When the subject is taxes, it is not only expected but required that Uncle Sam be drawn as the malevolent figure shown here.

One wonders how the powerful and benevolent Uncle Sam of the war drawings is supposed to acquire the money he needs to remain so powerful if taxes and therefore government itself are to be universally despised as cruel, destructive and illegitimate.

But hold that thought, for a moment.

* * *

The 'vixen and I are currently in a billing dispute with PECO Energy, our regional electric utility. My wife moved into our new home one month before the lease on her old apartment expired. That was nice at the time, allowing for a more relaxed approach to moving all of her and the girls' stuff out of the old place. For the last month of her lease at the apartment, then, she still had an active PECO account there.

The average monthly electric bill in that smallish apartment was $60 or $70, but we figured the bill for that final month would be a bit less than that. All the appliances were gone except for the refrigerator. The heat and air conditioning and all the lights were off.

PECO sent us a bill for that final month for $220.

That's right: The bill for an empty apartment in which no electricity was being used was three times the usual bill for an occupied apartment.

I spent a great deal of time on the phone with various PECO representatives but wasn't able to reach any resolution. I told them that until they explained to me, in writing, how it was possible that not using energy should cost $150 more than using energy did, they shouldn't expect to get any money from me. I have never received any such explanation, so that's where things seemed to sit.

Until last month. Last month, here in our new home with our new PECO account, we were charged a late fee. We paid the previous bill in full and on time, but it seems that PECO had subtracted from that payment the $220 they claimed was owed to the previous account -- meaning the new bill was no longer paid in full and thus incurring the late fee.

Mah. Thur. Fah. Curse.

This kind of billing horror story is par for the course here in the U.S. of A. Reading the above account, it's quite likely you were thinking, "That's nothing -- you should hear about the stunt our utility pulled ..." So there's no point in my providing the details of our household's similar encounters with Comcast (the cable/Internet provider whose monthly bill has always exceeded the guaranteed price stated in our two-year "contract") or Verizon ("unlimited texting doesn't mean there's no limit ...").

These companies do this because they can.

Dubious billing practices, mysterious hidden fees, billing "errors" that they correct only for that small percentage of customers who pore over the fine print and call to complain -- these things have all become not just their standard operating procedure, but their primary business model. PECO is not an energy company, it is a company that generates and distributes energy as a pretext for its main business of creative monthly billing. Comcast is not a cable and Internet company, it is a company that incidentally provides those services in order to pursue its primary business of creative billing. Verizon is a billing company that levies a monthly fee from a quarter of American households, occasionally also providing some of them with wireless and long distance service.

They do this because they can.

It used to be that these companies didn't do this because they couldn't. They used to be regulated because they were monopolies. Monopolies -- unchecked by competition or other market forces -- have to be regulated to prevent them from exploiting their customers.

Over the past three decades, however, electric utilities and phone companies and cable providers have all been deregulated. The theory was that competition would arise that would keep down prices and prevent the exploitative and dishonest billing practices once outlawed and restrained by regulation.

The theory didn't work.

"It doesn't matter," the PECO representative said.

I had just informed her that if our billing dispute was not resolved, quickly, we would be canceling our PECO account and switching to one of the other providers under Pennsylvania's "electricity competition" scheme.

"It doesn't matter," the PECO official said -- out loud, knowing that our conversation was being recorded ("for training purposes") and not in the least fearing any repercussions for admitting such a thing publicly -- "You can change electricity suppliers, but you'll still have to deal with us as your distributor. So you're going to end up paying what we say."

She's evil and a thief, but she has a point. It doesn't matter that PECO is charging us $220 for services they never provided. It doesn't matter that the utility is, essentially, stealing this money by fraud. The bottom line is they're big and we're small and so like all of their customers we have no recourse when hit with false charges, dubious fees and phantom surcharges. All we can do is say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another," and pay whatever they tell us to pay as quickly as possible lest we incur a late fee on top of it.

We are going to end up paying whatever they say. And so are you.

That's how this corrupt little system works now that we've decided to pretend that our monopolies are not really monopolies and that therefore their monopolistic exploitation of their customers isn't really exploitation. You will pay them whatever they say you owe, whether or not there is any legitimate basis for this billing, and there is next to nothing you can do about it. And because they know there is next to nothing you can do about it, they will continue to increase and to pad what they say you owe. They will add surcharges and fees for additional services you have not ordered and have never used, or for additional services that are purely abstract and hypothetical ("identity-theft protection"?).

They do this because they can.

* * *

So the illustration above isn't wholly inaccurate. The menacing, finger-waggling predator it portrays is a recognizable figure to most American households. But for most households that figure usually isn't the "tax man." It isn't Uncle Sam who is looming over terrified families and destroying their houses. It's the monopolistic monthly billing companies,** unregulated and unrestrained, who play this role for most Americans.

Back in the first Robber Baron age, these large monopolistic entities were called "trusts." The name still seems apt, since trust is exactly what we have yielded to them -- our naive, unreserved and undeserved trust.

We have placed our trust in such entities -- in the utilities and monopolies and corporations large and very large -- because we have been following an ideology that tells us we must not and cannot trust our own government. We have nothing to fear from unregulated monopolies, this ideology tells us, only from the regulator itself. It is the government, the star-spangled menace in the first drawing above, whom we must fear, not the good and benevolent and eminently trustworthy monopolies.

It is because of that sort of image of Uncle Sam that we have ended up with images like this second one, a sadly accurate satire from 1911. The larger figure there, the one in charge, is J.P. Morgan (via this site). Substitute the institution -- JPMorgan Chase -- for the man and the satire still seems apt.

Now of course I don't believe the citizens of a democratic country should blindly trust their government. I don't even believe that the citizens of a democratic country should blindly trust in their own ability to control their government. But I do believe that such citizens can control -- and restrain, and direct -- that government. That is, by definition, what it means to be the citizens of a democratic country.

Democracy isn't automatic, and it's usually not easy, but it is possible. And if we have a government of the people and by the people, then we have the power to ensure that it is also a government for the people.

In other words, we -- we the people -- are Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is US.***

Right now, the image we need of Uncle Sam is something like this one here to the right. That guy looks like he's ready to bust some trusts.

We need the FTC and the FCC and the various state public service commissions to follow this example -- to roll up their sleeves, flex their muscles and defend their country, defend their people from exploitations large and small. We need an SEC that can stay awake long enough to prevent people like Bernard Madoff from bankrupting charities and we need an FCC that can hold Internet and wireless companies to the terms they claim to guarantee in their supposed "contracts."

The latter might seem unworthy of this level of attention. The stupid billing tricks and petty frauds I've complained about here -- the ones routinely practiced by the various utilities, wireless companies and Internet/cable monopolies -- might seem like they're too nickel-and-dime to get very worked up about. But those nickels and dimes can be unrelenting, inescapable and cumulatively devastating.

My family could afford to pay PECO money that they didn't earn and that we didn't owe, but not all families are as fortunate as we are. What was for us a (substantial) inconvenience could be, for many families, the difference between making ends meet and not. For many families, a $150 bogus overcharge from the utility company will mean a cash advance on a credit card or a payday loan, either of which could eventually wind up costing them hundreds or even thousands of dollars more -- money they do not have.

Right now, most such families have no recourse. That has real consequences for real people. (And -- as Tom Geoghegan points out here -- it has larger, corrosive pedagogical consequences for all of us.) Those families need help.

Those families need Uncle Sam on their side.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* The members of al-Qaida, of course, believe that any visual depiction of human beings is a form of idolatry and is therefore prohibited. This is one of the seven main reasons that no one associated with al-Qaida will ever become a great editorial cartoonist. The other six are too obvious to bother spelling out here.

** I haven't even mentioned here the creative billing practices of the credit card lenders. Unlike the energy/phone/Internet monopolies, I have managed to keep my own dealings with these debt merchants to a minimum, but they're really the pioneers and the industry leaders in the burgeoning field of creatively bogus billing. The average American household carries a credit-card balance of something like $8,000. In addition to the usurious interest rates they charge, the debt merchants have a whole host of lucrative revenue-generating fees and charges that all but ensure these families will stay in debt in perpetuity. They do this because they can.

*** Those of you who didn't fail Fifth-grade Social Studies are now saying, "No duh." But you'd be surprised how many are surprised to think of it this way. Reflexive or visceral anti-government sentiment, in a democracy, is strangely popular given that it is both a form of self-loathing and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Right now, for instance, there's a pseudo-libertarian reading this very paragraph and shouting, "How naive! The government isn't of, by or for the people -- the government is against the people!" He's wrong, of course, but if everyone believed that, then his nightmare could become reality. If all the citizens of a democracy abandon any belief in government as the servant of the people for the common good, and if they oppose every attempt to make it so, then they're not going to remain the citizens of a democracy for very long.

Comments

[Personal Failure]

first!

[Joy]

PECO should be told in no uncertain terms to explore the possibility that the final bill reflected a meter misreading. We have had two meter misreadings in the past year, all of them in the utility's favor. They do tend to balance out on subsequent readings (e.g. month 1, $200; month 2, $10), but getting one as a FINAL bill would be harsh.

[Personal Failure]

sorry, i was waiting way too long for that.

fred, you amaze me. i spend hours every month going over cell phone bills, electric bills, heat bills, and i, with an extremely high iq and 4 semesters of accounting, cannot begin to figure out what they are charging me for. i used to amuse myself by calling customer service every month and demanding an in depth description of every penny-- until at&t decided to charge me $50 for excessive use of customer service.

when they said deregulation would make everything better, my first thought was, "what, somebody else is going to build a whole new set of power lines, substations, underground gas pipes, etc.? we're going have 5 sets of power lines going down every street to allow for competition? how stupid do you think i am?"

and yes, $150 extra would mean no medicine for me this month, so no, it's not acceptable.

[fiera]

Wow, you're pissed.

[Geds]

That has real consequences for real people. (And -- as Tom Geoghegan points out here -- it has larger, corrosive pedagogical consequences for all of us.) Those families need Uncle Sam on their side.

Damn skippy.

I've never, to my recollection, been hit by random, unexplained, unretracted bills. But the one thing I constantly recognize is that I could be. that's kind of why I've tended to envision democratic government as basically a large consumer interest group.

The free market can't, and shouldn't handle everything because there are plenty of non-profitable things out there that the free market wouldn't care about. The government can't do everything, either. That, ultimately, is why Communism failed. Centralized decision making on production is inefficient and guaranteed to make sure that everyone gets not enough of things they really don't need or want.

But, y'know, according to the rhetoric we're supposed to have one or the other. A balanced middle ground where the government works with the people because the government is the people is just crazy talk.

[Robb]

These companies do this because they can.

Sadly, I am in the employ of such a company, and I directly deal with this fact every single day. Granted, my job is a semi-exception: I credit accounts that were billed in error, figure out what they should have been charged & credit the difference, make sure they don't get any of the same charges again, etc. But even though I'm someone who is ostensibly fixing these "errors", there's still a raft of policies that cannot be changed, heavily tilting to the company's favor. (Read your cell phone service contract for specific examples - there's at least 2 or 3 outrage inducing lines in every single one.)

I don't know that anything short of full on economic collapse & anarchy will change this systemic infection - these companies are too well protected by policies & laws they've helped shape or even outright written themselves. For things to truly change, at least in regards to the evil monopolies of which Fred speaks, every single industry in the U.S. would have to collapse, leaving nothing but the gov't and a bunch of opportunistic wolves who would quickly . . .

Aw, Fuck.

(Don't mind me, I'm feeling very cynical today)

[Neohippie]

Delurking to say I feel your pain!

When I first moved into my apartment, water was included in the rent. Then the state of Texas passed some law that made it so they couldn't do that, so my apartment complex decided to do some sort of thing where they charge everyone a water bill that's some sort of average usage of the whole complex (since they apparently can't keep track of how much water each unit uses). I hope I'm understanding this all right.

The idea was supposedly that if tenants had to pay for their own water, they would conserve more to make their bills go down. Nice in theory, since we do live in an arid area, but...

Of course my rent didn't go down now that I was paying my water in a separate bill. In fact, it went up.

And the complex then installed a big sprinkler system that pours water all over the place all night long. Off the grass and onto the parking lot. And leaks a lot.

My montly water bill is about $50-60 a month. For a one bedroom apartment with ONE person living here.

And since I had never gotten a separate water bill before, I didn't know how outrageous that was until I found out my boyfriend pays about $18 a month for his water. He also lives by himself, in a small apartment.

And starting this month my rent just went up AGAIN.

I'm a graduate student (with a part time job on top) and I'm now in the position where if I don't get my financial aid check some time this month, I won't have enough money to pay my February montly bills. I might have to resort to... *cringe*... borrowing money from my parents. I guess I'm lucky that I can at least do that, though it's not like my parents are rich or anything.

[Jonathan-Peterson]

Something about a cart and a horse.

We have a legislative branch made up of one party who has spend 2 decades convincing us that government is fundamentally evil and another party which is every bit as addicted to the lobbyists and largess of the corporations you are hoping for them to control.

Making it worse, the executive branch that is support to do the actual oversight is a revolving door where "civil servants" actively seek out higher paying jobs in the industries they are supposed to regulate.

The war of citizen vs. corporation is over, the losers just haven't really figured out what that means yet.

[Yoder]

Those of you who didn't fail Fifth-grade Social Studies are now saying, "No duh."

I've long ago come to the conclusion that most Americans slept through that class.

[Weary Cowboy Diva]

"This is one of the seven main reasons"
Only 7? Jeez I would have thought there were a lot more.

[damnedyankee (a Wee Free Man)]

The war of citizen vs. corporation is over, the losers just haven't really figured out what that means yet.

Bigjobs! Aye, haelwiye! Gie em aye a boot ta dae forehaed! Weev no yet baegoon tae fyt!

[Caravelle]

We have placed our trust in such entities -- in the utilities and monopolies and corporations large and very large -- because we have been following an ideology that tells us we must not and cannot trust our own government. We have nothing to fear from unregulated monopolies, this ideology tells us, only from the regulator itself. It is the government, the star-spangled menace in the first drawing above, whom we must fear, not the good and benevolent and eminently trustworthy monopolies.

You know what's funny ? Where I live, electricity is provided by A GOVERNMENT-OWNED MONOPOLY. Well, I believe the government has been selling it off for some time, and the European Union is working to get rid of the monopoly. Still. Compared to what you say of PECO, they're AWESOME. I'm the worst client ever (typically "forgetting" to sign up when I move into a new apartment, f'rinstance), yet I've had on balance way more positive experiences with them than negative ones, and they've never screwed me over. That I know of. Well, I've still got time for it to happen...
Now if only they didn't make me wait a week before they turned the electricity back on... That would be even perfecter.

Sorry for the gloating*, just to say you are totally right Fred. You need a new Teddy Roosevelt.
I think Obama will at least put public servants back in the regulatory bodies instead of corporate saboteurs, but has he shown any inclination to go trust-busting ?

[Caravelle]

Hum, that asterisk went somewhere but then I changed my mind, so please ignore it.

[Dylan]

Mah. Thur. Fah. Curse.

There's no reason to post comments. Fred already wins the thread.

[Mark Baker-Wright]

Surely, legal action against the companies has to be some kind of an option. One doesn't expect the government to just take action on their own, lawsuits must trigger the action (in most cases).

[Not Really Here]

If you actually sit down with a magnifying glass and a team of lawyers, you will find a clause in just about every contract you have with a company that sends you a monthly bill that says something to the effect that you are bound by the terms of the contract and they are not, and further, they are entitled to change the terms of the contract on a whim and you are still bound to those terms.

With credit card companies, they usually don't send you the fifteen-page document with the microscopic print until after you've signed on the dotted line (which should be illegal, you should at least have the opportunity to read their terms first.)

However,I've often wondered what would happen if, before you signed any contract, you sat down, read the thing, and crossed out any items you found objectionable (like your satellite company that locks you into a two-year contract, but reserves the right to raise your rates every however often they feel like it), and penciled in something more favorable, such as "like hell you're going to raise the rates. If I'm obligated to cut you a check every month, it's going to be for the same amount as I signed on for, assholes. Oh, yeah, and if I decide to terminate service because you raised my rates, thereby not keeping your end of the contract, I don't have to pay whatever godawful amount you charge for terminating service before the contract has expired. Make sure you do this firmly enough that it comes through on the carbon copy, so you have your own document of the changes you made.

Then, if they don't make any objection, say, sending you a fresh unaltered contract with a letter saying that you either agree to their terms or they won't provide service ( because I doubt anyone actually looks at the contract, since it's standardized, and it doesn't occur to them that someone might make changes), wait for them to raise the rates. Cut them a check for the amount you signed up for, and include a note saying that you did not agree to them being allowed to raise the rates, go back and look at the contract, stupid. If they insist that they are allowed to raise your rates, even though they had a written contract saying they couldn't (because they didn't make an objection to the changes,) cancel the service, and refuse to pay the early termination fee.

Let 'em sue you in small claims court. I bet the judge would rule in your favor.

Of course, this wouldn't work with a utility company, because with utilities there usually isn't a signed contract.

But for anything discretionary, a contract should be something negotiable, with terms agreed on and favorable to both sides. With 90% of companies you may find yourself doing business with, the contract favors the corporation over and against the customer.

[PulpCruciFiction]

One thing you can do in order to use the government to fight back against corporations that use shady tactics like the ones PECO used against Fred is file a consumer complaint with your state's Attorney General's office. If enough people point to the same conduct, the state may bring an investigation against the company, which is something even a monopoly does not want to have happen. Anecdotally, I have heard that companies are quicker to rectify problems like these once frustrated consumers go to the AG's office, though I have never had to resort to this remedy myself.

[Hawker Hurricane]

I live in California, and we had our very own electrical deregulation horror story.
But part that isn't well known is how one area of California didn't suffer from the incredible scam that raised electrical rates through the roof.
That area was Los Angeles. Seems that the electrical company for that area, Metropolitan Water and Power (MWP) is an Eevil! socialist organization, owned by the City of Los Angeles, and as part of thier Eevil! plot, didn't raise thier rates because they didn't have to pay Enron for electricity that they had already made and paid for.

I always found Enron's story interesting: here is a company that didn't own any electrical plants, nor any transmission lines, or anything that used electricity beyond office buildings... but they bought electricity in California, sent it out of the state*, and then sold it back at incredible profits.
And still went bankrupt.

*No, they didn't really, they pretended to on paper to justify the incredible profits.

[inge]

These companies do this because they can.

Word. And they do it everywhere where they are not getting hit with something large, heavy and painful every time they try to pull a stunt like that. And the phone/internet providers are the worst of the lot.

I've been lucky so far, my only tangle was with the electricity provider...

I had moved within the same house, and for the first two months the owner of the flat paid all utilities and didn't charge us rent while we renovated the place. Soon after that I got the usual bill from the utilities company telling me that the sum of (whatever) would automatically taken from my bank account every two months. The numbers looked OK. Had I watched my account more closely, I might have noticed that no money was leaving, though. I got another bill a few months later, saying (same sum) would be taken from my account every two months. Put it in the folder with the others. Same with the next one, four months after that. It was a little strange that they were sending these notes every four months instead of yearly, so I looked at it more closely, but it was the same form sheet it had been for ten years, and the numbers all fit.

After one year our electricity was shut off. Building management said there was no general problem, so I called the provider to ask what the heck was going on. They said we hadn't paid the bills. I said they had permission to take the money off my account and had done so with no trouble for ten years. They said they had tried and it didn't work so the account must be out of money. I called my bank (slightly panicky) and found the account was deep in the black. Called the utilities provider, again. They said they had no idea what the problem was, but they had been waiting for payment for a year now. I suggested that a year would have been sufficient time to send a letter saying "You owe us money, pay up."

Turned out that the "we are taking (sum) from your account every two months" had a list of zeros instead of my account number in the small print in the footer. Which in utility-provider-speak means "There is a problem, please contact us". When I said that they had to be kidding, they said that their software could not deal with it any other way, and they wanted the money (about one thousand DM, conveniently doubled for their effort of printing all those little zeros) before noon the same day, brought personally and in cash, as they were unable to process any other modes of payment, and then they would turn electricity back on some time within the next week at the leisure of their technician who had to drive six kilometres to our tiny "10 percent of the city's population live here" suburb, after all.

What made the story funny in the long run was that the same damn thing happened to every single one of our neighbors after they moved in. It became a habit to throw cables from balcony to balcony so that whoever was out of luck at the moment could at least plug in a light and the fridge.

Things have been privatised since then, which means it's just as bad but costs three times as much.

[jamoche]

"identity-theft protection"

Protection as in "That's a nice identity you've got there. Shame if anything happened to it."

[Jessica]

I have a similar problem to neohippies--
communal water-bill, extreme overwatering. Ours doesn't seem to be as bad on the price gouging end, our water bill works out to $39 a month, but it's still spread out over the whole complex. That family of 10 above me in a two bedroom apartment probably isn't paying any more for their water than I am, despite the fact they're using 5 times more than my wife and myself.
Uggggh.

And yes, Fred wins his own thread. I have something I've been saving for him for a really long time. Go on, Fred, you deserve it. *hands over a shiny new internet*
Just for you =)

[Alex, FCD]

'Protection as in "That's a nice identity you've got there. Shame if anything happened to it."'

Word. This should not be a service that the company gets to charge extra for, this should be a service that, if the company fails to provide it, somebody winds up in immediate and serious legal trouble.

[Roadrunner]

Call your government.

No, seriously. Find the regulator (there is one, somewhere) and call them. Federal, state, local. Better yet, call your elected official on that level of government. The regulator will have a complaint process, which usually absolves you of late fees, etc. while the dispute is being resolved. If you call your elected official, they will have a staffer who can call the regulator on your behalf. For electricity or gas, it's probably a state agency. Telecom, it's local or state.

Wanna hear a miracle? I won against Comcast. I did, I won. I got the refunds I was owed, I got the equipment they promised me, and they came when they said they would. After two months of refusing to do any of these things. I won because I called the Office of Television Policy for Arlington County. They filed an official complaint. In response, Comcast's regional director of government relations called me. She asked when I wanted an appointment, made it for when I asked, called to confirm the day before, and called the day after to make sure my problem was resolved.

Because my government interceded on my behalf. Fred, if you are still fighting with PECO, call your state utility regulator. And your state representative, and your state senator.

[Monkay]

That first Uncle Sam is Mr. Burns

[Trixie Belden]

I second what Roadrunner said. Of course, the downside to it is that making your case to some of the entities Roadrunner suggested can take an awful lot of time, but at least it's better than letting the jerks get away with it.

[Undocile]

No, I don't have a story like that about my utility. We have what are called "Public Utility Districts" out here in the rural wilds of Washington State, and we elect the people who run them - who get paid at best a meager salary and can't personally profit off providing us with juice.

Just imagine! Actually having the ability to influence how the basic necessities of life as we Americans expect it to be are provided!

...That's why they call us the Soviet of Washington.

[lsn]

Thirding Roadrunner. Is there some sort of Ombudsman you can register complaints with? I know there is here, and they're very busy (especially the one who deals with telephone companies. Meh.) On the other hand, they do get things done.

The meter mis-reading is a distinct possibility - I was disturbed to discover that the company doesn't actually read the meter where I am, they guesstimate it. Until you move out, at which point they're legally obliged to read the damn meter. Worked out well for me, as they'd guesstimated several hundred dollars more than I'd actually used. Didn't end up paying an electricity bill all last year as a result of that.

[Cat Ion]

Well, I'm stealing cable from Comcast. When I moved into my apartment I wasted a whole Saturday waiting for the over-scheduled technician to show up to install it. He eventually came, albeit six hours late. He felt so bad about his tardiness that he gave me more cable access that I had ordered, roughly $30 bucks more in service than what I'm paying.

At times, I feel guilty about my "theft" and think about calling Comcast and letting them know about the billing error. But, reading threads like this makes me reconsider. I mean, if companies are going to blatantly rip off their customers, isn't it only fair to rip them off right back if you can get away with it? Do they deserve our respect if they don't respect us?

[pharoute]

Not really here: what you said! I annoy the mrs. whenever I get a credit card offer in the mail "Here's what I want to do. I'm gonna cross out what I don't like and..."

[Thel]

Cat Ion:

We "stole" cable access at one apartment where we lived; the cable technician had left the access box in the basement unlocked one day, and someone re-attached the wire for our apartment. Doot da doo...

Then when we bought a house we decided we didn't need cable TV, just internet. We still have cable, though, because Comcast said they will charge us more if we cancel our basic cable than if we continue with cable and internet combined. Can has logic?

[Randolph]

As the other comments say. There is a public utilities commission where you live. They may be understaffed and underfunded, but chances are they will act on a complaint. If not, you can actually sue. Chances are, though, PECO will cave as soon as you write the PUC.

[Technomad]

Try going through a real full-bore IRS audit sometime...and then come back here and tell us about how much fun that was. I'd have more rights if I were on trial for more crimes than Lincoln Sternn ("...and one moving violation") than I would in "tax court."

[Becky]

i, with an extremely high iq and 4 semesters of accounting, cannot begin to figure out what they are charging me for

Seriously. Power only accounts for 1/3 of my power bill. The rest is various fees. I don't know what they're for. Probably they're just made up.

[cjmr's husband]

@Thel,

If you have basic cable, they are showing you ads. If you're internet-only, that's a lost income stream.

Exercise for the reader: why isn't basic cable free?

[drakepope]

Exercise for the reader: why isn't basic cable free?

Because cable companies can make money by charging for basic cable. What kind of question is that?

[Jake]

Exercise for the reader: why isn't basic cable free?
One might as well ask the same question about newspapers.

[Jake]

Try going through a real full-bore IRS audit sometime...

Yes, I understand tax audits are extremely unpleasant. How, exactly, are they relevant?

[Dave Luckett]

"Reflexive or visceral anti-government sentiment, in a democracy, is strangely popular given that it is both a form of self-loathing and a self-fulfilling prophecy."

I can't say if that is an accurate observation of the democracy you live in. (I tend to think it may be.) But it isn't true of this one. The usual reaction of Australians to scams like the one you mention is "The government has to do something." As a result, the usual complaint in these parts is that we're over-governed and over-regulated.

It would appear from earlier comments that there may be regulators to whom you can appeal. I have only ever had to do this once, to the telco regulator built into government. You should have seen the telco jump!

Incidentally, Kevin Rudd, the new Aussie PM, excluded Telstra (the biggest national telco) from the bidding process for building the new fibreoptic cable-to-node network. It hadn't submitted an actual proposal, believing that it didn't have to bother with legal stuff that only affects the little people. My, how I laughed.

[Thalia]

@ Jake--Not actually, because have you seen what folks do with "free" newspapers? You pay in order to take them seriously. Maybe other reasons.

[Elizabeth Coleman]

@undocile

Except they just sold Puget Sound Energy to a bunch of Canadians and Australians They want to "grow the business."

[Elizabeth Coleman]

Clarifying... "They" meaning the buyers, not the government.

[Robb]

Surely, legal action against the companies has to be some kind of an option.

Yes it does, and don't call me...

Actually, in nearly all instances where a service contract is signed by a telecom or utility, there's quite often (always in the case of mobile phone contracts in the US) a clause or stipulation whereby you agree that legal action cannot be taken against the company. Arbitration is the only prescribed/allowed option, though there's almost always some wiggle room. And of course, instances where the company has done some harm beyond financial (ie - shut off power/heat during winter, canceled phone service for EMS, etc.), Uncle Sam can crack down hard. But as far as consumer recourse for these sorts of mistakes, there's nothing. Telecoms laugh at the Better Business Bureau, and regulatory agencies have made it simpler & easier for companies to know the legal workarounds for anti-trust laws. "In the name of commerce", of course.

Kevin Rudd, the new Aussie PM, excluded Telstra (the biggest national telco) from the bidding process for building the new fibreoptic cable-to-node network. It hadn't submitted an actual proposal, believing that it didn't have to bother with legal stuff that only affects the little people.

Really?!?!? That's AWESOME! Good for him!

[Thel]

@cmjr's husband:

Sure, sure. On the other hand, I called them earlier this month to casually mention that I thought I might just cancel Comcast altogether* to save money. The woman on the phone swiftly knocked about 30% off my monthly bill until June.

Of course that's just about enough to offset the bus fare increase coming next month. Sigh.

*There's no contract to break, but undoubtedly there would still be some kind of cancellation charge, anyway.

[David]

I live in Delaware, and all of my utilities are provided by the local government. I've never had a single problem with them. No unexplained spikes, the only surcharges I've been hit with are late fees that I bring on myself by being a procrastinator, good customer service, the works. I have Internet and phone service through Verizon and cable through Comcast (all minimal, because their rates are outrageous), and they're a different story altogether.

But yes, government is the problem!

[Caravelle]

Robb : Actually, in nearly all instances where a service contract is signed by a telecom or utility, there's quite often (always in the case of mobile phone contracts in the US) a clause or stipulation whereby you agree that legal action cannot be taken against the company.

That can't possibly be a legal clause, can it ?
If it's illegal it's probably unapplicable even if it's there.

Kevin Rudd, the new Aussie PM, excluded Telstra (the biggest national telco) from the bidding process for building the new fibreoptic cable-to-node network. It hadn't submitted an actual proposal, believing that it didn't have to bother with legal stuff that only affects the little people.

Really?!?!? That's AWESOME! Good for him!

Seconded !

[Debbie Notkin]

In The Culture of Fear, a book memorialized in Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine, Barry Glassner makes the flat statement that the contemporary American hatred of taxation is a manipulated construct that serves to keep our minds off what CEOs make.

It seems to me that you're making quite a similar point.

[Alan]

"That [arbitration clause] can't possibly be a legal clause, can it ?
If it's illegal it's probably unapplicable even if it's there."

Since the 1930s, I believe, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act to be applicable to any contract in which an arbitration clause is inserted. There is furthermore a strong legal presumption in favor of finding any arbitration clause to be enforceable. Even if you were induced to sign the contract through fraud or duress, that's not enough to secure a jury trial -- you have to bring forth evidence that the arbitration clause itself was the specific result of fraud or duress. The Fifth Circuit has recently held that a functionally illiterate person can be bound to an arbitration agreement even if the other party outright lied about what was in the contract, as the onus is on an illiterate party to a contract to bring someone along to read the contract to him. And best of all, the Supreme Court has held that an arbitration clause in an _employment_ contract is enforceable, so you can lose your right to a jury trial even in an employment discrimination case.

There is currently legislation pending in Congress to amend the FAA to limit its applicability to contracts of adhesion between corporations and individuals. I urge anyone who is interested in this issue to call our congress-critters and urge them to vote in favor of it.

BTW, how the heck do you do italics and/or block quotes in typepad; I've tried every trick I know.

[Reynard]

Posted by Not Really Here: If you actually sit down with a magnifying glass and a team of lawyers, you will find a clause in just about every contract you have with a company that sends you a monthly bill that says something to the effect that you are bound by the terms of the contract and they are not, and further, they are entitled to change the terms of the contract on a whim and you are still bound to those terms.

With credit card companies, they usually don't send you the fifteen-page document with the microscopic print until after you've signed on the dotted line (which should be illegal, you should at least have the opportunity to read their terms first.)

My mom calls this (obviously) "Theft by Contract". It's the reason that I don't have credit cards or a cell phone; and why I use fixed-fee, month-to-month dial-up from a reputable *local* ISP.

“Some men rob you with a gun and some with a fountain pen.” - Woody Guthrie

[Rachel]

Kevin Rudd, the new Aussie PM, excluded Telstra (the biggest national telco) from the bidding process for building the new fibreoptic cable-to-node network. It hadn't submitted an actual proposal, believing that it didn't have to bother with legal stuff that only affects the little people.

Really?!?!? That's AWESOME! Good for him!

It's even better. The government has a stake in the company.

[Robb]

@ Caravelle - what Alan said; it's totally legal, though there's plenty of grey areas, and legal precedents haven't made the telecoms totally impervious to lawsuits, but the terms are pretty brutal.

@ Alan

[i][/i] [b][/b] [blockquote] [/blockquote]
Replace "[" & "]" with "<" & ">" and you're set.