Results 1 to 14 of 14
- 01-17-2005, 12:00 PM #1John NavasGuest
<http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/NEWS_RELEASE/36910.htm>
The rules ... apply to all forms of telecommunications service: local and
long-distance, wireline and wireless, and prepaid phone cards and services and
include the following.
* Carrier Disclosure: Service agreements or contracts may not
incorporate other information by reference, except for (1) terms and
conditions from PUC-approved tariffs, (2) information contained in
referenced material (e.g., brochures) written in a minimum of
10-point type that is provided simultaneously with the service
agreement or contract, and (3) information that is used with formulae
identified in the agreement or contract in order to calculate the
applicable rate or charge. In each case, reference to specific terms
and conditions is permitted provided that the specific document
(tariff section or other publication) containing such terms and
conditions is cited in the service agreement or contract, an Internet
web site address where the specific document can be found is
provided, and printed copies of the referenced document are available
on request at no charge. If the formulae are used to establish a rate
in a term contract, that rate must not change during the duration of
the contract. In addition, carriers must:
o Post their current tariffs, any pending changes to those tariffs,
and key rates, terms and conditions on the Internet. Service
offerings for which there are current customers, but which are no
longer available to others, must be clearly indicated as such.
o Provide the address and toll-free telephone number of the PUC's
Consumer Affairs Branch and a toll-free number and address for the
carrier that the consumer can call or write to reach the carrier
regarding inquiries, disputes, and complaints related to the bill or
to any other aspect of the customers' service (in addition to
third-party contact information for any charges the carrier has
placed on the bill on behalf of any other entity).
o Provide a description of customers' privacy rights and how the
carrier handles confidential consumer information and information
regarding state and federal laws that protect the privacy rights of
residential telephone consumers with respect to telephone
solicitations.
* Marketing Practices: Any solicitation offer by a carrier that is
deceptive, untrue, or misleading is prohibited. Statements, in any
form, about rates and services that are deceptive, untrue, or
misleading are prohibited. Any written authorization for service must
be a separate document from any solicitation materials, and such
written authorization may not constitute entry forms for sweepstakes,
contests, or any other program that offers prizes or gifts. All terms
of any written confirmation, authorization, order, agreement, or
contract must be unambiguous and legible, and written in a minimum of
10-point type.
* Service Initiation and Changes: Carriers must provide their
consumers with a written confirmation of their order at the point of
sale for in person transactions. For any other transactions, not
later than seven days after it is accepted, or seven days after the
carrier providing the service is notified of the order originated
through another carrier. The confirmation must be in a minimum of
10-point type and must include the key rates, terms and conditions
for each service ordered. In addition, carriers must:
o Allow consumers to cancel without termination fees or penalties any
new tariffed service or any new contract for service within 30 days
after the new service is initiated. This does not relieve a consumer
from payment for per use and normal recurring charges applicable to
the service incurred before canceling, or for the reasonable cost of
work done on the customer's premises (such as wiring or equipment
installation) before the consumer canceled.
o Offer a four-hour or shorter period for appointments to establish
or repair service that the consumer must be present for. If the
installation or repair is not commenced within that period, the
carrier must provide a $25 minimum credit to the consumer unless the
appointment was missed because (1) the carrier was denied access to
the premises, (2) force majeure, or (3) the carrier cancelled or
rescheduled the appointment no later than 5 p.m. two business days
prior to the appointment.
* Billing: Bills must be clearly organized and may only contain
charges for products and services authorized by the consumer. Where
charges for two or more carriers appear on the same telephone bill,
the charges must be separated by service provider. This rule does not
apply to wireless roaming charges. All mandated government taxes,
surcharges, and fees required to be collected from consumers and to
be remitted to federal, state, or local governments must be listed in
a separate section of the telephone bill entitled "Government Fees
and Taxes," and all such charges must be separately itemized. This
section of the bill must not include any charges for which the
carrier is not required to remit to the government the entire amount
collected from customers. Carriers must not label or describe
non-government fees or charges in a way that could mislead consumers
to believe those charges are remitted to the government.
* Late-Payment Penalties, Backbilling, and Prorating: Carriers must
credit payments effective the business day payments are received by
the carrier or its agent. The date after which a bill is considered
overdue and delinquent, and after which late charges may accrue, must
not be earlier than 22 days after the date the bill was mailed. Any
authorized late-payment penalty may not exceed 1.5 percent per month
on the balance overdue. Bills must be based on the rates in effect at
the time the service was used. A bill must not include any previously
unbilled charge for intrastate service used prior to three months
immediately preceding the date of the bill, four months in the case
of wireless roaming charges on a system other than the customer's
home system, and five months for collect, third-party, and calling
card calls. Any delays or lags in billing must not result in a higher
total charge (other than for taxes, and surcharges and fees that are
based on a percentage of the bill) than if the usage had been posted
to the account in the same billing cycle in which the service was
used.
* Tariff Changes, Contract Changes, Transfers, Withdrawals and
Notices: Carriers must notify all affected consumers at least 25 days
in advance of every proposed change in its consumers' service
agreements or non-term contracts that may result in higher rates or
charges or more restrictive terms or conditions. No carrier-initiated
change in a term contract that may result in more restrictive terms
or conditions is enforceable unless the change is otherwise allowed
by applicable law and the change is also communicated to the consumer
in a written notice 25 days prior to the change taking effect, and
the consumer is provided 30 days to opt-out of the contract without a
penalty.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
› See More: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
- 01-17-2005, 03:00 PM #2Jack HamiltonGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> In each case, reference to specific terms
> and conditions is permitted provided that the specific document
> (tariff section or other publication) containing such terms and
> conditions is cited in the service agreement or contract, an Internet
> web site address where the specific document can be found is
> provided, [...]
I hope that's interpreted as "a specific Internet web site address where
the document can be found is provided"
Saying "Oh, you can find it at www.vzw.com" may not be helpful.
==
Jack Hamilton
[email protected]
==
In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
Edward Gibbon
- 01-17-2005, 03:45 PM #3John NavasGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:47:16
-0800, Jack Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In each case, reference to specific terms
>> and conditions is permitted provided that the specific document
>> (tariff section or other publication) containing such terms and
>> conditions is cited in the service agreement or contract, an Internet
>> web site address where the specific document can be found is
>> provided, [...]
>
>I hope that's interpreted as "a specific Internet web site address where
>the document can be found is provided"
>
>Saying "Oh, you can find it at www.vzw.com" may not be helpful.
Google is effective at locating material on particular websites (e.g.,
"site:vzw.com").
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 01-18-2005, 02:43 AM #4DevilsPGDGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:47:16
>-0800, Jack Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In each case, reference to specific terms
>>> and conditions is permitted provided that the specific document
>>> (tariff section or other publication) containing such terms and
>>> conditions is cited in the service agreement or contract, an Internet
>>> web site address where the specific document can be found is
>>> provided, [...]
>>
>>I hope that's interpreted as "a specific Internet web site address where
>>the document can be found is provided"
>>
>>Saying "Oh, you can find it at www.vzw.com" may not be helpful.
>
>Google is effective at locating material on particular websites (e.g.,
>"site:vzw.com").
For information the carrier wants to be found, yes. For information
they don't want to be found, robots.txt can easily exclude it from
Google without making it easily visible to anybody else.
--
A cheap shot is a terrible thing to waste.
- 01-18-2005, 11:53 AM #5John NavasGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005
01:43:23 -0700, DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>In message <[email protected]> John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:47:16
>>-0800, Jack Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In each case, reference to specific terms
>>>> and conditions is permitted provided that the specific document
>>>> (tariff section or other publication) containing such terms and
>>>> conditions is cited in the service agreement or contract, an Internet
>>>> web site address where the specific document can be found is
>>>> provided, [...]
>>>
>>>I hope that's interpreted as "a specific Internet web site address where
>>>the document can be found is provided"
>>>
>>>Saying "Oh, you can find it at www.vzw.com" may not be helpful.
>>
>>Google is effective at locating material on particular websites (e.g.,
>>"site:vzw.com").
>
>For information the carrier wants to be found, yes. For information
>they don't want to be found, robots.txt can easily exclude it from
>Google without making it easily visible to anybody else.
Do you have any real evidence of that? Or is this FUD? ;-)
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 01-18-2005, 12:51 PM #6TinmanGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18
> Jan 2005 01:43:23 -0700, DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For information the carrier wants to be found, yes. For information
>> they don't want to be found, robots.txt can easily exclude it from
>> Google without making it easily visible to anybody else.
>
> Do you have any real evidence of that? Or is this FUD? ;-)
It's not FUD, but I can't imagine a company hiding something as basic as
their TOS or contract stipulations. Robots.txt won't stop Google, or
other bots, from crawling pages that contain a link to the document.
Regardless, I don't see how a cellular company could possibly get away
with deliberately "hiding" such crucial information (robots.txt hides
nothing). Methinks Kalifornia would be the least of their problems, if
they tried such a thing.
Oh yea, see here:
www.google.com/webmasters/faq.html
www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html
And of course Google maintains one themselves:
www.google.com/robots.txt
--
Mike
- 01-18-2005, 01:34 PM #7John NavasGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:51:13 -0700,
"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18
>> Jan 2005 01:43:23 -0700, DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> For information the carrier wants to be found, yes. For information
>>> they don't want to be found, robots.txt can easily exclude it from
>>> Google without making it easily visible to anybody else.
>>
>> Do you have any real evidence of that? Or is this FUD? ;-)
>
>It's not FUD, but I can't imagine a company hiding something as basic as
>their TOS or contract stipulations. Robots.txt won't stop Google, or
>other bots, from crawling pages that contain a link to the document.
>Regardless, I don't see how a cellular company could possibly get away
>with deliberately "hiding" such crucial information (robots.txt hides
>nothing). Methinks Kalifornia would be the least of their problems, if
>they tried such a thing.
>
>Oh yea, see here:
>www.google.com/webmasters/faq.html
>www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html
>
>And of course Google maintains one themselves:
>www.google.com/robots.txt
It's FUD if you have no evidence (you apparently don't) that Verizon is
actually doing what you claim.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 01-18-2005, 01:45 PM #8TinmanGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
John Navas wrote:
>
> It's FUD if you have no evidence (you apparently don't) that Verizon
> is actually doing what you claim.
Reading for comprehension is a good thing. Try it some time. Here's a
clue-by-four: I didn't claim Verizon was doing anything at all.
--
Mike | If a million monkeys typed on a million
| keyboards for a million years, eventually all
| the works of Shakespeare would be produced.
| Thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
- 01-18-2005, 05:03 PM #9TreyGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
>
> It's FUD if you have no evidence (you apparently don't) that Verizon
> is actually doing what you claim.
See for yourself, its not like its a big secret.
http://www.verizonwireless.com/robots.txt -- good
http://www.cingular.com/robots.txt -- not found
www.attws.com/robots.txt -- not found
http://www.tmobile.com/robots.txt -- not found
http://www.sprintpcs.com/robots.txt -- not found
"In 1993 and 1994 there have been occasions where robots have visited WWW
servers where they weren't welcome for various reasons. Sometimes these
reasons were robot specific, e.g. certain robots swamped servers with
rapid-fire requests, or retrieved the same files repeatedly. In other
situations robots traversed parts of WWW servers that weren't suitable, e.g.
very deep virtual trees, duplicated information, temporary information, or
cgi-scripts with side-effects (such as voting).
These incidents indicated the need for established mechanisms for WWW
servers to indicate to robots which parts of their server should not be
accessed. This standard addresses this need with an operational solution."
It has a good use, but CAN be used to hide stuff if the web master really
wanted. a quick glance at teh Robots.txt file will show you exactly what
they are hiding though.
- 01-18-2005, 06:32 PM #10John NavasGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:03:51
GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's FUD if you have no evidence (you apparently don't) that Verizon
>> is actually doing what you claim.
>
>See for yourself, its not like its a big secret.
>
>http://www.verizonwireless.com/robots.txt -- good
>http://www.cingular.com/robots.txt -- not found
>www.attws.com/robots.txt -- not found
>http://www.tmobile.com/robots.txt -- not found
>http://www.sprintpcs.com/robots.txt -- not found
Zero substantiation for your claim. All Verizon is doing is running a
responsible website, inhibiting indexing of non-text areas. Other carriers
should do the same.
>It has a good use, but CAN be used to hide stuff if the web master really
>wanted. a quick glance at teh Robots.txt file will show you exactly what
>they are hiding though.
No actual evidence of any actual hiding.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 01-18-2005, 11:41 PM #11TreyGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005
> 23:03:51 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It's FUD if you have no evidence (you apparently don't) that Verizon
>>> is actually doing what you claim.
>>
>> See for yourself, its not like its a big secret.
>>
>> http://www.verizonwireless.com/robots.txt -- good
>> http://www.cingular.com/robots.txt -- not found
>> www.attws.com/robots.txt -- not found
>> http://www.tmobile.com/robots.txt -- not found
>> http://www.sprintpcs.com/robots.txt -- not found
>
> Zero substantiation for your claim. All Verizon is doing is running a
> responsible website, inhibiting indexing of non-text areas. Other
> carriers should do the same.
>
>> It has a good use, but CAN be used to hide stuff if the web master
>> really wanted. a quick glance at teh Robots.txt file will show you
>> exactly what they are hiding though.
>
> No actual evidence of any actual hiding.
Did I say Verizon was hiding anything? no, but IF someone wanted to, they
could, but one look at the Robots.txt files tell you what they are hiding,
if anyhting.
I made no claims. Same as Tinman.
- 01-19-2005, 10:24 PM #12DevilsPGDGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Google is effective at locating material on particular websites (e.g.,
>>>"site:vzw.com").
>>
>>For information the carrier wants to be found, yes. For information
>>they don't want to be found, robots.txt can easily exclude it from
>>Google without making it easily visible to anybody else.
>
>Do you have any real evidence of that? Or is this FUD? ;-)
I didn't suggest anybody IS doing it, I just suggested that they could.
--
I'm sorry sir, you can't park your van on the diving board.
- 01-19-2005, 10:24 PM #13DevilsPGDGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
In message <[email protected]> "Trey"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Did I say Verizon was hiding anything? no, but IF someone wanted to, they
>could, but one look at the Robots.txt files tell you what they are hiding,
>if anyhting.
>I made no claims. Same as Tinman.
Robots.txt will tell you roughly where the content which is hidden is
located, but it's not necessarily enough for anyone (human or robot) to
find the content.
If you exclude /stuff/ that doesn't help anybody find /stuff/aup.html
--
I'm sorry sir, you can't park your van on the diving board.
- 01-19-2005, 10:24 PM #14DevilsPGDGuest
Re: California Telecommunications Bill of Rights
In message <[email protected]> "Tinman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It's not FUD, but I can't imagine a company hiding something as basic as
>their TOS or contract stipulations. Robots.txt won't stop Google, or
>other bots, from crawling pages that contain a link to the document.
>Regardless, I don't see how a cellular company could possibly get away
>with deliberately "hiding" such crucial information (robots.txt hides
>nothing). Methinks Kalifornia would be the least of their problems, if
>they tried such a thing.
robots.txt should be effective against this -- Bots are supposed to
check robots.txt and ignore listed paths/files whether or not they find
a link elsewhere.
There are some very good technical reasons for a bot to follow
robots.txt too -- For one thing, it avoids pages with dynamically
generated links which form a loop in content, but not a loop in URL
syntax.
--
I'm sorry sir, you can't park your van on the diving board.
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.sprintpcs
- alt.cellular.nextel
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung