Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    John Navas
    Guest
    <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




  2. #2
    Jack Hamilton
    Guest

    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



  3. #3
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  4. #4
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    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.



  5. #5
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  6. #6
    Tinman
    Guest

    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





  7. #7
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  8. #8
    Tinman
    Guest

    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.





  9. #9
    Trey
    Guest

    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.







  10. #10
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  11. #11
    Trey
    Guest

    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.





  12. #12
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    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.



  13. #13
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    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.



  14. #14
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    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