• Report: #854456

Complaint Review: centurylink/quest

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Thu, March 15, 2012
  • Updated: Fri, April 27, 2012

  • Reported By: AMERICAN DISABLED CITIZEN — Minnesota United States of America
centurylink/quest
c/o Post Office Box 5061 monroe, Louisiana United States of America

centurylink/quest Glen F. Post, III Antitrust, Deceptive, and possibly criminal Business practices. monroe, Louisiana

*Author of original report: ok one more reply because of reasonableness of the poster jim

*Consumer Comment: I'm Not Even Sure What You Want the AG To Do??

*Author of original report: last sidetracked response I am giving. I will not give further replies unless centurylink responds or government agency, or someone in the legal system who is looking into the issue

*Consumer Comment: Sorry too many excuses

*Author of original report: wirless no go

*Consumer Comment: What about

*Consumer Comment: So why don't you post your REAL complaint?

*Author of original report: Update with Information from the FCC

*Consumer Comment: I get the monopoly bit, but who gives a crap about arbitration?

*Consumer Comment: You can stand on a soap box in the middle of a highway if you want.

*Author of original report: Standing firm on the Illegal way in which centurylink bound its internt users to the new terms without proper notification IN ADVANCE..

*Consumer Comment: Monopoly

*Consumer Comment: What a Maroon!

*Author of original report: reply to the Disabled american citizen FLAMING rebutal by another poster.

*Consumer Comment: What does "DISABLED AMERICAN CITIZEN" have to do with anything?

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

I originally got 2 year contract  flat rate service 5mb hardline DSL that can't go up.  Through qwest before centurylink took over.

My issues is for a while they had bandwidth issues and throttling. I want to keep my options open for class actions regarding this issue.  

Then recently I had issue with sony forcing "Arbitration" clauses That destroys all consumer protection laws by forcing you to circumvent the public legal system.  I have since banned sony and I started looking at other companies I do business with. Thus centurylink and this report is born.

I started going through the user agreements That I had originally read right after getting my service. My original service never included any arbitration clauses and never forbid you  class action, trial by jury or judge.    The most recent reading of it couple of days ago  now does.

Well back in 8-11  apparently Centurylink CHANGE THE USER AGREEMENT FOR INTERNET DSL.  I discovered this in march 2012. I was never informed in anyway that major changes were made to the user agreement that would fundamentally strip any and all consumer protection rights I had.

When A change takes place, if you are still with them 1 month after date of change you are bound to the new agreement regardless of knowledge of the change.  May I remind you centurylink NEVER contacted me of this fundamental change, thus I could not make an informed decision on what to do about it.  This I view as deceptive and criminal business practice. Because I was never informed a month before major changes took place. I even went through my email history to see if I missed a possible email I have NOT.

Because I was never informed of my consumer rights being stripped via an arbitration clause that forbids class action, trial by jury and judge. I was then Forcefully BOUND to new user agreement because I remained with Centurylink well after the official changed. Not knowing at all there was a fundamental change to service provided.   This is definitely deceptive and posibly criminal business practice.

When I finally became aware of the fundamental stripping of my consumer protection I started looking around for alternative DSL HARDLINE  broadband internet service only to discover that there are only two choices   comcast and centurylink.

there is no hardline DSL service through comcast here that I can find.  This means that centurylink has illegal monopoly on DSL broadband hardline service in my area.

See in an apartment building your not allowed to have satellite service so only 2 choices is phone line or cable line   Cable internet IS NOT IN SAME CLASS AS phone DSL   Thus the statement ILLEGAL monopoly.

in my area if you want phone line DSL centurylink is only option available.

They know this so they feel they can go ahead and strip your consumer rights and not have to face any consequence in that its their service or no service.    I am not a lawyer but I feel it is also ANTI-TRUST?   By monopoly and preventing me from making informed decision and violating my trust in "FAIR" business practice?

Because of my disabilities I have difficulty hearing on the phone which is the primary reason I have phone line broadband DSL internet, in that, I need it to get access to alternative forms of communication, when phone just will not work. 

I am stuck with centurylink with NO alternatives and I actually need the connection for alternative communication THAT DOES NOT TAKE FOREVER such as dial up.

Cable internet is not acceptable because of the sheer number of people your sharing your connection with.  Not to mention I have heard stories of other users on said connection eve-dropping on others in their groups.    I want my use private  and the bandwidth for me alone.

Example don't want to split 7mb with dozen users or more  and being forced to pay for full 7mb.

Centurylink has gone so far as to BURY the arbitration clause  on page 16 of 17 pages  Also they have made it impossible to copy paste the arbitration clause.  They make claim of copyright to justify denying the ability to prevent section copy/paste. I thought "terms of use" itself CAN'T be copyrighted  because it is NOT an "original" work.  its describing what can can't be done, that is it.   Just like phone books are not allowed to be copyrighted when all it is is a list and description. because centurylink is refusing to let me copy the relevant section of the terms of use  on page 16  section 17 for clarification and educational purposes  I am forced to give a link to the PDF file with the relevant information  I do not know if I am in violation of posting issues to this site by doing so.

PLease forgive me in that the User agreement which this report is centered around is not allowing copy paste of ALL of section 17 on page 16.  I have NO choice but to link to the PDF file.

http://qwest.centurylink.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/files/HSI_Subscriber_Agreement_ENG_v34_080811.pdf

Other reason for posting report is to show that this has happened to me and if other out there have the same issue  it will show pattern of abuse and possible other antitrust and deceptive and possibly criminal actions by centurylink in its attempt to BULLY the consumers in to actions that is totally in favor of centurylink at the cost of honest patrons..

I fear retaliation because I have actually confronted three other companies,  about the arbitration clause. One, because I refused to agree to loosing my consumer protection, I have lost access to content That I have paid for. Two the other actually CUT MY SERVICE OFF when I still had time left That I had already paid for.    Third did not inform of the change till 4 months after the fact and I was waiting to join class action  due to overdraft scam. I was forced to leave and open an account elsewhere where such arbitration did not exist.  I can no longer pursue class action as a result of FORCED BINDING TO NEW TERMS OF USE.

For medical reasons I can not afford to loose phone and internet.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/15/2012 03:14 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/centurylinkquest/monroe-Louisiana-71211/centurylinkquest-Glen-F-Post-III-Antitrust-Deceptive-and-possibly-criminal-Business-p-854456. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on centurylink/quest

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
6Author 9Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Author of original report

ok one more reply because of reasonableness of the poster jim

AUTHOR: AMERICAN CITIZEN - (USA)

I haven't conceded the monopoly issue at all. I have explained why it is and isn't monopoly..   Problem is, and why I am not, driving it harder, is that the way the law is written the monopoly is not a monopoly even though it is by definition of the word is a monopoly.  So I can't do anything currently other than file complaint for the AG to look into   and make recommendations to FCC to fix the loopholes that make monopolies legal..

The part about the terms of use I am still driving home because of the way in which the changes were made were and are illegal.

Yes your absolutely right they do reserve the right to change the terms.    The law also recognizes that because of the power of the terms of use has . they set limits on "HOW" it can be implemented  such as 1 month notification of change to give the user a chance to find alternative or dispute the terms before it goes into effect.

several of the companies I have mentioned have failed to do so the worse offender was centurylink by not notifying at all of the change.  Thus illegally binding users to the new terms because they took the users ability to decide whether they wanted to agree or not agree and go elsewhere..

If this kind of crap happened be tween to big companies, they would have been in court, about it, almost faster than you can say foul play, I am going to sue you for violating our contract "WE" had agreed too.

you did read through the link on electromagnetic and radiation and the banning of wireless and cell phones in health sensitive areas right?

And you have read that I am health sensitive as well have you not?     I am in the boat that they recommend that I never use wireless for sake of my physical health.

What I don't understand, is I am being accused of excuses when by definition the people rebutting my report have been excusing the wrong doing of illegal activities by conglomerates. Or trying to down play the seriousness of it.

First off the A.G.  wants to look into whether The company failed to notify the consumers of major and fundamental changes to the terms of use   and actually followed the laws regarding notification..   contracts are 2 party agreements  NOT UNILATERAL agreement

See I never agreed to the new terms, because I was never informed   and I and everyone else has a reasonable expectations that when our contracts are changed we are informed in writing of the changes taking place.   in centurylink I was never actually given the option to agree or go else where.

And why should I have to go with 1.5 wireless and compromise my physical health vs 7mb on hardline that won't compromise my physical health? just because a company decides to illegally bind me??

why should I be punished when it was someone else who broke the law?

The A.G. can look into it, if they find that it was done in an illegal manor, they can mediate on the consumer behalf to have penalties placed on the company for wrong doing.  Even go so far as take the company to court on consumers behalf, especially when it shown it effects a broad population area.

fair penalty would be remove the arbitration clause for say 5 years and that when the 5 years is up, If the company still wants to put it back in, they would be required to send written mail of the change  and require the customer to actually agree to the change  before they are bound.

The reason I said 5 years and not say 1 is that a too short a period would not be enough deterrent to do right by the public by the companies who break the law. Idea is to make doing the right thing cheaper than doing the wrong.

requiring that customer agree will remove the loophole "that if customer is unaware of the change 1 month after the fact that they are bound anyway".     By removing the loophole there is no incentive to break the law to forcefully bind users to the new terms.

In sonys case the A.G. can force sony to add a opt out box next to the I agree box when signing new terms, because of how frequently sony does require new agreements.   then it removes the malicious manor of being required to send a letter every single time you agree to new terms.  which cost paper postage, proof of receipt ,stress,  time, and  money  out of the consumer pocket.

Why should the consumer be required to take the cost of burden when it is sony who is changing the contract NOT the consumer?  Sony should bear the entire burden since it is a unilaterally written contract by them.

By the way I had weighed the other options mentioned by the other posters before posting this report.    Those other options are not realistic for me .  for multitude of reasons.  If comcast had served my area  I would have gone to them because they provide service that is in the same class as centurylink.   comcast does not have arbitration as far as I can tell in their acceptable use policy.

second thought found the purchase terms of use this is insane: (this is direct quote  exactly as is from comcast as follows): only thing I added is the black bold

Section 2. Limitations Of Liability

IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE AND UNDER NO LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION TORT, CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE) SHALL COMCAST HAVE ANY LIABILITY
TO YOU OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR: (i) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, TREBLE, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES
OR DAMAGES OF ANY NATURE INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOSS OF PROFITS,
LOSS OF EARNINGS, LOSS OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES OR PERSONAL INJURY
(INCLUDING DEATH)
, RESULTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OUT OF, OR OTHERWISE
ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH, YOUR PURCHASE OR USE OF THE PRODUCTS, OR
THE INSTALLATION, REPAIR OR SERVICING OF THE PRODUCTS BY COMCAST, EVEN
IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES; OR (ii) ANY LOSSES,
CLAIMS, DAMAGES, EXPENSES, LIABILITIES OR COSTS (INCLUDING LEGAL FEES)
RESULTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OUT OF, OR OTHERWISE ARISING IN
CONNECTION WITH, ANY ALLEGATION, CLAIM, SUIT OR OTHER PROCEEDING BASED
UPON AN ASSERTION THAT THE USE OF THE PRODUCTS BY YOU OR ANY OTHER
PERSON OR ENTITY INFRINGES THE COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, TRADE
SECRET, CONFIDENTIALITY, PRIVACY, OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
OR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF ANY THIRD PARTY.
THE MAXIMUM LIABILITY OF COMCAST ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO
THIS AGREEMENT, YOUR PURCHASE OF THE PRODUCTS, OR ANY SERVICES PERFORMED
WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTS, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID BY
YOU FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PRODUCTS.
The limitations of liability set forth above shall not apply to
liability for death or personal injury to the extent applicable law
prohibits such limitation. Similarly, some states do not allow the
limitation or exclusion of incidental or consequential damages. In such
states, the liability of Comcast shall be limited to the maximum extent
permitted by law.
LEG Rev. 4/07

If their product kills you, your family can't sue them  for criminal act on comcast part. unless your state happens to have a law that gives you protection.  in states that don't your totally screwed.
see the cap print takes your protections away, the small print down at bottom says the part about state law giving protection then the cap portion does not apply  or the portion specific to the law that protects.

This is the kind of crap that is just not right about terms of use and why it should be band unless both parties can make changes so the terms to be fair  for both parties.

I just don't understand how the rest of you can put up with this B.S., and continually defend these companies while they stab you in the back in the process.

Other reason to go to the A.G., is your state may have laws that superseded the tos of companies the A.G. has access to information the average citizen does not and they have enforcement powers we do not.  Not to mention the know how to locate the relevant laws.

In the end and you need to remember the company can not exist without the consumer.  so in the end its the consumer  who matters most. It is not our job to please the companies its their job to please us.  Companies can survive without shareholders,  they can't survive without customers.

This is the fundamental foundation of trade  that goes back to the beginning of time.  The one doing the service rendered is the one who does the pleasing. especially in a service for money setting.

If you don't see that or believe the opposite I feel bad for you for you have become a slave/drone to the elite.     And if you are the elite who think the rest of us should cater to you then I flash my pastier toy you. For you will never make a slave or drone out of me.

peace jim.  I have already  dropped more than 80% of the companies I have done business with for 2 or more years. I am without, as result.  The one thing I can't drop is my last line of communication to outside world.   I was prepared to drop my phone and internet as well and was deterred from doing so by professional I see on reg basis. he recommended that I fight this one because it is a necessity for me, for health reasons.   No its not an excuse  just showing the motivation of my actions.

other reason for doing this reply is my reply was entirely on context to the report. And try to help clarify things either by bring new perspective or wording differently what has been written prior, and to answer an honest question.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-r-0402.htm general info for those who do not know role for the A.G.   In our state they are also responsible for consumer protection when it effects a portion of population. In this case all centurylink broadband customers.   the AG, is the one thing, companies can't squash,  in regard to consumer protection. Other than the usual illegal bribes and back door deals.   Every one has a price.    My price is justice and fairness on equal footing.

now from here out, don't expect a reply from me, unless it by one of the previous list of people I mentioned.

jim, you were being reasonable about your post that was why I responded, thought it only right and fair to you because of that.    I wasn't looking for cellphone at one point I went 8 years without a phone or internet when I was young.            this is about DSL hardline service and TOS and monopoly.

Following is pure off topic  to simply point out I have actually don homework on alternatives.

If I did go hand held wireless the smallest I could practical use, is full size tablet.  for one very simple reason   I have XXL hands  and the tip of my fingers is flat when I press the keys on those mini keyboards I windup pressing 5 at once.     I can't even afford a ebook   how the heck am I suppose to pay for a tablet?  just price checked tablets at verizon used were all   more than an ebook.
This is no excuse this is fact of life  cost alone excludes me from using wireless tablet  at a hot spot etc.  looked at the Iphone 4  with the onscreen keys  i would be pressing 3 at once.  if that isn't enough fyi to visualize my hand size,  my hand span from pinky tip to thumb tip is 10 1/2 inch
here is one I could use but I am sure its going to have a 600$ or more price tag.  keyboard is bigger than the 300 model http://www.phonearena.com/phones/Asus-Transformer-Pad-Infinity-700-Series_id6970

AT&T service is out they are the ones at the root core of the arbitration mess.

verizon offers only wireless of 1.5mb  in my area  I need minimum of 5mb

sprint has a real bad rep in my community for horrible service, hidden fees, incorrect fees, etc  costing customers more than they should be paying.   makes centurylink look like the quire boy.

cable:  out:  shared bandwidth with entire area  and having to pay for it all, not to mention I would be on the same segment as the security cracker in our building.  This guy is smart as hell, he devised an algorithm to increase his odd of the lotteries in our state,  one day on one of his down days, he bragged and actually showed 5 winning tickets  out of 7 he bought  he only does small winnings so he doesn't have to report it, but the total is way over the reporting requirements to IRS. (point is I really do not want to be on the same segment as this guy.( After all this guy is bragging about committing tax evasion)

Another thing need point out about our cable company, they actually do, have a monopoly.  They been told to let other companies use their lines but the cable company is stopping the others from coming in by demanding royalties so high, as to have the cable provider be the cheapest  and the other companies piggy,backing won't be able to compete on a fare fee  due to the royalties.  Its been tied up in court for the last several years.   See you guys do not have all the information here for my area, where I am, I seriously have looked at the alternatives   (do not want to support a company that knowingly is breaking the law, because they think they are above the law due to their size.)

centurylink hard-line phone service, does not have the arbitration clause. Its only the DSL portion.  So I do not want to loose my hardline phone, centurylink is only option for hardline phone service here.  centurylink is also blocking other phone providers from using their lines using the same tactic as the cable provider.  I do not know if they are currently in court over it or if the other provider decided the expense of fighting the monopoly out weighed the profit projections if they came here.      

Internet phone, still need internet and you can not call a lot of places, using internet phone service.  I have a neighbor who does and they can't even call their pharmacy because centrurylink blocked them.   They wanted royalties the internet phone did not want to pay.

verizon and AT&T sprint are the only 3 wireless options here, look above for the reason I will never get cellphone/internet from. All 3 have 1.5mb bandwidth in our area.   Said prior 5mb minnimum for my absolute low end for communication.  Especially if I was to get the caption phone.  No other tech does what caption phone does, not even the tablet.

there are no other providers here.

rest is just rant with relevance to the subject and expanding on other points I have posted prior.
______________________________________________________________________

internet phone is out of the question after this link  http://broadband-nation.blogspot.com/2008/10/real-problems-with-magic-jack-is-majic.html.  Two fold for providing this link It deals with another criminal TOS    and the nightmare with the internet phone I was mentioning about neighbor not getting through. this neighbor has either skype or magicjack.

I will say it again, that the tos is all the crap the companies couldn't get put in to the copyright and patents themselves.  Why?  TOS is often criminal and often time used as get themselves out of jail card.

I would never sign a tos as provided at the link. 

Problem With the tos I signed already, were fair to start with, then they strip your protections after they have you hooked with no way out.

If  anyone says its my fault bla bla bla is total crack.   I read all the tos. beginning to end. my head swims. after often time rereading sections to ensure I actually understand them.    Because of Sony  I now request tos before I buy anything   I will not hand over money before seeing the tos.   every store I go to, that I do this at, don't know how to deal with it, because I am the first ever to specifically request to see the tos first, before buying. Same way at all the banks I went too. Reason the store doesn't know how to deal with it is the stupid tos is inside the box, once open, can't be sold new.

tos on the ps3 when read properly,  tells you that your only renting the system, that you were firmly told you owned, when handing over cash at the counter. Only to find out after getting it home, opening it up (which voids return policy for cash back) powering it up and finding out you don't own the hardware?  what the hell.   I do not know of any other product hardware on the planet that does that. Other than game platforms. Maybe tablets do too have no idea  don't own any.

See here "tos"  is illegal because the PS3 is actually false advertised because the box does not say one time fee "rental unit and you do NOT OWN IT" and in order to play any future games you have to agree to do firmware update, such as the one that removed my linuxOS option without my knowledge, which was a big sell point for me. (this point was really buried deep and used LOTS of triple speak to hide that fact, felt like an idiot, because I had read over that paragraph several times and did not see the meaning sony meant. The meaning I saw was based on the belief of fair honest business.  Remember triple speak, in those cases, I learned: assume the worse interpretation of it, because that is the one that favors only the company. )

 The tos also acts as extortion because you had opened the box, by opening the box you can't return for full refund.  Its sign agreement or else loose 500-600$.    I did actually try to get gamestop to take it back, they would only give store credit, what good is 500-600$ store credit when you have no game platform to play on?  so kept the dang thing.

OK gotta stop here been working too long on this   many hours I might add..

That is another reason not going to respond to any more unless its from the people who are actually suppose to be disputing it such as centurylink, A.G. , department of justice etc.

Really don't like communicating in this form. Too long between correspondence, so have to try to cover all the stuff that may come up or is currently in my head or Will forget it by the next time I post.  which I hope will be by someone who can actually make a difference for the fight for justice.

bye.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

I'm Not Even Sure What You Want the AG To Do??

AUTHOR: Jim S - (United States of America)

At this point, you've conceded the point that it isn't a monopoly, which of course it isn't.  Since they're allowed under their agreement to change the terms and conditions of the agreement, with or without notification, I'm not exactly certain what you're looking for the AG to do??  The obvious remedy for a contract to materially change in the manner you describe, is to opt out of the agreement.  

The others who have come here to suggest alternative and better technologies; their suggestions are good and proper.  I would seriously take their suggestions under consideration, and be a lot less paranoid about a secured wireless connection, and a lot of other things you've posted here.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

last sidetracked response I am giving. I will not give further replies unless centurylink responds or government agency, or someone in the legal system who is looking into the issue

AUTHOR: AMERICAN CITIZEN - (USA)

companies who make these cellphones are aware of the radiation you ever bother to read the instruction manual  under "warning"  they even tell you to keep cellphones away from the body, not to put them in your pockets to wear company certified cellphone carriers because they hold them away from your body.  etc

The radiation exposure is NOT and excuse, its fact.  it is not you who was exposed to that radiation, it was me.  If you had been exposed yourself and your doc told you to avoid any future exposure you would too.   Europe is so serious about the radiation from cellphones that they banned kids under certain age from using cell phones
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128   I am not alone on this issue.


1excuse verb
\ik-'skyz, imperatively often 'skyz\excusedexcusingDefinition of EXCUSEtransitive verb1 a : to make apology for

b : to try to remove blame from 2 : to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable <graciously excused his tardiness> 3 a : to grant exemption or release to <was excused from jury duty>

b : to allow to leave <excused the class> 4 : to serve as excuse for : justify <nothing can excuse such neglect> excusable adjective excusableness noun excusably adverb excuser noun

that is NOT what I am doing.  I am explaining why  something is not right  and how it effects things.  Saying that I have already checked with the wireless providers here and they do not offer fast enough bandwidth is NOT AN EXCUSE.   Its explaining or explanation.

This is not a "justification" of not going wireless it is pointing out wireless IS TOO SLOW 1.5 vs 7mbs to 14mbs is MAJOR,  among other things.  

Software encryption  can be broke relatively easily,  Especially if security crackers have a virtual super computer  available to them.

FYI  security crackers know how to crack through industry encryption like a hot knife through butter because those encryption are too well known. Only way for industry to stop them is to rebuild their encryption and security from ground up on regular basis.   Ask yourself how many internet providers and conglomerate companies will do that when it comes to their customers?  my guess is less than 1%.   the 1% being the companies that cater the wealthy.

Then you should already know this since you claim to be in the industry. 

Then again look what happened to sony, who thought they were so great.  Yes they lost my info  most likely twice!   They never contacted me about it either.  I had actually informed them a month before they were "security cracked"  Not to store my banking information on their server.   They ignored me.    I found out through third party about the theft. I went through all my emails.  Nothing!  No calls, no emails, no letters in the mail,  never been contacted about the free credit monitoring for identity theft.  Sony had the BALLS to steal the money I had in my wallet on top of it all!         Then they have the audacity to use a opt out letter instead of a check box next to the I agree box, and an arbitration clause and DID NOT INFORM USERS THEY HAVE TO OPT OUT EVERY TIME WE SIGN A NEW TOS.  New contracts voids prior opt out letters. This statement is in the contract laws.

Then this is mostly off topic (other than the last paragraph) because this has nothing to do with illegal binding of "terms of use"  I am not going to respond to further  sidetracking.  this off topic stuff is burying the important message

Companies are using malicious and even illegal tactics to bind you to new terms of use that strips your fundamental consumer protections  That would normally stop corporate abuse and murder  by circumvention of the legal system through arbitration and non-disclosure.

I will update as get more info from attorney general and others on the issue.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Sorry too many excuses

AUTHOR: Tagurit - (USA)

To the OP.  I am sorry but you are full of excuses that make absolutely no sense.  There are ways to WEP encrypt a wireless hotspot.  There are further ways to encrypt email and also protect your PC.  I KNOW THIS because I'm in the industry.

Lastly a cellphone will not cause radiation issues if you use an earpiece that has a wire and is connected directly to the phone so the phone is not right next to you.  I do this because I don't like smashing the phone next to my ear with my earrings on.  The sound quality on these type of earpieces is fantastic and clear.  My father is hard of hearing and uses one.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Author of original report

wirless no go

AUTHOR: AMERICAN CITIZEN - (USA)

Tagurit:   wireless is no go, in that anyone with wireless access can intercept signal between the tower or where ever the hotsot is and me. Software encryption only goes so far.  

I don't use anything wireless  Not even cell phone.  I can't use cell phone due to radiation exposure.

I have already had over 25 lifetimes worth of over exposure beyond the safe levels of exposure to "X-RAY"  8 hours constant "X-ray" during closed heart surgery.  choice do surgery or die.

My main issue is the illegal way in which companies "illegally bind you to new terms of use that strips fundamental consumer protection from corporate abuses and wrong doing..

Another bad one is sony and its PSN agreement.  see each time you are required to sign a new agreement every time they do a firmware update  is a new contract.   What sony failed to tell the public is each time you HAVE TO OPT OUT BY LETTER to keep your consumer rights of class action.   the first opt-out letter you send is becomes invalid every time you agree to the new terms of use. This opt out letter gets very expensive  when you have postage and proof of receipt  to ensure sony actually got the letter and they don't just throw it in the trash force binding you to the anti-class action clause. 

problem is with this site, I could not go after all the companies at once who are doing this kind of abuse.

So I went after the one company I can't do without out of necessity.

1. I have already dropped sony Will not buy anything new with their name or partner name on it.
2. dropped netflix as well,
3. Left Wells Fargo  for a local credit union turned bank.  been with Wells Fargo almost my entire banking experience.
4. won't buy anything microsoft other than OS because of lack of support for alternatives like linux.
5. wouldn't open an account at any banks with arbitration clauses.
6 checked the local wireless options and satellite options all bad for my needs or is unavailable period.
7 cable was only other feasible option for were I live but I believe I have already pointed out why I refuse them. Besides not being in the same legue as phone-line DSL.
8.  t-1 not option for this tower  building.
9 there is not a lot of free airway bandwidth here due to a specific company here that hogs it for their business. Lives are at stake when this company gets interrupted.
10 local wireless is 1.5mb no faster   I get 7mb on dsl.
11 if I get "closed caption phone" then I need phone and Broadband  When using this, best option is hardline all around.     you can not do this using cell phone.     you talk to a person then when they talk to you it gets sent via broadband to a "Closed caption server" and sent back to the screen on the phone.  2 separate lines are needed to do this. http://studio5.ksl.com/index.php?nid=57&sid=9777982  The reason they give the phone free is the phone-line service and seperate broadband expense  is paid for by us, not them, the monthly expense is over 60$ vs 20$(for normal phones) a month just to use it.
voice to text software, for good one cost in excess 1000$  that is why they use the server rather than building it into the phone itself.    just they kill you with the monthly broadband fee instead of the cost up front for it built into the phone.

back to the main issue illegal binding to terms of use due to not informing of changes in timely manor.

wells Fargo sent a letter 5 months after the change Illegally binding you to the new terms of use that included arbitration. This was an attempt to block class action due to its overdraft scam and others .They have already lost a case in California on the issue  they are trying to head off other states from following suit.  They do it by applying the arbitration to access to your account online. This inadvertently applies to in-face business in that wells Fargo can claim you did it through your online account.  lets say I access online account I note overdraft that shouldn't be there, I call or go in person to the bank to dispute it. because I accessed my account online where I discovered the problem,  it binds me to arbitration  rather than taking it to court even though I actually disputed the issue face to face.   Wells Fargo knows exactly what it is doing  using loopholes and such to do anti-trust business.     I trusted wells Fargo to be honest and fair in its dealings it has not and stolen money from me in the process.

As it stands I can not seek justice for criminal wrong doing that they have already been caught doing elsewhere.

Add everyone up and its tens to hundreds of million dollars theft.  This is why class action is so vital.

any average individual stealing this much would be in prison 25-life.   why should corporate execs be any different?.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

What about

AUTHOR: Tagurit - (USA)

Because of my disabilities I have difficulty hearing on the phone which is the primary reason I have phone line broadband DSL internet, in that, I need it to get access to alternative forms of communication, when phone just will not work. 

If this is what the real complaint is about then why not get a Verizon wireless card or hotspot?   There ARE other alternatives.  Whether you choose to explore them or not is up to you. 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

So why don't you post your REAL complaint?

AUTHOR: Steve - (USA)

I know perfectly well how arbitration works, thank you. You are correct, however, that I do not know why you feel the need to go to court; if you really think your or your families' health is in danger, I would think THAT would be what you should be posting on here! You are not helping the public by talking about the arbitration thing (because nobody cares), but you would be helping them if you helped save their lives, or the lives of their children!

So how about it? What exactly is going on? 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 Author of original report

Update with Information from the FCC

AUTHOR: AMERICAN CITIZEN - (USA)

OK  Broadband is Unregulated industry  unlike phone service is regulated.  There is no monopoly by the written letter of the law.   There are loop holes  that allow the monopoly to be legally done. I will explain this  and how its done  and how it is and isn't a monopoly.   But as far as written law goes its not a monopoly.  But the issue is in the Spirit of the law it is in how they do it to be a monopoly.

The rules governing broadband in layman terms, because this was done over the phone with the state Utility commission, who had access to the info regarding the issue at hand.

The FCC has rules in place that says any provider can go into any area it wants. The currently established provider can not block competitors from doing it.   So Comcast can service my community if they want.(Currently it doesn't)  

The FCC does not regulate broadband so there are no rules officially preventing providers from doing back room deals of breaking up the country in to zones of which each company promises not to infringe services on.   Meaning comcast and centurylink can do back room deal to agree to stay out of each others area of service zones,  like my state is only centuryling and the state next door is comcast  but the biggest cities are shared like new york, chicago etc.   

What I just described is how they break the spirit of the law using loop Holes in place. The rule saying they can go where ever they want,  is what makes it not a monopoly under the written law/rules.    The spirit of the rule/law is violated when the two only providers of phoneline DSL agree  to split the country up into zones where they both agree not to provide services in the others agree upon service area.    so by definition of what a monopoly is, they are in fact a monopoly,  Just that by the way the rules are written  they are not.   

I would really like to know who had their hands in the writing of the rules, because this was an obvious blunder that could be seen by a NON professional like me.

I also talked to the state attorney general office:  regarding the illegal nature of how centurylink and other companies failed to inform clients of fundamental changes in the terms of use agreements that fundamentally changed the quality and service provided.  By adding the Arbitration clause and its effect on consumer protections.  I have talked to the office in the past about other consumer issues, this is the first time, in which they actually insisted several times in our conversations to file a complaint.  They really want to look in to this, because it violates some established laws in how changes to terms of uses can take place.      There is a long history of companies using the terms of use to abuse consumers. Which is why we have the rules and laws governing on HOW changes can be implemented.

Steve:  this for you,

You have NO IDEA of why I want to join class action.   I do not want monetary damages paid to me.
All I want is justice.  And to ensure business is done in a fair, honest even playing field for all involved.  I do NOT want one side or the other to have total control of the other side.   Thus this "arbitration" is giving corporations total control of the consumers  by stripping consumer protection that protects us from corporate abuse.

 I am not sure you truly understand what "arbitration is" and "why it was started" to begin with.   Nor do I believe that you  understand, HOW,  corporations were able to twist it around as a means to circumvent the legal system, Using legal means and loopholes, we currently have in place.

I have a personal stake in this, in that my physical health  is being compromised,  by corporate abuse and I have already had One death of a family member to corporate abuse.  In case of the family member the company withheld vital information about the goods, they provided, that their own research proved.   Later a whistle blower came forward with the research and blew the lid off.  Problem is it was too late for my family member, in that she was in the process of becoming  terminal from the defective product.  She died IN THE EXACT MANOR AND ORDER of the companies own research!  WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN LETTING THE COMPANY GET AWAY WITH LITERAL MURDER!?!?!  NO ONE CAN BRING MY LOST FAMILY BACK.  ALL I WANT IS TO STOP THE COMPANY FROM KILLING SOMEONE ELSE'S FAMILY MEMBER"S"!   This effected tens of thousands and possibly millions of people.   Each person affected does not have the resources to go after the company alone.   But as a whole using the class action status in that ALL of them were hurt in the "SAME" way,   they would be allowed to pool their resources,  to fight the company on a "FAIR AND EVEN FOOTING",  financially and resource wise.        Without class action status 99.9% of the American people could NEVER dream of justice against companies like the one that KILLED my family member.    

If this company had, had "arbitration clause" in order to use the product that killed my Family member.   The company would have been able to bypass the "LEGAL JUSTICE SYSTEM" by forcing private negotiations out side of the legal system  IN an "NON IMPARTIAL" system.   Arbitration real purpose, is to reclaim small amount of money that would normally go through the small claims court. 
The arbitration true purpose was to try to ease the strain off the small claims courts, for one time dispute. NOT DISPUTES  THAT AFFECTS TENS OF THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.   It is not meant to allow a company to circumvent our legal system for things like  "MASS" murder and to prevent the legal system from pulling the product  from market. 

But because of how the rules are currently written and the AT@T supreme court ruling.  Companies can force cases such as what happened to my family member to PRIVATE arbitration That has non disclosure agreements and is not subjected to case law study and other laws that would normally govern  these kinds of situations.   Such,  would allow said companies to get away with murder of other people and allowed to continue selling defective products and services  that could kill people or other lesser harms. 

I don't buy  that you are seeing my usage.

 For one You claim I been looking at porn,  problem is I haven't been looking at any since well before writing the first report  on centurylink. porn search research indicate porn searching is high so your claim was nothing more than a hit or miss that you were right or wrong.  I was on a "non porn" forum  at the time of your posting  dealing with other issues similar to centurylink. Corporate abuse has galvanized me and has been my sole focus for more than a month. "I haven't had time to porn search"

for two. If you could see my past usage of dsl then your illegally wiretapping me through my ISP provider.   Law enforcement is the only group that has the legal ability to do this and only under a court order.

Quote:"The good news is that's actually pretty hard to find data transmitted to and from a specific machine unless you're on the same network segment. For example, if you're connected to the internet via DSL, other machines sharing
that DSL connection might watch your traffic, but random machines out on the internet would have an extremely difficult time tracking it down."

I am the only one on my specific dsl line. 

Steve your not on my segment.  Not to mention, you have no idea how I am connected to the net.   Other than DSL. you don't know what kind of security, I have in place you have no idea if I am using a proxy nor do you have any idea if I am encrypting/masking my usage through software or hardware. AND you do not know "where" I am.  And you do not know if I am on a network  connected to the DSL line.    

Also  the following explains the difference between dsl and cable:  Quoted from this link for educational purposes:http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/09/23/wiretapping-and-datatapping-are-both-easy-if-youre-the-phone-company/

(DSL phone is on its own line to the router, its physically separate from other users in the area  thus they can't tap into it by simply decrypting the info like they can in cable connection. So they can't just listen in as you would like me to believe.)

Quote starts
:"  First, lets talk DSL. DSL is usually installed by telephone companies, and they use the same DS1/DS3/OC-N network I just described. The difference is that the Internet optical backbone links are usually not run through standard network switches, theyre run through Ciscso routers. When I worked in telecommunications, our access equipment was
being built with a remotely-configurable software router installed as well, and multiple time slots in the DS1s going into the equipment were allocated to the router data stream. Which means that the access equipment or the central office has a big, remotely configurable router that pulls the data out of the voice stream and into the Internet backbone. But because that router is remotely configurable (remote configuration saves the telecomm companies huge amounts of money and simultaneously makes it easer to wiretap their customers), the data can be shunted to multiple locations just as easily as a phone conversation.

Cable modem-linked Internet is pretty similar except that the cable modem connects via a shared cable medium that runs encrypted IP data from the cable head end (roughly equivalent to the central office).  However, most head ends receive their video data via uni-directional downlink satellites they cannot transmit Internet data back up to the satellite even if they wanted to. So cable head ends are tied into the same Internet backbone optical links that the telephony central offices are, and generally via the same types of large data routers. Not only that, but since the cable companies usually lease their links to the backbone switches, from companies like Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, etc. instead of of owning their own optical fiber, people desiring to tap your data dont even have to contact the cable company its one stop shopping for wiretaps at the metropolitan central office run by your local phone company.  Quote ends" this is in regards to the underlined portion in the cable: The software encryption can be cracked by those using the same shared cable medium head. (those in my neighborhood)
 
You would have to work for the phone company and using their hardware  to get the kind of access your talking about on DSL usage by me.   I also talked to centurylink about it and the techs have pretty limited access to it as well.   They have no idea what I am actually looking at, only thing tech have access to is the site domain address and bandwidth usage, listed once a month.

Only other way you could track me is malware on my computer.   This goes back to what kind of security I have on my computer, And I might add, if you did your in violation of wiretapping laws. which is a felony last I checked.  http://www.mobiledia.com/news/96534.html

You would of had to have my specific IP address in advance to track me if at all and Its not easy outside of the phone company.  You didn't.   Even FBI and Law enforcement has trouble tracking specific computers.

In other words your "scare tactic" didn't work.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

I get the monopoly bit, but who gives a crap about arbitration?

AUTHOR: Steve - (USA)

There are definitely some issues as far as lack of competition goes (which is why I am a big fan of Net Neutrality, as it is not trivial to find an ISP that will be neutral voluntarily). But what is your deal with the arbitration thing? What class action suit do you plan to be a part of? Even if your ISP made it official company policy for their installation guys to anally rape every child in the household as part of the installation, any resulting class action litigation would net said children $1.82 and some chewing gum (generic, of course). 

And you are wrong about the DSL vs. Cable thing, as I was able to take a look at your DSL traffic as well. I've got nothing against porn, mind you, but the German crap is off the hook!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Consumer Comment

You can stand on a soap box in the middle of a highway if you want.

AUTHOR: Ken - (USA)

"Standing firm on the Illegal way in which centurylink bound its internt users to the new terms without proper notification IN ADVANCE.."
You sound like a grouchy, crotchety old man that pulls the tails on kitttens.

"My main gripe your ignoring IS HOW CENTURYLINK USED ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF BINDING YOU TO A "CHANGED" USER AGREEMENT THAT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE SERVICE THEY PROVIDE BY NOT INFORMING YOU OF THE CHANGE AT ALL OR WAY TOO LATE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION BEFORE BEING BOUND!"
Your "main gripe is noted....file a report with the FTC and your states attorney general and let us all know how that works out.  That's a challenge for you, in case you missed it.
You're spouting all kinds of unsupported B.S., put your money where your vocal speculation is...do it!

"If you insist on pushing the argument of Centurylink not being a monopoly in my area then show me the relevant links at the FCC That says such. I re-irritate that satellite and cable are not in the same category. comcast and centurylink are. The monopoly I referred to is based on hardline/fiber-optic phone DSL comcast and centurylink are the only ones in this group I know of."
YOUR particular, convoluted reasoning that they are a monopoly is completely wrong and irrelevant and I don't plan to rebut your specious argument.

YOU are the one posting management restricted choices at your apartment, and now come back with "reasons."
"Ken you are in direct violation of the terms of use of this site about "name calling, flaming" I really question whether your an actual adult. this is your only warning. Do it again and I will report you to the admin for disciplinary actions. You would not get away with it in a public, face to face, adult, setting and you know it."
Tell you what, report away, you're WRONG again and truly are stupid. Uh-Oh, bet you'll even report that.  Good luck, I would hate to get my hand slapped.  Also, if I met YOU face to face, I'd still call you an IDIOT!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Author of original report

Standing firm on the Illegal way in which centurylink bound its internt users to the new terms without proper notification IN ADVANCE..

AUTHOR: AMERICAN CITIZEN - (United States of America)



My main gripe your ignoring IS HOW CENTURYLINK USED ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF BINDING YOU TO A "CHANGED" USER AGREEMENT THAT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE SERVICE THEY PROVIDE   BY NOT INFORMING YOU OF THE CHANGE AT ALL OR WAY TOO LATE  TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION BEFORE BEING BOUND!

In the end if or if not the monopoly, doesn't matter, its the illegal binding of the changed user agreement.  That is the true despicable act by centurylink.  stop trying to redirect,  away from the main focus of this report.

If you insist on pushing the argument of Centurylink not being a monopoly in my area then show me the relevant links at the FCC That says such.   I re-irritate that satellite and cable are not in the same category.      comcast and centurylink are.   The monopoly I referred to is based on hardline/fiber-optic phone DSL  comcast and centurylink are the only ones in this group I know of. 

Your insistance that i force landlord to structurally compromise a 60 year old low budget tower  to physically hold satellite dishes, it is incapable of holding  is out of line.  Building and safety commission, I suspect wouldn't allow it,  for safety reasons.  

Landlord didn't do anything wrong, centurylink did.

Ken  you are in direct violation of the terms of use of this site about "name calling, flaming"  I really question whether your an actual adult.    this is your only warning.  Do it again and I will report you to the admin for disciplinary actions.    You would not get away with it in a public, face to face, adult,  setting and you know it.


Respond to this report!
What's this?

#12 Consumer Comment

Monopoly

AUTHOR: Ashley - (U.S.A.)

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what makes up a monopoly. The government has decided long ago that DSL/Cable/Satellite internet are all in the same category and classify as competition. If you lived somewhere that ONLY Dsl was available and that company was barring competition, you would have a case. Just because you don't like cable internet, doesn't change the fact that cable internet is competition for DSL. Not to mention its a superior technology, DSL is ancient and on its way out for newer technologies. You fail to mention if fiber optic internet (Like FIOS through verizon or UVERSE through AT+T) are available in your area. You mention that you cannot get satellite, that's not centurylink's fault. Did they pay off our apartment complex to make sure you couldn't get satellite? Also, you can tether for internet through the cellular telepone network. There is lots of competetion in the field. You are trying to claim a monopoly becuase there's not multiple DSL providers, did you ever think that's becuase its not profitable for someone to get in to? DSL is a dying technology, no one wants to invest in it. Where I like you get DSL through AT+T, there's no other choice for DSL. If you want cable internet you go through Mediacom, they are the only provider for cable. Neither one is a monopoly because they compete with each other.

Good luck with your insane ranting about arbitration clauses! Also good luck proving to the government there's a monopoly!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#13 Consumer Comment

What a Maroon!

AUTHOR: Ken - (USA)

Your entitlement attitude is showing.

I'll bet businesses LOVE hearing from better than anyone else, you.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#14 Author of original report

reply to the Disabled american citizen FLAMING rebutal by another poster.

AUTHOR: AMERICAN CITIZEN - (United States of America)

First off the sig  "Disabled American citizen" accurately describes me without giving my actual name due to fear of actual harassment or services being cut off.  This has already happened on several occasions and is not a figment of irrational or delusional thought.  I just have not posted the proof  because those are separate issues that I have not addressed yet on ripoff report and are not directly relevant to centurylink.

second a monopoly is a total control for services in a category.  in this case centurylink/qwest has total control of the phone DSL service in my area THERE ARE NO OTHER PROVIDERS.     Satellite will NOT WORK ON BUILDING TOWER!  Building is physically NOT BUILT for it. (NO PLACE TO MOUNT SATELLITE. So petitioning would be irelevant  and has nothing to do with the complaint.  Besides it subject to frequent interruptions from bad weather or solar storms,  I can't afford down time in an emergency)     cable internet is NOT in same league either.


Now for the main reason for the report to begin with is the shady illegal practice of fundamentally altering terms of use WITHOUT PROPER NOTIFICATION IN ADVANCE.

This method of changing terms of use and only notifying consumers LONG AFTER THE CHANGE ACTUALLY GOES IN EFFECT IS ILLEGAL.   It is ant-trust and anti-fair business practice.

I have a reasonable expectation to expect companies in this case century link to notify me in writing of any changes to the terms of use ESPECIALLY CHANGES THAT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE at least 1 month before changes takes place so i can have the option to take my greivences to the business or find an alternative.. 

Since I have been forcefully bound to the new terms of use in the manor of NOT BEING NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE  I can not dispute it with centurylink outside of the arbitration process and in doing so because it is policy issue and not monetary damages I would have to PAY ALL EXPENSES RELATED TO THE ARBITRATION.   and I could not join class actions which is the proper method of disputing a consumer base wide abuse. 
THIS DESTROYS CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS.

The "get a life"  is given by someone who truly does not understand the legal implication of this report. Nor does this person understand what legal rights is being blocked in the manor of which centurylink had changed and implemented the NEW terms of use.

If I had a legit alternative to centurylink   that could provide a DSL PHONE-LINE SERVICE   I would have changed already without resorting to ripoff report site.

a different category of broadband  service is NOT  competition in that it is comparing apples to eggs they are both "food" BUT one is meat the other is fruit.

cable internet  and DSL phone-line is both broadband BUT  cable is shared with other in neighborhood and PHONE-LINE DSL is you alone.

In other words their service is so fundamentally different    they are not considered real competitors.
 
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Monopoly.html
point of monopoly link is to show that when ONE has control they set what ever price or in this case TERMS   they choose that will cause  profit increases.  In this case forcing arbitration directly affects profit margin by reducing payout for wrong doing.      like blocking class action for selling private information on customers especially those that have paid to keep the info private.

They gained profit 2 fold here by selling the info then blocking payout for wrong doing through arbitration.

What I find appalling is when people post and attack me as a person when I have a legit grievance accusing me of all this crap and that I don't understand things and etc so as to discredit my complaint,  against a major company,  and others that are doing similar practices in wells fargo case did not send official letter till middle of February 2012 when the new arbitration was back in previous September 2011.

I switched banks in that the new bank had same services without the arbitration clause  but wells fargo notifying me  5 months after the fact and not the month before  is illegal  I intend to nail them in a different report just haven't gotten around to it.

I want to point out to the person rebutting me that the reason I said centurylink was a monopoly was in reference to one that had already been broken up for doing what centurylink is currently doing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System       in this case there are only TWO that provide the same service, comcast and Centurylink.   depending on where service is   whether they completely overlap or are pieced meal so as not to provide overlap   determines if a monopoly is occurring.

in my case this area is not covered by comcast so only centurylink is available. Monopoly.

back to "get a life"  That is exactly what I am trying to do by getting access to VITAL services  Through fair trade  for said services  and not having things forced down my throat in an illegal manor of forceful binding via lack of or improper notification of changes. or monopoly or other illegal/shady business practices.

I have fundamental consumer protection rights and constitutional rights That I expect to be held up.

As far as the other person rebutting me, Wouldn't you be upset? Of say the medical institution decided to forcefully bind you to arbitration in an illegal manor then turn around and sell your private medical information to prospective employers that could potentially cost you the chance of being hired?  Or say netflix sold your private user habits on every and all movies and how often you watched movies to potential employers that then decided based on your movie choices that you are unfit for the job,  but you can't do anything about it because netflix forcefully bound you to arbitration? (netflix one is based on reality, there is class action against netflix for selling the user habits to third parties. when expressively stating in privacy statement that they would not do such a thing.))  Don't you have reasonable expectation that information would be kept private?    

I am not sure you are understanding what I was getting at in the original post report.

My grief is corporations in this case Centurylink using it Monopoly to illegally  bully consumers in NON fair business practices to be bound to terms of use that GUTS consumer protections, especially of vital services that would otherwise block my ability to communicate with the outside world  doing things like setting up doctors appointments, calling emergency services or finding information on issues that are of an emergency nature etc. as far as the other person rebutting me  don't attack me  personally in that that is NOT a rebuttal, either you were not paying attention to what I was saying or you have serious comprehension issues.

You do not know me  to qualify attacking my character.  Other reason for the Sig  "Disabled american Citizen" was to point out that because of societies exclusion of disabled   I do not have the same level of accesses (or inclusion)as so called normal people.    IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING TREATED SPECIAL.  Who ever you are have no IDEA what life is really like for the disabled citizens in the USA.  So stop accusing me of things that i am not or actions I have not done. 

All I want is JUSTICE for those who have been wronged .

In this case because of the way centurylink had illegally forcefully bound its internet users to new terms without proper notification . As compensation   to have the arbitration clause removed from the terms of use and ban from using any new arbitration clauses for total of 5 years. If they decide to do any more changes to the terms of use or  (re-include the arbitration at the end of the 5 year mark),  they are to notify by letter AND email of customers choice  AND by a phone call (customers # of choice) that requires a certain number pushed on receiving end to verify of actual receipt of said call.    This will prevent centurylink from using shady/illegal methods of "FORCEFULLY" binding customers to "unfair terms of use."
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#15 Consumer Comment

What does "DISABLED AMERICAN CITIZEN" have to do with anything?

AUTHOR: Ken - (USA)

Would you have treated you differently if you weren't disabled?  If so, how did they know you are disabled so that they can discriminate against you?

"I want to keep my options open for class actions regarding this issue. "
Good for you, you'll help some lawyers get millions and the class members will each get a coupon good for a free, small order of fries from McDonalds....very astute of you.

"..most recent reading of it couple of days ago now does. Well back in 8-11 apparently Centurylink CHANGE THE USER AGREEMENT FOR INTERNET DSL. I discovered this in march 2012. I was never informed in anyway that major changes were made to the user agreement that would fundamentally strip any and all consumer protection rights I had. When A change takes place, if you are still with them 1 month after date of change you are bound to the new agreement regardless of knowledge of the change. May I remind you centurylink NEVER contacted me of this fundamental change, thus I could not make an informed decision on what to do about it. This I view as deceptive and criminal business practice."
Yes, they did notify you of this, read ALL your mail, not just some things.
Have you reported this "deceptive, criminal" practice to the PUC, or equivalent in your state?
What did they say?

"Not to mention I have heard stories of other users on said connection eve-dropping on others in their groups."
Who did you hear these stories from?  Or is this just something else you made up?
Eaves dropping, on what, by who?

" Centurylink has gone so far as to BURY the arbitration clause on page 16 of 17 pages Also they have made it impossible to copy paste the arbitration clause. They make claim of copyright to justify denying the ability to prevent section copy/paste. I thought "terms of use" itself CAN'T be copyrighted because it is NOT an "original" work. its describing what can can't be done, that is it. Just like phone books are not allowed to be copyrighted when all it is is a list and description. because centurylink is refusing to let me copy the relevant section of the terms of use on page 16 section 17 for clarification and educational purposes I am forced to give a link to the PDF file with the relevant information "
More bad news for your paranoia, their terms ARE their original work and ARE copyrighted.

Also phone books are copyrighted also...to enforce this, most companies post fake names, numbers in the books to see if they show up elsewhere.

"See in an apartment building your not allowed to have satellite service so only 2 choices is phone line or cable line Cable internet IS NOT IN SAME CLASS AS phone DSL Thus the statement ILLEGAL monopoly. in my area if you want phone line DSL centurylink is only option available."
More (of many) flaws in your "reasoning", the Century Link DSL is NOT a monoply and even if it were, it would NOT be illegal.

Since limitations have been placed on you by your apartment management, get a class action going against them. 
To sum it up, you made up a bunch of "facts" to support your specious arguments.

Get a life. It sounds like you sit around all day feeling sorry for yourself and looking for someone to blame.
There are more unsupportable statements in your sorry post, but I think you get my drift.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory