1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

VZW internal blacklist?

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Breezy, Apr 24, 2004.

  1. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
    news:1082997199.762674@sj-nntpcache-5...
    <snip>
    > I take it you are in the legal business. Does your firm use a sliding
    > scale including taking cases for free in like circumstances? If so,
    > what percentage? and does this cause you to charge the paying
    > clients more?
    >
    > -Quick
    >
    >


    No I work for a public agency. We have lawyers on staff. However many times
    when you encounter the situation you are inquiring about (Sliding fee
    schedules) the law firms make the money on actual work performed and not in
    lending or giving credit. This is clearly not the same as a credit card
    issuer or store.

    Many credit card issuers depend solely on the credit reporting agency and
    the information supplied at time of request from the consumer. When that
    same customer falls on hard times the card and stores now have this addendum
    on the credit agreement that states they can raise your interest rate up
    very high if you fail to make payments to them or your other creditors.
    However I don't see where this is not motivated by nothing but greed.

    I once had a credit card with a fixed 9% and when the card company was taken
    over by another card company they sent a letter stating that all rates will
    now be 12% and I called and pointed out via one of the agency attorneys that
    I had a legal and binding contract and when they bought out the other they
    had no legal right to raise my interest rates.

    They lowered it back to 9% for awhile and then they found out how to raise
    them legally and I called and canceled the card and paid it off at 9%. Which
    I was told I could do. It is the credit issuers that are really causing
    these defaults and its due to greed. Take into consideration that checking
    and savings accounts are giving 1-4% for interest on your money but they are
    charging 23-35% for credit cards. Makes you wonder huh?

    Elector
     



    › See More: VZW internal blacklist?
  2. Quick

    Quick Guest

    Elector wrote:
    > "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
    > news:1082997199.762674@sj-nntpcache-5...
    > <snip>
    >
    > No I work for a public agency. We have lawyers on staff. However many
    > times when you encounter the situation you are inquiring about
    > (Sliding fee schedules) the law firms make the money on actual work
    > performed and not in lending or giving credit. This is clearly not
    > the same as a credit card issuer or store.


    True, but I think some analogies can be drawn. You negotiate an
    hourly wage for representation. Some time into the case you lose
    your job and can't pay the agreed upon rate...

    I'm not sure that raising the rate on default is that much of an issue.
    If you can't make the original payments it doesn't matter that the
    subsequent rate is increased. I suspect it's a very small percentage
    that miss or forget a few payments and then cannot handle the
    increased rate. This usually occurs long after people have dug
    themselves past the debt load they can afford. I also think it's
    become more of a practice for people to live on the edge without
    a safety net. Many don't factor in considerations like "what if I
    get laid off in the near future?", "what if I incur significant medical
    expenses?", etc., when deciding to incur significant debt. I believe
    this is part of fiscal responsibility. Rarely is it the case that the
    problem debt was originally incurred due to a necessity.

    I see the rate jack as a deterrent and yes, also a stab at getting
    whats left when it looks like there is a problem. On the other
    hand, many CC issuers will work with you with plans like closing
    your account and letting you pay at a reduced rate over a longer
    period to time. No, it may not completely save your credit rating
    but can save your home and/or declaring bankruptcy.

    >
    > Many credit card issuers depend solely on the credit reporting agency
    > and the information supplied at time of request from the consumer.
    > When that same customer falls on hard times the card and stores now
    > have this addendum on the credit agreement that states they can raise
    > your interest rate up very high if you fail to make payments to them
    > or your other creditors. However I don't see where this is not
    > motivated by nothing but greed.


    See above. It's in the agreement and there is no excuse for
    not *considering* it prior to incuring a debt.

    > They lowered it back to 9% for awhile and then they found out how to
    > raise them legally and I called and canceled the card and paid it off
    > at 9%.


    Yes, I've often been notified that the rate would be changing and given
    the option to continue and accept the new rate or quit using the account
    and pay off the existing balance under the original terms. Seems fair to
    me.

    > Which I was told I could do. It is the credit issuers that are
    > really causing these defaults and its due to greed. Take into
    > consideration that checking and savings accounts are giving 1-4% for
    > interest on your money but they are charging 23-35% for credit cards.
    > Makes you wonder huh?


    About what? That a business is making a profit? Do you feel that
    businesses should have a profit cap imposed upon them? Yes, there
    are usury(sp?) laws but this is out in the open and apparently legal.
    Yes, some of the marketing and teasers are aimed at the uninformed
    but McDonalds does some of the same right?

    You seem to be equating the lenders to drug dealers offering the
    "first ones are free" to get the unsuspecting hooked on credit.

    -Quick
     
  3. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:eA5jc.105128$M3.34502@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >


    > >
    > >

    >
    > Scott, I have empathy for folks that cannot pay their bills for one
    > reason or another. I don't think anyone wants to fall behind. Lets
    > also understand that the credit lenders are a good part of the blame
    > here.


    And I understand that people do come into hard times- been there, done that.
    It wasn't my creditors' fault- I failed to live up to my end of the bargain.
    And those that took time to make whole showed up on my credit report. I
    paid a price for this, and don't blame anyone but myself- I overextended.

    >
    > The poor consumer has to have the latest TV or car or Home or home
    > appliance and the lenders let the consumer have it since its good for
    > the economy.


    No- the poor consumer WANTS the latest new things, and will live beyond
    their means to get it. There is no 'has to have'. Those that "have to
    have" the latest are more concerned with image than finances.

    >Jobs and people being happy create more credit and more
    > need for those goods.


    I still contend that 'need' and 'desire' are not the same thing.

    >Although I did not take this course in college I
    > am sure there is a real name for what is happening. Then all of a
    > sudden Japan, China and other countries can make these goods better,
    > folks lose their jobs, cannot afford their rent, their credit card
    > bills are not paid or late in paying (Then you get the interest rate
    > increased for being late, oh not just that card but now all the
    > companies want to do it) resulting in defaults. Defaults result in
    > higher rates for credit and more of credit guideline to obtain credit.
    > Cause and effect.


    Which is a perfect reason why people should try to live within their means.
    A new car is not a necessity when a used car at less than half the price
    will function just as well. And when people don't live within their means,
    there are consequences that occur when the whole house of cards come
    tumbling down. People need to accept these consequences. Bankruptcy does
    not wipe out the actions that created it, only the debt. And with the
    numbers going higher and higher every year, there is going to be a growing
    reluctance by any company to treat someone with a bankruptcy the same as
    they would a high credit score customer, and they are going to look at past
    financial performance closer than they have in the past. If you have had
    problems in the past, they are going to come back to haunt you- they did for
    me for quite a while.

    >
    > In bankruptcy cases the number one reason was listed economic loss due
    > to job, home, marriage or even medical bills. All of which can happen
    > to anyone of us.
    > But when a person tries to get back on their feet the list of credit
    > grantors are small and predatory in nature. 40% in interest, even loan
    > sharks don't go that high.
    > My father always said that its the defaults that cause the higher
    > rates and make it harder for new credit to be granted. That may be
    > true but have some understanding in why these events happen. Oh and I
    > believe $1,000.00 on each account is outlandish.


    Your father was right, and I don't mean to sound as cold as all of this
    comes across. There are a few things to consider here- the last time I
    looked, Verizon's bad debt writeoff was a significant portion of revenue,
    and not in line with many other carriers. Maybe they have tightened up
    their postpay requirements. But from a business perspective, how many times
    do they have to get burned before they take action to prevent it?
     
  4. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
    news:1083006231.47526@sj-nntpcache-3...
    > Elector wrote:
    > > "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1082997199.762674@sj-nntpcache-5...
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > > No I work for a public agency. We have lawyers on staff. However

    many
    > > times when you encounter the situation you are inquiring about
    > > (Sliding fee schedules) the law firms make the money on actual

    work
    > > performed and not in lending or giving credit. This is clearly not
    > > the same as a credit card issuer or store.

    >
    > True, but I think some analogies can be drawn. You negotiate an
    > hourly wage for representation. Some time into the case you lose
    > your job and can't pay the agreed upon rate...
    >


    [See 1 Below]

    > I'm not sure that raising the rate on default is that much of an

    issue.
    > If you can't make the original payments it doesn't matter that the
    > subsequent rate is increased. I suspect it's a very small

    percentage
    > that miss or forget a few payments and then cannot handle the
    > increased rate. This usually occurs long after people have dug
    > themselves past the debt load they can afford. I also think it's
    > become more of a practice for people to live on the edge without
    > a safety net. Many don't factor in considerations like "what if I
    > get laid off in the near future?", "what if I incur significant

    medical
    > expenses?", etc., when deciding to incur significant debt. I believe
    > this is part of fiscal responsibility. Rarely is it the case that

    the
    > problem debt was originally incurred due to a necessity.
    >


    [See 2 Below]

    > I see the rate jack as a deterrent and yes, also a stab at getting
    > whats left when it looks like there is a problem. On the other
    > hand, many CC issuers will work with you with plans like closing
    > your account and letting you pay at a reduced rate over a longer
    > period to time. No, it may not completely save your credit rating
    > but can save your home and/or declaring bankruptcy.
    >
    > >
    > > Many credit card issuers depend solely on the credit reporting

    agency
    > > and the information supplied at time of request from the consumer.
    > > When that same customer falls on hard times the card and stores

    now
    > > have this addendum on the credit agreement that states they can

    raise
    > > your interest rate up very high if you fail to make payments to

    them
    > > or your other creditors. However I don't see where this is not
    > > motivated by nothing but greed.

    >
    > See above. It's in the agreement and there is no excuse for
    > not *considering* it prior to incuring a debt.
    >


    [See 2 Below]

    <snip>
    > > Which I was told I could do. It is the credit issuers that are
    > > really causing these defaults and its due to greed. Take into
    > > consideration that checking and savings accounts are giving 1-4%

    for
    > > interest on your money but they are charging 23-35% for credit

    cards.
    > > Makes you wonder huh?

    >
    > About what? That a business is making a profit? Do you feel that
    > businesses should have a profit cap imposed upon them? Yes, there
    > are usury(sp?) laws but this is out in the open and apparently

    legal.
    > Yes, some of the marketing and teasers are aimed at the uninformed
    > but McDonalds does some of the same right?
    >

    [See 3 below]

    > You seem to be equating the lenders to drug dealers offering the
    > "first ones are free" to get the unsuspecting hooked on credit.
    >
    > -Quick
    >
    >


    [1] If you were to make an agreement for fees paid for services this
    is not the same as fees paid for extension of credit and as such is
    not for this discussion. If you lets say pay your attorney or your
    contractor and then run out of money. When the money ends the service
    of legal advice and your home being built ends.

    [2] In a consumer retail contract for credit the conditions are
    spelled out. If you default the costs to you for collection are borne
    by you. They can ask for the cards back, they can sue you etc. etc.
    etc. all which are clearly spelled out. So there are no surprises.
    Bankruptcy is a means for an end. Many bankruptcy judges comment when
    they issue a relief judgment that when creditor make noises they
    usually get no sympathy from those judges. In stead they get you
    caused your own problems via the continued extension of credit, giving
    a higher limit, making deals for their payments etc. It is borne by
    many a release. The creditors also like to try and get any money they
    can by any means. Look at the poor family man that had hardship and
    tries to work things out and stay afloat the card company then goes on
    a collection frenzy. Your other creditors join in because they see you
    heading down the river, add more grief on the guy or gal that is
    trying to pay the debt and wham now they are in Bankruptcy Chapter 7.
    And the cycle starts all over again.

    [3] If its ok to have the banks and lenders making these huge profits
    then why is it not ok to give higher interest rates for the use of the
    depositors money? The federal reserve lowered interest rates and yet
    banks and credit lenders are raising these very same rates because of
    greed. And yeah it would be like a drug dealer since they give you a
    taste then give you more and more until your at the edge and
    wham..Look what happens. In the cell phone department the costs
    associated in defaults is mainly in fraud and theft loses. If you owe
    a $40 cell phone invoice for a gazillion free minutes plus long
    distance included the choice is to simply turn off the phone and lose
    $40 and not $40,000.00 from a customer. And how many customers owe
    huge amounts?

    Scott I noticed your reply and in many cases folks in or out of a
    bankruptcy are also good candidates for credit since they cannot use
    that protection for many a years and the credit lenders know it. So I
    don't feel sorry for them.

    Elector
     
  5. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:aIqjc.27487$X14.15380@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

    >
    > Scott I noticed your reply and in many cases folks in or out of a
    > bankruptcy are also good candidates for credit since they cannot use
    > that protection for many a years and the credit lenders know it. So I
    > don't feel sorry for them.
    >


    I'm sorry- any failure to allow bills to go to the point where they and up
    on a credit report shows a disregard for complete financial responsibility.
    By this, I mean that in times of hard luck, the first types of bills that
    people choose not to pay are usually the luxury credit items, which are the
    same type you are talking about trying to get again. Yes- in some cases,
    there are legitimate reasons for this to happen. However, these represent a
    small portion of cases, and the lender has no way to verify why the debt
    wasn't paid- it just wasn't paid. And there is no guarantee to the lender
    that these legitimate reasons might not reoccur. Can you guarantee that you
    won't lose your job again, get sick again, get divorced again?

    In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit card on
    a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon. You
    can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit risk-
    they've already been burned once.
     
  6. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:EKCdnfQViafBjhLdRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
    <snip>
    >
    > In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit

    card on
    > a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon.

    You
    > can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit

    risk-
    > they've already been burned once.
    >
    >


    Scott, were not talking about credit of mine. I have great credit. The
    thread was started by a guy named Breezy. It is still going on in
    another thread.
    What I pointed out was that circumstance of economic loss and other
    factors can and will cause good folks to have difficulty in making
    their payments, the credit industry is just as much to blame as the
    consumer.

    I have been a customer of Verizon and Cellular one from they day they
    opened their doors. Never missed a payment. Then again if odd chance
    was to befall me then hey the company can do what they want. But, not
    as a wilily nilly as trying to collect a debt past its legal limits.
    (Which is what the original poster was talking about)

    Elector
     
  7. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:EKCdnfQViafBjhLdRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
    <snip>
    > In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit

    card on
    > a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon.

    You
    > can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit

    risk-
    > they've already been burned once.
    >
    >

    [Please remember to get whom is speaking/posting to the correct
    poster]

    Path:
    twister.nyroc.rr.com!news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn52fe
    ed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s51.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: "Breezy" <suziq4you2@yahoo.com>
    Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon
    Subject: VZW internal blacklist?
    Lines: 14
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
    Message-ID: <V8zic.21659$aQ6.1320120@attbi_s51>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.218.224.212
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
    X-Trace: attbi_s51 1082834613 24.218.224.212 (Sat, 24 Apr 2004
    19:23:33 GMT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:23:33 GMT
    Organization: Comcast Online
    Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:23:33 GMT
    Xref: news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com alt.cellular.verizon:153832

    Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who
    owe
    money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services?

    I think my freind is getting the big ($1000) deposit excuse, because
    of an
    old unpaid house phone bill.

    VZW is say its his credit but we've gone over it and it's not that
    bad. He
    has Gotten a mortgage, car loan, credit cards and other credit with
    the bad
    credit VZW is talking about. Yesterday He applied for and got approval
    for
    credit at Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint, without a deposit.

    I am realy curious about this.






    [My first reply which was to your posting to Breezy]


    Path:
    twister.nyroc.rr.com!news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com!news-out.nyroc.rr.com!twist
    er.nyroc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
    From: "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com>
    Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon
    References: <V8zic.21659$aQ6.1320120@attbi_s51>
    <rYWdnTnew_SUVhfdRVn_iw@adelphia.com>
    Subject: Re: VZW internal blacklist?
    Lines: 32
    Organization: Spam & Kook Killers Are Us
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
    Message-ID: <ILOic.96410$M3.73501@twister.nyroc.rr.com>
    Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:08:56 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.195.48.51
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
    X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1082898536 24.195.48.51 (Sun, 25 Apr
    2004 09:08:56 EDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:08:56 EDT
    Xref: news-rtr.nyroc.rr.com alt.cellular.verizon:153875


    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:rYWdnTnew_SUVhfdRVn_iw@adelphia.com...
    <snip>
    > I would imagine they do. And unlike the credit bureaus, they can

    keep these
    > records and pursue the balance for as long as they like.
    >
    >


    No they are bound by the same statute of limitations on the
    collections of debts depending on your state of residence. Most are 6
    years and only the original creditor can initiate the collections in
    that time frame. They must show diligence in trying to collect and if
    they let it sit for over that time they can get scratch.

    I had a friend at work that left an apartment and never got the
    electric bill from his last month at the old place sent to the new
    address even though he had gas and electric at it. What the gas
    company did was turn it over to their lawyers and they got a judgment
    which is good for 10 years, even though he never knew it until he
    bought his home and then since the ten years were not up or not
    renewed he was forced to pay the original bill plus interest. He paid
    almost $1,300.00 for $200 bill owed. (Lawyers fees were tacked on and
    poundage etc.) he was livid.

    The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do
    squat unless they tried to collect within that time span.

    Elector
     
  8. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:BOLjc.121125$M3.70850@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:EKCdnfQViafBjhLdRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
    > <snip>
    > > In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit

    > card on
    > > a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon.

    > You
    > > can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit

    > risk-
    > > they've already been burned once.
    > >
    > >

    > [Please remember to get whom is speaking/posting to the correct
    > poster]
    >

    <snip>

    You are totally right- I'd blame my error on old age, but am not willing to
    admit to that yet. Please accept my deepest apologies.

    >
    > The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do
    > squat unless they tried to collect within that time span.
    >


    No- they can choose not to provide service to you a second time. They are
    under no obligation to provide service to everyone, and as long as they are
    consistent in their application of the policy, not in violation of any fair
    trade laws.
     
  9. Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    >> The company can keep the internal record of the amount owed but can do
    >> squat unless they tried to collect within that time span.
    >>

    >
    > No- they can choose not to provide service to you a second time. They are
    > under no obligation to provide service to everyone, and as long as they are
    > consistent in their application of the policy, not in violation of any fair
    > trade laws.


    Actually, I think you're both right. Elector seems to know the NYS laws
    pretty well, so I am assuming he's right. BUT he's talking about collections
    activity. You're saying the company is under no obligation to extended credit
    a second time, and you're right, but you're both right about different things.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  10. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:8GLjc.120944$M3.65493@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:EKCdnfQViafBjhLdRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
    > <snip>
    > >
    > > In this thread and another, you have mentioned both an unpaid credit

    > card on
    > > a credit report, and an apparent old, unpaid obligation to Verizon.

    > You
    > > can't question Verizon's reluctance to treat it as a good credit

    > risk-
    > > they've already been burned once.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Scott, were not talking about credit of mine. I have great credit. The
    > thread was started by a guy named Breezy. It is still going on in
    > another thread.
    > What I pointed out was that circumstance of economic loss and other
    > factors can and will cause good folks to have difficulty in making
    > their payments, the credit industry is just as much to blame as the
    > consumer.


    You're right and I screwed up- I'm sorry I got you confused. Nothing in
    your posts indicates bad credit on your part, and now that my brain fart is
    over, I don't want to imply otherwise.

    >
    > I have been a customer of Verizon and Cellular one from they day they
    > opened their doors. Never missed a payment. Then again if odd chance
    > was to befall me then hey the company can do what they want. But, not
    > as a wilily nilly as trying to collect a debt past its legal limits.
    > (Which is what the original poster was talking about)
    >


    The OP was not stating that Verizon was trying to collect the old debt.
    They were stating that VZ was asking for a high deposit on a new account,
    which may be the result of an old account that was never paid in full. I am
    in total agreement with you that once the time limit has expired, no company
    has the right to collect that debt. But I believe they are well within
    their rights to protect themselves with new accounts based on previous
    internal payment history, no matter how old.

    It looks like we really got our wires crossed on this one- shall we try
    again with a clean slate?
     
  11. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:xO6dnVWMXty-vg3dRVn-tA@adelphia.com...
    > It looks like we really got our wires crossed on this one- shall we

    try
    > again with a clean slate?
    >
    >


    No Problem.. :)

    Elector
     
  12. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:jsydnVC3b8fzvA3dRVn-vw@adelphia.com...
    <snip>
    > No- they can choose not to provide service to you a second time. They are
    > under no obligation to provide service to everyone, and as long as they

    are
    > consistent in their application of the policy, not in violation of any

    fair
    > trade laws.
    >
    >


    The utilities are under the Public Service Commission in New York State, it
    is their guidelines and regulations that the companies are under. In the
    case of the gas company or electric company or even the telephone company
    (landline) they MUST provide service even if you owe them money. It the law.

    However the wireless segment of the telephone company may not be under the
    public service commission rules and regs. I will look in McKinney's laws
    this afternoon if I get the chance. If they are for sake of discussion then
    any internal black list would be "illegal" and non-enforceable outside of
    the regular collection laws which are in place. A good analogy of this would
    be a consumer gets a Chapter 7 and the company although forbidden by federal
    law cannot collect the debt later notes that you once owed it and now
    refuses service. The company is now in violation of not only federal statute
    but state law as well.

    That is why I am assuming here that any sort of internal black list would be
    highly suspicious as to being enforceable. Remember a few years ago those
    stupid commercials were this lady was cut off while talking on her home
    phone and the ad states " Get a new connection and keep your existing number
    even if you owe money to the phone company" I wish I could remember that
    company.

    Elector
     
  13. "Elector" <elector@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:f36kc.39626$2v.2694@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
    >


    > >
    > >

    >
    > The utilities are under the Public Service Commission in New York State,

    it
    > is their guidelines and regulations that the companies are under. In the
    > case of the gas company or electric company or even the telephone company
    > (landline) they MUST provide service even if you owe them money. It the

    law.

    True, but we are not dealing with a utility- at least not yet. It wouldn't
    surprise me to see cellular added to the list at some point.

    >
    > However the wireless segment of the telephone company may not be under the
    > public service commission rules and regs. I will look in McKinney's laws
    > this afternoon if I get the chance. If they are for sake of discussion

    then
    > any internal black list would be "illegal" and non-enforceable outside of
    > the regular collection laws which are in place. A good analogy of this

    would
    > be a consumer gets a Chapter 7 and the company although forbidden by

    federal
    > law cannot collect the debt later notes that you once owed it and now
    > refuses service. The company is now in violation of not only federal

    statute
    > but state law as well.


    If all of your statements apply to utilities under the control of the PSC, I
    agree. However, I don't think the same logic or analogy can be applied to
    those not under the regulation of the PSC. Another analogy would be that I
    own a business and you do business with me to the tune of $1000, which is
    ultimately wiped out through bankruptcy. Ten years later, you come to me
    again and ask for my services. I remember our previous relationship and
    decide you are not the type of customer I want to do business with. I would
    be within my rights in using my personal 'blacklist' to determine who I want
    to do business with- is it any different?

    >
    > That is why I am assuming here that any sort of internal black list would

    be
    > highly suspicious as to being enforceable. Remember a few years ago those
    > stupid commercials were this lady was cut off while talking on her home
    > phone and the ad states " Get a new connection and keep your existing

    number
    > even if you owe money to the phone company" I wish I could remember that
    > company.
    >


    But remember one thing- in this case, the OP is not stating that they are
    being refused service. Instead, VZ is asking for a very high deposit,and is
    willing to do business once the deposit requirement is met. If the internal
    list is used to not deny service, but determine the terms of new service,
    I'm not sure they are out of bounds in any way.
     
  14. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:SIKdnVRKD_-xHAzdRVn-jA@adelphia.com...
    <snip>
    > But remember one thing- in this case, the OP is not stating that

    they are
    > being refused service. Instead, VZ is asking for a very high

    deposit,and is
    > willing to do business once the deposit requirement is met. If the

    internal
    > list is used to not deny service, but determine the terms of new

    service,
    > I'm not sure they are out of bounds in any way.
    >
    >


    Scott very true, in as much the original debt (the $1000.00 analogy)
    was owed to you and is no longer collectable you would be right to
    refuse service. In the telephone company and other utilities again
    they cannot ask for certain things and must give service. And in that
    you are also correct. As if they are a utility. And not a private
    company.

    I was looking at McKinney's today and could not find any laws relating
    to deposits other than the land line companies that must pay interest
    and must give back within 6 months etc. I also found something to the
    effect that "utilities" may not discriminate against a customer in
    securing service due to any income deriving from public assistance,
    disability or social security, or where it can be established via
    gender or marital status or sexual orientation. Then again it was
    numerous in the information that it kept directing me to other volumes
    such as General Business Obligations, CPLR, Public Utilities etc. I
    would have to be a lawyer to figure it all out. ha ha

    Elector
     
  15. Arnold S

    Arnold S Guest

    Well, if you want to call it a blacklist, I guess you can. All the
    credit dept has to do is type in your Social Security number, and your
    info comes up if you had an account with them in the past. Your past
    performance is taken into account if you apply for a new account. If
    you haven't had an account with them, they just go off data from
    credit bureaus (Experian is the main one they use). People with no
    credit history at all are usually asked for a $400 deposit. To be
    asked for a $1000 deposit, you must have either stiffed them in the
    past, or your credit bureau history is bad (worse than your friend has
    told you.)


    "Breezy" <suziq4you2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<V8zic.21659$aQ6.1320120@attbi_s51>...
    > Does anyone know if VZW maintains an internal blacklist of people who owe
    > money to Verizon (land line) or Verizon Busness Services?
    >
    > I think my freind is getting the big ($1000) deposit excuse, because of an
    > old unpaid house phone bill.
    >
    > VZW is say its his credit but we've gone over it and it's not that bad. He
    > has Gotten a mortgage, car loan, credit cards and other credit with the bad
    > credit VZW is talking about. Yesterday He applied for and got approval for
    > credit at Cingular, T-Mobile and Sprint, without a deposit.
    >
    > I am realy curious about this.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?