Tag: annoyed

Germans are protesting in the streets about the NSA.  Americans are doing nothing.  Why?

OK, yes, I think apathy does play a role.  I think there are a lot of Americans who have their bread and circuses and just don't care about anything else.  I also think there are a lot of Americans who think, "This only affects bad guys" and haven't studied enough history to realize why that is a dangerous assumption.

But for me, and I think many others, it's not apathy.  I care.  I care a great deal about the usurpation of civil rights that has occurred in this country since the end of 2001.  And not just the loss of civil rights but the abandonment of any moral high ground we may have held on the international stage.

I haven't flown since 2010 and I won't fly until the TSA is reigned in and passengers are treated with some modicum of respect and aren't assumed to be terrorists.  I wrote to all the airlines explaining why I would no longer be a customer.  They didn't seem to care.

I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats (if possible).  I vote for, and donate money to, third-party candidates.  They never win.

I donate money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.  They file lawsuits that get thrown out of court because "National Security" which apparently also means "end of discussion."

I've written actual paper letters to my Congressional representatives and the President with my positions.  The only response is a form letter with no indication anyone bothered to read the message.

So I promise it's not apathy.  I previously wrote about Outrage Fatigue and what follows fatigue is despair.  I think for those of us that do care, our lack of action is mainly due to despair.

What can we honestly do as average citizens that will make any difference?

I may despair in what I can do next to help fix things, but I'm not without hope.  I think we are making a difference, though slow.  And I think we will eventually rein in the egregious abuses we've seen.

I think, or at least hope, we'll look back on 2001-2020 the same way we look at 1950-1956 and the abuses that were McCarthyism.

Then the important question will be: what can we do to prevent it from happening again?

I realize this isn't very democratic of me, but honestly, I'm just tired of being outraged.

I was outraged when 455 members of Congress and President Bush passed the PATRIOT Act and signed it into law at the end of October 2001.

I was outraged when, despite the world's largest anti-war demonstrations, and based on a series of falsified information, Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003.

I was outraged when Bush was caught illegally authorizing warrant-less wiretapping from 2002-2005.

I was outraged when, in response, Congress (including then-Senator Barack Obama, despite having campaigned against it) simply passed a new law stating that warrants weren't needed for wiretaps so long as someone could say it was somehow related to terrorism.  And stating that everyone involved in the illegal warrant-less wiretapping program would be granted retroactive immunity for their illegal activities.

I was outraged when the TSA decided that it was okay to take and store nude pictures of airline passengers.

I was outraged when the TSA lied over and over and over again about the capabilities and refused to allow any independent organization to examine potential health risks of the scanners.

I was outraged when the TSA decided they would perform highly invasive pat-down procedures in what only appears to be an attempt to discourage people from opting out of the scanners.

I was outraged when the TSA began running checkpoints at bus stations, train stations, and highways.

I was outraged when it was discovered that President Bush had authorized the permanent imprisonment without trial of pretty much anyone the military felt like picking up (including U.S. citizens).

I was outraged when it was discovered that President Bush authorized the use of torture (and here) on prisoners of war and attempted to side-step the Geneva Conventions by calling it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and them "enemy combatants" (including U.S. citizens).

I was outraged when President Obama redefined due process to exclude the Judicial Branch and began assassinating U.S. citizens.

--

So please forgive me when I hear about wide-spread dragnet surveillance of U.S. Citizens and I just can't seem to muster the energy to continue to be outraged.

I've expressed my discontent with the above practices.  I've written letters to my Congressional Representatives and the President.  I've voted for third-party politicians (none of whom win, of course).  And I've donated money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

I've tried to share my opinions in a reasonable and rational way, but it makes no difference when apparently, millions upon millions of people think these programs are a good thing because "I'm a good guy so it won't affect me" and "whatever keeps us safe from terrorists is A-OK."

It also doesn't help that about half the people that also dislike this crap think the best response is to buy more guns, but won't bother to do anything else.  And more than half of those people think electing Republicans is the solution!

Let's not pretend this is a partisan problem.  But if that's too much, at least try to look far enough ahead to realize that any power you allow "your" party to have today will also be wielded by "their" party within 10 years.

Some of you may remember my post from March of last year: Wait. You mean... I... I won?. Turns out I didn't win.

The story then was about calling AT&T to complain about a price increase on my Internet service. By the end of the call I had changed my service agreement to include a phone line and reduce my monthly bill by $5. It didn't make any sense as to how they could add a phone line to my service and reduce my price, but I went with it. To ensure my situation was what I expected, to quote my previous post:

So, she gives me the exact price quote. To be absolutely clear on the matter, I ask directly, "Is this an introductory offer?" - "No." "Is there an activation fee?" - "No." "Will I have the same DSL speeds I have now, 6.0 Mbps down, 768 Kbps up? - "Yes."

It seemed good. I mean, those were the exact words I used and got as answers.

Turns out that Samantha, the CSR of March 2010, straight up lied to me when she answered 2 of those questions. Guess which ones!

I apparently didn't blog it at the time, but that first bill I got with the new service had (can you guess?) a $41.45 activation fee! Way back when, I called and complained and eventually got them to reverse the charge. So that was lie number one from Samantha.

This month we got our bill and I discovered it was $15 higher than it should have been. So I call up to find out what's going on and the CSR, Michelle, tells me that my introductory offer has ended and my price has increased to the regular price. Well, wasn't I surprised since I was explicitly told this was not an introductory price. She, of course, was very sorry, but there was nothing she could do, but she would happily provide me a new introductory offer if I upgraded to a U-verse package. I told her I wasn't interested in that and wanted to know what options I had for adjusting my service.

She transferred me to sales and after 10 minutes on hold Dave picks up. I tell Dave why I'm not happy and that I'm looking for options to adjust my service and reduce the price. He tells me there's not really anything he can do. (Now, I'm signed up with the fastest DSL speed they offer, which is a crappy 6mbs down and 768kbs up, so I know that to reduce my monthly bill he could suggest I drop to a lower service tier.) He says there's not anything he can do, but lets me know about the U-Verse service AT&T is bringing to my neighborhood. He never suggests that I could reduce my bill by lowering service tiers. (I'm not really interested in doing this as the service is marginal at times for Netflix as it is, but it is a possibility.)

So I assert that I'm still very unhappy that I was lied to by the CSR in 2010 and really want to find a solution. He offers a special discount of $10 a month for the next 12 months, so my bill would only be increasing by $5 per month. He tries to sell me on how this is such a great deal. I'm not impressed considering that in Provo I had a 15mbs up/down fiber-optic connection for $39.99 a month for 2 years without a contract and without a single price increase and without any installation fee.

Now, last year before we added the phone line we had just a bare DSL line (known as a dry loop). We were paying ~$40 per month before they tried to raise our price. So I asked Dave what the current options were for a dry loop. He told me they no longer offered dry loops in my area because they were phasing out their DSL service for the new U-verse service which he'd be happy to tell me more about.

I verify with him that he's telling me that bare DSL service is no longer available for me. He says this is the case. So I ask him why AT&T is still advertising dry loop service on their website? And why, when I click on that, it says to call to set up service? He doesn't have an answer.

So then I ask what's going to happen to my current service if they phase out DSL? He says they're grandfathering in existing DSL lines and will still allow you to get DSL if you also get a phone line (for now I suppose). This is rather preposterous to me.

So I ask him, if I were to move in the next few months would I still be able to get my current DSL service at the new location? He says probably not. I'd have to sign up for U-Verse.

Clearly, all signs point to U-verse. Figuring I may as well find out what he had to say on the matter, I asked about it. He tells me that the Internet-only U-verse package to match my current speeds has a ~$140 installation fee, a ~$75 equipment fee, and monthly prices starting at $45. Yah, that sounds like a great deal AT&T, I can't imagine why I wouldn't want to switch.

This is also disregarding the fact that I find it unlikely the apartment complex is going to want AT&T running around drilling holes and running fiber-optic connections all over the place. So it's likely not going to happen here for a while even if I did want it.

So at this point I'm just cranky. They're jacking up my rate (for the third time in the less than 2 years we've lived here) and pushing their overpriced fiber-optic service. But I've apparently managed to stay on the phone long enough to unlock another customer appeasement. Now Dave is willing to give me a $40 credit on this month's bill along with the $10 per month discount (for 12 months). So over the next 12 months I'd only end up paying an extra $20 for my service instead of $180, so I guess we're getting somewhere-ish.

Of course, since the last CSR I worked with blatantly lied to me I don't have much reason to trust what he's saying anyway.

So at this point in the call I pull up Comcast's website because it is the only other Internet service provider in Livermore. Everything I've heard about them in Livermore lives up fully to their having won the award for Worst Company in America 2010. Sadly, their prices are all just as high (surprise!) so even contemplating switching would only, in effect, be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

Out of options and needing to get back to work I agree to the $40 credit and the $10/month discount. But I'm still not happy.

Jess and I have decided we will travel by land for our Christmas travel in order to not be subjected to the invasive, demeaning, and/or cancer-causing security requirements of flying. Luckily my work schedule is such that we can spend the extra time traveling to and from Texas without cutting into the time we planned to actually be there. Regardless, as part of this decision I've been seeking a refund for the tickets we purchased in September.

My opinion is that when I purchased the tickets on September 25 I did so with the understanding that passing through security was required in order to receive the service I paid for (namely, being flown from A to B). At the time there was a security screening option which I considered tolerable. Therefore I accepted that screening requirement as an implied condition of the transaction.

On October 28, more than a full month after my purchase, the TSA changed the requirements of the security process and all the options became intolerable. To me it seems fair to say that the implied condition of my transaction with the airline changed without my consent. Since the terms of our contract changed without my consent I should be entitled to a refund because I reject the new terms of the agreement.

Of course, the Southwest customer service representative didn't agree with my position. While she agreed that passing through security was a requirement to receiving the service I paid for, her position was that because Southwest doesn't control the TSA I wasn't entitled to a refund from Southwest because of something that the TSA did.

I think this is entirely bogus. Southwest's contract of carriage makes no mention of security screening requirements, however I think it's fairly obvious that they must be included in any discussion of the contract as an implied condition—refusing to comply will result in you being denied boarding, being removed from the airport, and potentially being arrested and fined up to $11,000. I've also checked the contracts of carriage for Delta, American Airlines, and US Airways. None of which make mention of requiring conformity with security screening requirements except to say it is the passenger's responsibility to arrive with enough time to undergo any such requirements. JetBlue's, however, explicitly says "Passengers and their baggage are subject to inspection with or without the Passenger's consent or knowledge." So if you fly JetBlue you should be aware that you've agreed to be inspected without your consent or knowledge. Not cool JetBlue.

In contrast. Amtrak's conditions of transportation explicitly state "Passengers failing to consent to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage, and a refund will be offered." So it is clearly not unreasonable to suggest that the carrier should refund the ticket when the passenger refuses to comply with security procedures.

After getting nowhere with the Southwest CSR I asked to speak with a supervisor and was told that she was a supervisor. So I told her I'd be pursuing this further, which she, of course, didn't care about.

[INTERMISSION]

My next step was to log on to my credit card company (Citi Bank)'s website and file a charge dispute. I explained my position, why I felt I was entitled to a refund, and how Southwest responded to my request. As I was about halfway through the form I got a popup suggesting I could chat with a CSR about my dispute. So I did that which got me nowhere. I know why they have that option because they want to nip disputes in the bud when it's someone making a fruitless claim. But I explained to that CSR what my dispute was about and was directed to submit the online dispute form. And I did so.

I've since received notification that the dispute has been supported by Citi Bank which means that they provided a conditional refund on the charge and have sent the dispute to Southwest. So now I'm waiting to hear Southwest's response.

If Southwest denies the refund I'm planning to send what's known as an Executive Email Carpet Bomb. Which is essentially sending an email of complaint to any and all executives for which an email address can be found. This is a fairly popular move with the Consumerist.org website and can be successful when other methods fail.

If that does fail, however, I am fully grumpy enough and ready to take the matter to small claims court. I don't see how anyone could reasonably consider this to amount to anything but a change in the terms of our contract.

The truth of the matter is this:
Southwest: If you buy this ticket, in order to use it you have to be cleared by the TSA.
Me: TSA, what do I have to do to be allowed on the plane?
TSA: You have to do X.
Me: OK.
[33 days later]
TSA: Oh, by the way you now have to do Y to board your plane. We don't allow X anymore.
Me: No way.
Southwest: Too bad, thanks for the money.

So much for the "Southwest Difference."