The fact is times where easier decades ago, despite all this new high tech stuff to make things work better and faster the downfalls has surpassed them to far to keep things at least balanced. The main reason is our financial system and the bank influence on society. My generation was raised to use credit everyday and that having credit is a social status. We where taught that owning a house is a major achievement and that car payments are normal. But before my time around the 60’s and 70’s people where not caught up in these banking strong-arms nearly as bad and where much happier for it. It was o.k. to buy a junky car and it was o.k. to wear older clothes. And using credit was never smart unless you where really desperate. But thanks to good marketing playing on our desperation to be better then that next person, we all will sell our soul for a nicer car or fancy clothes and bling. But the fact is all this fancy stuff is just bait for the banking industries puppet show.

Why is it such a scam why not just use credit and live better?

Look at it this way; for every dollar in principle paid back to credit card companies they average over $2 in interest. That means the average person is paying back $2 for every $1 they borrow. You are on average paying double for every dollar you put on credit even if you think you will pay it off.

Not to mention most credit card companies make most of their money on late and overage fees.

So in total, credit card companies are making over $4 for every $1 they lend on average. That means the average American is paying for times over what a product is when they buy it and some cases are paying much much more. I just got a new free bank account three months ago and I have paid well over $100 in overage fees because I mixed up my saving and personal account when making payments. Stupid yes, but the reality is they are betting you do this and the reality is most people will make these mistakes. banks use to be o.k. if you go a little over especially if it’s a mistake. The banks now would never have such personal service and the reality is that it doesn’t effect them if you go over a little they are punishing you for breaking the rules not to help subsidize their needs for accounts that go over.

Also keep in mind the credit reporting companies. Even if reported by error the credit reporting companies will not remove most things off because simply they are ran by the banks, every business needs credit to compete now-a-days because another company will use credit and so on and so on. The banks know they will make more money if people have a threat to desperately keep their credit good.

The solution is simple only use your debit or bank card. Throw out the credit card and stop worrying about building your credit up. You do not need it and you definably do need the wealthy lifestyle that causes more stress and self centered egotism.

The dream of buying a house is gone, your much better off renting and your even more better off if you can live in a APT community. That will help stop urban sprawl and it’s a ton better for the environment, traffic, and lowering your stress.

But can you break the allure of fake wealth?

Interesting enough, poor people have less stress and are in better relationships, sex, and best of all they can focus on their family and relationships rather then their bills and career they have worked so hard for just to pay off their credit debt.

This is our longest post yet and by far the worst effect a corrupt cooperation has had on the US. This article covers how GM hid electric cars and technology as far back as the 30’s and shows how GM and Good year bought out Los Angeles mass transit and railroads systems to monopolize cars and tires.

There’s an excellent book out titled “Internal Combustion” by the same author — Ernest Black — who wrote about IBM’s complicity in the holocaust (selling tabulating equipment to the nazis.)

In 1947 GM and its executives and many subsidiaries, including Mack Truck, were prosecuted successfully by the US DoJ for conspiracy. They appealed all the way to the USSC, but the case was well-tried and none of the appeals were successful. Still, the public’s attention span being short as it is, this soon disappeared from the headlines and everyone forgot about it until 1973, when the oil shocks from the Arabl embargos began to hit. GM was once again called to account for its systematic destruction of mass-transit in the US. Unfortunately, the congressional investigators going after GM this time charged it with trying to completely destroy mass-transit — a claim GM set about to dispute through a massive PR campaign. They were successful, and once again the public became ignorant
of GM’s crimes.

Good bye, GM. And good riddance. (Long, LONG overdue.)

Did General Motors destroy the LA mass transit system?
January 10, 1986

Dear Cecil:

I’m a big fan of the old Pacific Electric, the sprawling electric railroad known as the “Big Red Cars” that once covered much of southern California. Strangely, when I mention the old PE, many times someone within earshot says something to the effect of, “You know, back when they built the freeways, GM and the oil companies got together and forced them to tear up the tracks.” Cecil, is there any truth to this rumor? If not, why do so many natives believe it?

— Tom R., Los Angeles

— Brought to you by Wiki44 —

Make Solar Panels in 1 Day

Learn how to build inexpensive solar panels and power generators for your own back yard. Save up to 90% on your power bill!

http://www.wiki44.com

Cecil replies:

If you think trashing the LA trolleys was the extent of GM’s alleged crimes, Tom, you ain’t heard nothin’ yet. In 1974 one Bradford Snell, a staff attorney for the U.S. Senate antitrust subcommittee, advanced the startling proposition that GM had (1) sabotaged energy-efficient electric transit systems in 45 cities around the country, including LA, in order to sell more fuel-guzzling buses and autos; (2) forced the railroads to replace nonpolluting electric locomotives with GM-built diesels by threatening to withhold lucrative auto shipments; and, most astonishing of all, (3) treasonously built armaments for the Nazis during World War II through Opel, its German subsidiary. Not surprisingly, Snell’s charges were widely publicized.

Snell lavished particular attention on the case of the Pacific Electric. Though it’s difficult to believe today, Los Angeles once boasted the largest system of “interurbans” (heavy-duty inter-city trolleys) in the U.S., carrying some 80 million passengers a year in the late 1930s. According to Snell, all this went out the window starting in 1939, when GM got together with Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Firestone, and other auto-related firms to set up a holding company that bought up trolley lines, dismantled them, and replaced them with buses. “The noisy, foul-smelling buses turned earlier patrons of the high-speed rail system away from public transit and, in effect, sold millions of private automobiles,” Snell said. “Largely as a result, Los Angeles today is an ecological wasteland.”

In a stinging counterattack, GM argued that Snell’s accusations were off the wall from start to finish. The company said it relinquished day-to-day control of Opel in 1939 following the German invasion of Poland, and severed all relations with the firm when Germany declared war on the U.S. in 1941. It denied trying to strong-arm the railroads, pointing out that an earlier government investigation into the matter had produced nothing. Finally, it said its investments in various transit holding companies were small, that it exercised no managerial control, that many of the PE lines the California holding company bought had already been converted to buses, and that in any case the conversion to buses was part of a nationwide trend that was well under way before GM had made any transit investments at all.

Now, you may or may not believe GM’s professions of innocence concerning the holding company. But most authorities agree that trolleys bit the dust in LA and elsewhere not because of a conspiracy but because they were slow and inconvenient compared to autos, and in the long run just couldn’t compete. Los Angeles is typical in this respect. It has neither the high population density nor the concentrated downtown necessary to support rail transit. The PE, which was owned by the Southern Pacific railroad, made a profit in only 8 of the 42 years it was in business under its own name. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that many PE lines in LA proper operated on city streets, and as more cars crowded those streets, service got progressively slower. (The average speed on the run to Santa Monica was only 13 MPH.)

Buses were looked on as the transit industry’s salvation because they were cheaper to operate and maintain than trolleys, with no tracks or wires. In fact, the PE had begun to convert to buses in 1917, and had changed over 35 percent of its system by 1939. A state commission in the late 30s urged that busification continue, and by the early 1950s most of the tracks were gone. The last line gave up the ghost in 1961. It’s too bad–some think the PE could have been the nucleus of a decent, if heavily subsidized, modern rail system–but blaming GM is like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for war.

— Cecil Adams

TIRE DUST

The automobile did not come to dominate American transportation by chance or by public choice. It happened as part of a plan by auto makers to buy up and destroy mass transit companies. General Motors led the way. As recently as the 1920s, many American cities and towns were connected by a network of electric railroads and interurban trolleys. Within cities, electric street railways, trolleys, and elevated trains, moved large numbers of people easily and cheaply, with minimal congestion and pollution. But steel-wheeled electric/rail mass transit systems did not serve the needs of the automobile manufacturers and their allies in the steel, rubber, glass, concrete, and oil industries.

Beginning in the 1920s, General Motors began investing in mass transit systems. According to historian Marty Jezer (and Congressional hearings held in 1974), between 1920 and 1955, General Motors bought up more than 100 electric mass transit systems in 45 cities, allowed them to deteriorate, and then replaced them with rubber-tired, diesel-powered buses. [1] Buses are more expensive, less efficient, and much dirtier than electric/rail systems. (And of course automobiles are even less efficient than buses, by far.) In 1949, General Motors, Firestone Rubber, and Standard Oil of California were convicted by a federal jury of criminally conspiring to replace electric mass transit with GM-manufactured diesel buses; in a noteworthy illustration of justice for corporations, the court fined GM $5000 and forced H.C. Crossman, the GM executive responsible for carrying out GM’s policy, to pay $1.00.

Cities where GM managed to eliminate electric/rail systems, and replace them with buses and private cars, included New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles.

Many people think of Los Angeles as the original automobile city. However, before GM converted the city to buses and private automobiles, Los Angeles was served by the largest electric/rail mass transit system in the nation. The Pacific Electric Railway ran more than 1000 trains per day over 760 miles of rail lines to such outlying stations as Redlands, Corona, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach and Balboa, carrying light freight as well as passengers. Its last line, to Long Beach, was abandoned in 1961 –the same year the ingredients of smog were first identified in L.A.’s toxic air.

During this same period, GM worked to convert electric-powered commuter railroads to diesel-powered locomotives, which were far more expensive, more complex, and less reliable than electric locomotives, thus requiring more maintenance, and contributing significantly to the demise of the nation’s railroad system. For example, the New York, New Haven, and Hartford line showed a profit during 50 years of operation until 1956, the year it began converting to diesel locomotives; by 1961 it was declared bankrupt and a report by the Interstate Commerce Commission censured GM for contributing to its demise.

We all know some of the consequences of converting the American transportation system from electric/rail to rubber-tired vehicles. The threat of global warming from combustion of fossil-fuels (oil and gasoline) is one part of the problem. Lung cancer from diesel exhaust is another. [2] But recently, another aspect of our transportation system has appeared in scientific and medical literature: serious pollution from rubber tire fragments (tire dust) released by tire wear.

When a rubber tire, bearing the weight of a vehicle, rolls across an asphalt or cement surface, tiny fragments of rubber break off from the tire and become airborne. In the 1970s and early 1980s, scientists working for the rubber tire industry and for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that these tire fragments were too large to enter the human lung and so presented no threat to human health.

However, new research published this year by allergy specialists has reached a different conclusion: these new studies show that about 60% of tire fragments (tire dust) are so small that they can enter the deep portions of the human lung where the latex rubber in the tire dust may cause allergic reactions ranging in severity from rhinitis (runny nose), conjunctivitis (tearful eyes), to hives (urticaria), bronchial asthma, and occasionally even a life-threatening condition called anaphylactic shock. [3] Asthma, and asthma deaths, have increased dramatically during the past 20 years, especially among children, and specialists have been searching in vain for causes. (See RHWN #374.)

Allergy to latex rubber has become more common in recent years, especially among health-care workers who are exposed more or less continuously to latex gloves, tubes, sheets, and other latex-containing products. [4] An estimated 17 million Americans have an allergic reaction to latex. Examination of latex allergy has shown it to be a true allergy; in technical jargon, it is mediated by IgE antibody to proteins that are present in the natural rubber produced from the tropical rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis).

Allergic reactions to tire dust may be increasing for several reasons. The number of tires has increased steadily during the last 20 years; the proportion of latex in tires has been increasing; and tire construction has changed from bias ply to radial. Tire dust from radials is finer and thus more respirable, meaning it enters the deepest part of the human lung more easily.

The human nose and throat filter out airborne particles larger than 10 micrometers in diameter, but about 60% of tire dust is smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter and can thus enter the lungs where it can cause allergic reactions in some people.

In 1974, tire industry scientists estimated that 600,000 metric tonnes (1.3 billion pounds) of tire dust were released by tire wear in the U.S., or about 6.5 pounds (3 kilograms) of dust released from each tire each year. In 1995, there were an estimated 280 million tires in use in the U.S.; [5]if each tire releases 6.5 pounds of dust per year, tire dust released in 1995 would total 1.8 billion pounds. A billion is a thousand million. In Los Angeles alone, at least 5 tons (10,000 pounds) of tire dust are released into the air each day.

Radial tires create a finer, more respirable dust than do bias ply-constructed tires, and the percentage of tires that are radial grew from 2% in 1970 to 95% in 1990, so tire dust released in the 1990s probably enters the lungs more readily than tire dust did in previous decades. Conceivably, this might explain part of the recent increases in asthma in the U.S.

In 1994, careful measurement of air near roadways with moderate traffic revealed the presence of 3800 to 6900 individual tire fragments in each cubic meter of air, more than 58.5% of them in the fully-respirable size range. When these fragments were examined chemically, and by mass spectroscopy, they were shown to contain latex. Furthermore, they were shown to produce allergic reactions, comparable in every way to the allergic reactions caused by dust from a pulverized latex glove. [3]

How might these problems be resolved? Allergic reaction to latex was first described in 1979; after AIDS became a major medical problem, more and more medical workers started wearing latex gloves and latex allergies came to light. Some 7% to 10% of all health care workers now exhibit an allergic reaction to latex.

Recently, latex from a new source, the guayule plant (Parthenium argentatum), which grows well in the southwestern U.S., has been shown to not cause latex allergy in exposed people. [6] Latex from the guayule plant could become a growth industry for American farmers; presently, about seven million tons of latex are produced each year from the tropical rubber tree, Hevea, worldwide.

In the case of rubber tires, the problem is more complex than mere latex allergy, although this may well turn out to be a serious public health problem by itself. The high dollar cost of truck freight, private automobile commuting, and maintenance of our highway infrastructure must be counted as major sacrifices to our rubber-tired transportation system. Furthermore, fine particle air pollution now kills an estimated 60,000 Americans in cities each year. [7] And global warming is a serious threat to many nations from many viewpoints. (See REHW #429, #430.)

However, from the viewpoint of our most important national treasure –our self-governing democracy –the systematic sabotage of the nation’s electric/rail mass transit systems by automobile corporations points up a most serious problem: the ability of “private” corporations to effect sweeping changes in our public life and culture, without public accountability or even debate. If we ever hope to achieve a sustainable environment, and re-establish a fair economy and a working democracy, this is a key problem we will have to acknowledge and address.
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] Marty Jezer, THE DARK AGES; LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1945-1960 (Boston: South End Press, 1982), pgs. 138-146.

[2] See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HEALTH ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT FOR DIESEL EMISSIONS [External Review Draft; 2 volumes: EPA/600/8-90/057Ba and EPA/600/8-90/057Bb] (Research Triangle, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December, 1994). And see RHWN #120.

[3] P. Brock Williams and others, “Latex allergen in respirable particulate air pollution,” JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY Vol. 95, No. 1, Part 1 (January 1995), pgs. 88-96. And see: M. Michael Glovsky and others, “Can Latex Allergy be Triggered by Air Pollution?” Abstract presented at Experimental Biology ‘95 in Atlanta, Georgia during April, 1995. Dr. Glovsky’s address: Asthma Center, Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena, CA 91105. Phone: (818) 397-3383; fax: (818) 795-0982. Glovsky’s work is discussed briefly in J. Raloff, “Latex allergies from right out of thin air?” SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 147, No. 16 (April 22, 1995), pg. 244. See also: L.M. Hildemann and others, “Chemical Composition of Emissions from Urban Sources of Fine Organic Aerosol,” ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Vol. 25, No. 4 (1991), pgs. 744-759.

[4] Doris Jaeger and others, “Latex-Specific proteins causing immediate-type cutaneous, nasal, bronchial, and systemic reactions,” JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY Vol. 88, No. 3 (March 1992), pgs. 759-768. And: Gordon L. Sussman and Donald H. Beezhold, “Allergy to Latex Rubber,” ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE Vol. 122, No. 1 (January 1, 1995), pgs. 43-46. And: Denise-Anne Moneret-Vautrin and others, “Prospective study of risk factors in natural rubber latex hypersensitivity,” JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY Vol. 82, No. 5 (November 1993), pgs. 668-677.

[5] Tire use in 1995 is a projection based on trends from 1970-1990 shown in: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 1990 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990), Table 1027; and Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992), Table 1000.

[6] Richard Lipkin, “No-itch latex,” SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 147, No. 16 (April 22, 1995), pg. 254.

[7] C. Arden Pope III and others, “Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults,” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Vol. 151, No. 3 (March 1995), pgs. 669-674. See also RHWN #373.

Descriptor terms: automobiles; transportation systems; general motors; mass transit; railroads; trolleys; electric street railways; firestone rubber; gm; standard oil of california; new york; philadelphia; baltimore; st. louis; oakland; salt lake city; los angeles; pacific electric railway; diesel; buses; global warming; lung cancer; asthma; allergies; latex allergy; rubber; guayule; air pollution; radial tires; fine particles; bias ply tires;

Scenario 1: You notice a $14.95 charge from a company called “CIC * TripleAdvantage” on your credit card statement. Where did it come from and who are these people?

The answer: You recently visited FreeCreditReport.com to view your credit report. You are now stuck in a credit monitoring service, like millions of people before you.

Scenario 2: You have tried canceling the TripleAdvantage service but the charges continue to show up.

If you fall into either of these scenarios, this article is for you!

You are dealing with a company who has been subject of multiple class action lawsuits, fines by the FTC totaling $1.25 million and over 3,800 complaints with the Better Business Bureau. You were charged for a credit report you could have got free from a different web site.

Don’t become FreeCreditReport.com’s next victim!

Learn how to cancel CIC TripleAdvantage for good. Get every penny back that they took from you. Help bring FreeCreditReport.com to justice.

“Engine cleaning every two years, 30,000 miles is required for the vehicle,” the technician says.

But NBC Los Angeles has heard from customers across the country, who say their engines broke down after having an engine flush.

At the Jiffy Lube we went to on Pico, the technician says the engine flush will prolong the life of the engine on our Honda Accord test car.

An engine flush is where they pour a chemical solvent into your engine, supposedly to flush out old sludge.

When our undercover person asks, “is that something that Honda recommends?” Than technician says, “It requires it every two years, every 30,000 miles.”

That’s not true. Our car’s maintenance schedule says nothing about an engine flush.

“After engine flushes, there’s a pretty high incidence of some damage to the interior of the engine,” Chris Martin of Honda tells NBC Los Angeles.

That’s why Honda issued a memo to mechanics advising them not to perform engine flushes. Other major car-makers, including Ford, General Motors, and Nissan have all issued similar advisories against the service.

Why? Over time, gummy deposits can build up inside your engine. The chemicals used for engine flush, are supposed to break up those deposits. But car-makers say, pieces of that broken up sediment can clog up other parts of the engine and ruin it.

The car ran perfectly before I took it in that day,” says Pat Marriott. He took his Nissan Sentra to a Jiffy Lube in Kansas City. “They sold me, really sold me hard on an engine flush,” Marriott tells NBC Los Angeles.

He says three days later, on the highway his car broke down and he had to replace his engine for $5000.

That’s because Nissan and other car-makers say damage resulting from engine flushes won’t be covered by your warranty.

At other Jiffy Lube’s, like one on Overland in West Los Angeles, they offered us other services like a fuel injection cleaning. That’s where they put a chemical cleaner into your fuel injectors.

When the NBC Los Angeles undercover person asked the technician, “does Honda recommend that?” He said, “It’s every 15,000 miles or every year, recommended.”

That’s also not true. Honda and other big car-makers say fuel injection cleaning is an improper repair procedure.

“Using the cleaner, using a fuel injection cleaning system can cause harm to other injectors,” Martin tells NBC Los Angeles.

Jiffy Lube isn’t the only major chain recommending services car-makers say could be harmful. It happened to us at EZ Lube.

When our undercover person asked a technician at one of their locations in Silverlake, “Does Honda recommend an engine flush?” He replied, “They recommend… everything I’m telling you. We go by whatever the manufacturer recommends.”

Our undercover person asks him for proof, since EZ Lube’s computer lists all manufacturer recommendations, but there’s no engine flush listed. The undercover employee asks him, “How come they’re not on the computer?” The technician replied, “I don’t know.”

Across town at an EZ Lube near Santa Monica, technicians push a $99 transmission service using a high tech flushing machine.

Our undercover employee asks the technician, “does Honda recommend that it be done with a machine like that?” The technician responds, “Correct. That’s the only way you can do it.”

But Honda’s memo to mechanics clearly says “do not use transmission flushing machines” because of the risks to the car.

All told four out of five Jiffy Lube’s, and five out of five EZ Lube’s pushed services car-makers don’t recommend, but technicians told us the opposite.

We went back to the manager at that Silverlake EZ Lube.

“You said Honda recommends an engine flush. That’s not true. Why did you say that?” NBC Los Angeles Investigative Reporter Joel Grover asked.

“I don’t know,” he replied.

As for those technicians at Jiffy Lube who didn’t tell us the truth, they wouldn’t talk to us on camera and neither would their bosses.

Executives at Jiffy Lube and EZ Lube declined our offer to watch our undercover tape, and do interviews.

But in separate statements, both companies said it was unacceptable for their employees to misrepresent certain services as manufacturer recommendations, when they’re not.

EZ Lube says some of the employees we caught doing this will be terminated.

Jiffy Lube says they’re taking steps to minimize the chance of it occurring again and they want to hear from any unhappy customers.

Jiffy Lube can be reached by phone at 800-344-6933.

EZ Lube can be reached by phone at 800-559-5823 or email info@ezlube.com.

Ryan wanted to order new Comcast service but balked at their request for a Social Security number. When he asked why they needed it, the Comcast chat rep said “The Patriot Act” required it. That doesn’t sound right to us, or to Ryan. His story and full screenshot of the chat, inside…

Ryan writes:

After completing the order procedure on their website I was directed to a live chat window. After waiting about twenty minuets a Analyst joined the chat. She immediately requested I provide my Social security number in order to open a new account. I refused to provide my SSN and asked for details as to why it was required. Her answer is that the Patriot Act requires them to get my Social Security number.As you can see in the transcript I attached, she referred me to their legal department. I actually asked for the phone number five to ten seconds before she closed the chat. But when I viewed the chat transcript it says the chat was closed before I asked. That is a neat trick.

Can what she told me actually be true? …I don’t believe [the Patriot Act] requires me to provide my SSN just to get Internet service.

I think the Comcast rep somehow thinks that Comcast falls under the “Know Your Customer” clause of the Patriot Act. As far as I understand it, that only applies to financial companies or financial intermediaries, neither of which I believe Comcast qualifies as.

Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — The FBI is investigating Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and American International Group Inc. in its probe of the collapse of the subprime-mortgage market, according to a senior law-enforcement official.

Those companies are among 26 being reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for possible accounting misstatements, said the official, who asked to remain unidentified. The investigations are preliminary, the official said late yesterday.

The FBI has come under pressure to hold companies responsible as the loan crisis rocked Wall Street and led to the biggest housing slump since the Depression. Financial companies worldwide have reported more than $500 billion in losses and writedowns stemming from the subprime collapse.

Housing lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as insurer AIG, were all taken over by the government earlier this month. Lehman filed for bankruptcy. The crisis has led the Bush administration to ask Congress to approve a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry.

James Lockhart, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, tossed out both Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s boards and top management, including former Fannie Chief Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron at Freddie, as part of the restructuring.

Freddie Mac spokesman Doug Duvall declined to comment on the FBI investigation. Fannie Mae spokesman Brian Faith wasn’t immediately available for comment. AIG spokesman Nick Ashooh declined to comment as did Mark Lane, a spokesman for Lehman.

SEC Involved

The investigations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were recently opened, said the official. The agency had already been looking into allegations concerning Lehman and AIG.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating the companies for civil violations.

People familiar with the matter have said earlier that other companies under FBI investigation include IndyMac Bancorp Inc. and Countrywide Financial Corp., which has since been bought by Bank of America Corp.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, testifying in Congress last week, pledged to “pursue these cases as far up the corporate chain as necessary to ensure those responsible receive the justice they deserve.”

Record Fine

Fannie and Freddie, as well as AIG, already restated their books earlier this decade and corrected billions of dollars in accounting errors.

Fannie Mae paid a record $400 million fine to the SEC and its regulator in 2006 to settle charges that executives fraudulently used “cookie jar” reserves and other accounting gimmicks to hide $10.3 billion in losses from 2002 through 2004 and maximize bonuses.

Freddie paid $125 million in fines in 2003 and restated earnings from 2000 through 2002 after it replaced long-time auditor Arthur Andersen and discovered errors related to derivatives. Regulators accused the company of manipulating its accounting to push some $5 billion in earnings to future quarters.

Freddie ousted Chief Executive Leland Brendsel in June 2003 and Fannie’s Franklin Raines left in December 2004. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the government-sponsored mortgage companies, seized control of both companies earlier this month after outside examiners found more accounting problems and said their capital cushion was low.

As the largest consumer and small business bank, BofA (NYSE: BAC) can have a major positive or negative impact on the environment. Since March, 2007, the bank has taken on a $20 billion initiative to “encourage environmentally friendly business activity” over the next decade. Applauded by some and criticized by others, just how green is this bank?

Crystalline Tower Office Building in Manhattan
BofA’s new 2.1 million square foot tower is being heralded as the world’s greenest skyscraper. The building features a passive solar design, the use of recycled and renewable materials, and work stations with individual climate controls. Natural elements include the use of rain water and a green roof reduces energy use for heating and cooling.

“First of all, it is the right thing to do for the planet,” said Senior Vice President, John Saclarides, when asked about the greening of the BofA tower. “No. 2 is the corporate responsibility. Bank of America is one of the leading corporations in the world, including profitability. We feel it is our responsibility to set an example for others to follow and show it can be done. This also causes the advancement of technologies used in green engineering.”

Green Banking Centers
Of the $20 billion for green initiative, $1.4 billion is earmarked for achieving LEED (U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for all new office space and bank centers. Located in Adelanto, California, BofA recently opened one of the most eco-friendly banks in the nation.

The roof is lined with 64 photovoltaic solar panels that generate 60% of the bank’s electricity. Insulation is made from recycled blue jeans and counters are made of pressed wheat.

Saving Trees
BofA decreased paper used for internal operations by 32% from 2000 to 2005, as the customer base grew by 24%. This initiative saved over a billion sheets of paper. Their internal recycling program processes 30,000 tons of paper annually, saving roughly 200,000 trees every year.

Hybrid Vehicle Reimbursement
185,000 U.S. employees are eligible for a reimbursement of $3,000 for the purchase of a hybrid vehicle. As of May, 2008, nearly 2,000 workers had taken advantage of this offer.

“This benefit began as a pilot in 2006 in L.A., Boston and Charlotte and was so well received internally that last year we expanded it to all associates company-wide,” says Senior Vice President of Media Relations Colleen Haggerty.

Credit Card Reduces Carbon Footprint
Partnering with Brighter Planet, BofA offers a Visa card that helps fund renewable energy projects. By spending $1000, one ton of carbon emissions are offset, which is the equivalent of taking a car off the road for 2,000 miles.

Funding Coal Creates Scrutiny
BofA has been boycotted by the Rainforest Action Network for being the top funder of mountain top removal mining and a lead financial backer of new coal-fired power plants. Mountain top removal mining is a highly invasive practice that has destroyed 1,200 miles of streams, flooded communities, and disrupted sources of drinking water.

The Carbon Principles however established guidelines for banks to consider the risk factors of loans to power companies and were adopted by BofA. The Principles take into consideration that the U.S. may eventually cap carbon emissions and that there may be a cost for them, thus factoring in future liabilities that may be incurred. Although the Principles certainly help protect banks and can be in their best financial interests, it also has environmental benefits.

Do the BofA’s green initiatives have enough teeth to green the bank or is it mostly just a green washing effort? Do you consider such things before choosing a bank?

Greg Miller, the son of Bette Miller, the woman who is in a dispute with Bank of America over a $5,000 bond bought in 1984 from Rainier National Bank, has written in to tell his side of the story. Here’s his letter.

Greg writes:
Having read all about this on your web site, I can see there is some confusion, so I thought I would set the record straight for your readers. I am Greg Miller, Bette’s son. I have been chasing this for over two years. Here is the real story, only part of which was seen on KOMO 4 News.

In about April of 2005 my mother had a silent heart attack. She was on the floor of our family home of 40 years for about two days and was rushed to the hospital. Her ability to care for herself in the family home safely became an issue. She tried to return home and was unable to remain there successfully. Such being the case moving to an assisted living facility became the priority. My sister and I had to help her by doing the leg work of consolidating her financial position, cleaning the house, selling property, and handling liquidation of any investments to help her finance her future. My father died about 12 years ago. Since at that time she was able to continue in the home without difficulty on her social security and the remainder of my father’s pension, there was no need for her to concern herself with their investments or what bonds, stocks, etc. remained in their safe deposit box.

In April of 1984 my mother and father purchased a Rainier Bank Bond for $5000.00. They saw on the face of the bond that it automatically reinvested every two years and saw no reason to cash it. On the face of the bond it clearly stated that you had to present the bond to cash it in. Great! No worries. It remained in the safe deposit box collecting interest. In the mean time Rainier Bank was sold to Seattle Pacific Bank. Seattle Pacific was the acquired by SeaFirst Bank that was then bought by Bank of America. Fast forward to April of 2005, my mother asked me to handle cashing that bond for her. I carried it to the Bank of American branch in Monroe, Washington, where, after a couple of weeks of research, they indicated they would not cash it. I was most frustrated and I wrote a complaint to the BOA CEO in North Carolina. He referred it to one of his functionaries who indicated after further research they would not be paying the bond unless we could come up with Form 1099’s proving our claim. When I asked what 1099 forms were, it was indicated that they were IRS forms. I asked who was responsible for producing these forms and they said, “The bank.” Now the bank had told me they had no record of this bond as they didn’t keep records older than 7 years. It is conceivable that somewhere in the shuffle between all these banks and records the information on this bond was inadvertently lost. The question remains, why would a bank ask for records they know could not exist because they would have had to produce them on a bond for which they have no record, pretty circular logic. I sent the functionaries several more entreaties without BOA stepping up to take care of their contractual responsibilities. I contacted a friend who is an elder law attorney and was referred to our current attorney along with the advice that BOA was trying to either wait for my mother to die or the statute of limitations to run out.

Our attorney checked with unclaimed property in Washington State to determine if the bond had been treated as an unclaimed account and escheated to the State. No record of any escheatment was found to exist. An investigation launched by our attorney inquiring to the Federal Comptroller of the Currency resulted in the governmental equivalent of a shrug; they were unable to make certain verification either way. They said the bank had allowed folks to cash the bond without actually having the bond previously. It is weird when a bank has a contract and they see fit to, by choice, violate that contract with others as a way of getting out of honoring it at all with those that comply with the contract. Then BOA told us that the bond/contract was not sufficient and couldn’t we produce other proof.

This was the rough equivalent of me buying a car, disposing of the contract copies provided me and then acting as though I had no reason to pay for the car because I had no record of it. The bank would produce their copies of the contract to prove their point. Then I would tell them the copies of the contract were not sufficient. We all know that scenario would last-not long at all.

The conclusion our attorney offered appeared correct. It appeared they were stonewalling us. I found it ironic in the extreme that BOA’s tag line on advertising was “The bank with a higher standard.” Their higher standard involved ignoring contractual obligations and attempting to rip off an 80 year old widow in assisted living with no conscience, doing their best to get away with whatever they thought they were able to get away with because they are a big bank and do not care about anyone or anything but their bottom line and are willing to do anything to enhance that bottom line.

I, my mother, and our attorney continue to tenaciously pursue this both on substance and principle. If my mother can be ripped off then none of us is safe. We all entrust our funds to banks for our future, both short and long term. I began to wonder if I should not start stuffing my mattress because at least I could guarantee the mattress could be made to give it back to me with just a little wrestling with it.

By the way, the value of the bond is currently in the neighborhood of about $30,000.00. We also want BOA to pay our legal fees as we never would have had to obtain an attorney had they stepped up and handled their responsibilities appropriately. Not one thin dime of my mother’s investment should have to be used to pay for an attorney or the hassle this has been for the previous years to her and the entire family. It was BOA’s attitude of unwillingness to work with us that put us in this position and, since it was their actions that caused this they also need to shoulder the fiscal responsibilities that their actions forced on us.

On a more personal note, I find this whole scenario disgusting, frightening, and depressing. Banks tell us to invest our money with them. They tell us it is safe, trustworthy, and backed by the FDIC. My parents saved for their retirement and now, when my mother needs the money, the Bank denies they owe her a dime. They hold her accountable for their poor record keeping and use that as an excuse to take her money. This behavior is reprehensible and causes a lack of faith in banks in general and Bank of America in particular. They are behaving with callous disregard to my mother, their moral and legal obligations, their business ethics, and the public trust. This is my mother, who birthed me, raised me, loved me, and protected me. Now it is my turn and I will not let her down nor see anyone else do so.

Herb Weisbaum was kind enough to work on telling our story and insuring others knew about it. If this issue is of concern to your readers, please have them communicate their displeasure with BOA to:

Kenneth D. Lewis
Chairman, CEO, and President
Bank of America Corporation
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255

Hope this helps clarify the situation to your readers.

Thanks!

Greg Miller

Business in question :: Charter Communications

Complaint :: I just read one complaint regarding Charter, I am currently employed with Charter Communications and I agree with the last employee who wrote a letter.I think one of Charters biggest problems is the way they treat us employee’s and this causes most of us to have a bad addittude all together and it trickles down to the customer. We (the peons)do all the real work for the company and we are lucky to get a raise of 25 cents a year and then the company takes the money back by raising our insurace rates but yet every week I receive an e-mail saying how this or that person was promoted to VP of this or that. Charter needs to waik up and start treating us better. Time Warner atleast pays there people a desent wage and the only reason I don’t quite my job is because jobs in Ohio are hard to find. Each year Charter has us fill out an employee survey on what Charter could do to make the work place better and each year all of us in our office complains about the pay, then in about the middle of the year Charter has there HR staff go over this report with us and for some STRANGE reason there’s never very many complaints/concerns on the rate of pay we receive(This is BS) and I find it hard to believe. Charter/Paul Allen needs to stop waisting money on Nascar sponcering and the Seatle Sea Hawks and invest money in us little guys who do all the work and deal directly with the customers. Pay us what we are worth or just get out of the cable business and let a real company take us over. I will keep my fingers crossed for a sale to another company. Hang in there guys!

Business in question :: Charter Communications

Complaint :: I just wanted to aggree with the letters posted. I recently left, on my own accord, the Birmingham, AL main office. Management has no clue as to the problems, supervisors will not take complaint calls, if you are 6 minutes late to work you might as well stay home or go home. The office is right off a major interstate which has numerous accidents. It takes many calls before the company will consider it to be a problem and “excuse” the tardy. The company wants everything from the employees in writing but will not provide nothing in return. They tell employees whatever gets the employee “out of their,management’s, face” and then convienently forgets promises. The employees who honestly care and try to “do what’s right” are punished and “weeded out” and the “zombies” that will do whatever they are told regardles of what is best for the customer are rewarded.

Business in question :: Charter communication, Fort Worth tx

Complaint :: I run a small bussiness from home, A customer of charter Communications for about a yr and a half, I stored all of the emails in the folders that come with the service, Jan 25 of 06 I was checking email’s, getting the work orders for the day, took a break , came back and no service, called the customer service and they bluntly told me I do not have an account. After I sent them proof “an email fowarded to them , from them , resetting my password” they admitted an error had occured on their part and my e-mails were deleted, nothing more than that, no explanation just that, over 1500+ emails including work orders, billing, invoices, proof of work done, gone, no way to get it back they said. I called them in less than 1 hour and they could not get anything back . Why? They replied ” Sir, it really makes no difference, you will not get the emails back regardless of what happened” I do not know much about how the system works but I do know when the service is cut off for late payment, once you make the payment they re-activate the service and all your emails are still there, so why can’t they get them back now, and no, I was not behind on the bill, they admit that much. I think some one should be held responsible and on top of that some one should know how to fix this and yet no one at Charter seems to think its a problem, I’m going to have to lay people with family’s off of work and they do not care about that. Isn’t there something they could do? To much trouble I suppose.
Thomas Wright
TNC Trucking

Business in question :: Charter Communication

Complaint :: Well where do I begin…I’ve worked for Charter Communications for several years…I’m thrilled that the West Virginia properties have been sold and I will no longer be in the employ of Charter…I’ve seen it all…I’ve seen moral go from very very high and electric to non exisistant..It’s getting better every day now with hopes of the new company Suddenlink taking over very soon…I officialy feel like my title as a customer service repsentative is the biggest farse I’ve ever seen in my life…noone cares that a customer has already waited a month just to see if they are able to get service…how can you tell??? Well in order to get it escalated it takes an act of congress or the tech missing 3 times and (not or) the cust being irate and threatening to disconnect…I see us trying to get our poor interest in customer service smoothed over with outrageous specials only outrageous because the prices for the service itself is rediculous. If you try to get help with something the standard pre-programmed response is…”send a form” which is an internal email that may or maynot be answered ever!!!! With excuse after excuse that “we’re working on the problem with the forms” well who is working on getting the issues resolved………….I can answer that…NOONE…..it’s pass the buck pass the buck…noone wants to be responsible for anything…oh wait..they make the customer service rep responsible for everything…the standards a the WV call center have always been higher and that is really not an issue because I believe we all want to be successful…however tools and support which are useless and mostly not in place don’t make a smooth track for success. It’s been a real struggle to have to take call after call after that has been farmed out to non Charter employees and by the time you get the call the customer is so irate you want to crawl under your desk or maybe promise them your first born child…Enough about that…but considering the number of calls we take a day and the stress level that is placed upon us to meet “performance guidelines” you would think they would have a heart for your physical and psychological well being…well just try to take a day off….yeah right..there once again you need an act of congress…oh and if you get 4 occurances (an event where you are unable to cover your shift..even if you have sick time available to use) in one year you get a verbal and 5 is written and on up to and including termination. ie…if you aren’t feeling well and come to work and get worse and need to leave…even if you have sick time to cover you get an occurance…no occurance if you call off the whole day if and only if you have acrued the full 8 hrs to do so..which you acrue at a rapid rate of 1.5 hrs per 2 wk period…and they wonder why over half of the staff at this call center is on FMLA!!!! I wonder how many are nervous breakdowns???? Would make an interesting study I’m sure. One to NEVER be examined..Well all that said to talk about the straw that broke the camels back. Service to Sales…yes we must ace the call by showing empathy fake or real doesn’t matter to them…and frame it to set the call up to try to cram some of our over priced services down the throats of customers that most generally can’t afford them anyway….oh wait we’ll give you a discount for 6 months then cram it to you good after that…get you addicted to the shows then make you pay outrageous prices…yes an we are to be doing this through the infamous needs based conversation………….customer service…..when was the last time you called a company and really wanted to have a needs based conversation espically if your service has been lets say “sub” standard…….I can’t remember ever!!!!Well enough from me I only have to work for Charter for 4 more days but I do feel for the Charter employees in Newtown Conn, and Kingsport Tenn who have lost there jobs completely to Charter farming out work to Mexico and Canada..Yeah Charter your local cable company…if you live in Mexico..it would be local…anyway thanks for reading…It’s hard to hold a complete thought after and 8 hr shift so I hope you excuse my scatter brain work here…

Business in question :: charter comunicatios

Complaint :: I work for charter in Mexico city, and i just want to tell you that i hate fucking american bastards trying to tell us what to do with their accounts. We do what we can, ok?
To send a motherfucking technician the same day is almost imposible for us, the fucking system (called acsr or icoms)only let us set an appointment for the date that is already there, we can´t choose when to schedule an appointment, and when we call the dispatch office, they answer like retards trying to solve a NASA s problem, put you on hold several times, and all that to tell you that “The tech already went home, or is no longer in that town” FUCK THAT!!

So what do i suppose to tell the stupid customer? “let me apologize” damn! i do deserve to be sent straight to hell everytime i “apologize”.
One advise, if for some crazy reason you hired charter s services; don´t ever ever, ever request for telephone services, because that makes it worse. And that is because everytime there is a “soft disconnection” on the services, it does not matter if the customer already paid, we need to contact the phone service departement (which is not always available)to request for the disconnection to be cancelled. A TOTAL MESS.

FUCK CHARTER!!!!!!!

Business in question ::

Complaint :: I was loyal Sprint PCS customer for several years primarily because they were the first national carrier that negotiated employee discounts for national wireless service. I got sucked into a two year agreement with this carrier and had multiple phone lines. The service itself was ok but as other national carriers became available with company discounts I decided to switch carriers. Sprint PCS made this process as difficult as possible. Based upon their website all of my lines showed they were outside contract so I signed agreement with new carrier. Once I began the process to port and cancel my Sprint service they informed me that the information on website was not correct and that two accounts would be charged full early termination fee even though they were just months away from being satisfied and had not had new equipment. Sprint then continued to consider the account open even though I had called after porting and was told the account was closed. They would not reverse charges and also charged late fees that were 5% of disputed amount that included cancellation fees. I tried multiple times to get charged waived but without any success. I finally agreed to pay final bill and BE DONE with this company forever only to receive another bill for late fees. When I called company and explained that I paid the final bill over phone and was assured that no more charges would occur again they said there was nothing they could do.

Business in question :: Sprint PCS

Complaint :: After termination of my contract, I was billed for over $100.00. After calling, I was told that bill was in error, and would be deleted. However, several months later I received a bill for $.10, which will not be waived. I paid the $.10 in order to avoid collection action, which, considering the greed over $.10 seemed likely. I will never use Sprint again. It cost both myself and Sprint over $.10 for this transaction. How ridiculous.

Business in question :: SPRINT

Complaint :: I ADDED A SECOND LINE FOR MY MOTHER. REQUESTED THAT HER PHONE DID NOT HAVE INTERNET SINCE SHE ISN’T UP TO DATE WITH TECHNOLOGY. I WAS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HER NOT HAVING THE INTERNET ON HER PHONE. WHEN I SET UP HER PHONE SERVICE I TRIED TO GO ONLINE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TOO AND I WAS PLEASED TO FIND OUT I COULDN’T GO ONLINE. THAT WAS BACK IN SEPTEMBER 2005. MY PHONE SERVICE GETS TURNED OF ON JANUARY 12TH. CALL THEM TO FIND OUT WHAT’S GOING ON. THEIR RESPONSE IS THAT SINCE I DIDN’T HAVE THE INTERNET SERVICE ON THE PHONE BUT THE PHONE WAS INTERNET CAPABLE AND THE INTERNET WAS USED I WAS GONNA BE CHARGED PER KB. TOTAL CHARGES JUST FOR THE INTERNET $202.00 PLUS TAXES AND MY OTHER PHONE IT’S ABOUT $360.00. WHEN I CALL TO COMPLAIN AND INQUIRE ABOUT THE INTERNET BEING ON THAT PHONE THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. WAS TOLD DIFFERENT THINGS BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. FINNALY I WAS GIVEN A TEMPORARY CREDIT SO THE SERVICE COULD BE TURNED BACK ON WHILE THE “INVESTIGATED” THOSE CHARGES. THE LADY I SPOKE TOO SAID IT WOULD TAKE TEN DAYS FOR THE INVESTIGATION BUT THAT SHE WOULD CALL ME IN FIVE DAYS TO LET ME KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. FIVE DAYS PASS AND NOTHING. I CALL THEM ONLY TO BE LAUGHED AT BY THE “SUPERVISOR” (AT LEAST THATS WHAT HE TOLD ME). HE SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO AND THAT IT WAS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. THAT WAS ON A SUNDAY. TUESDAY MY PHONE GETS DISCONNECTED AGAIN. ONCE AGAIN I CALL THEM, I WAS ON THE PHONE BEING TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER, THAT WENT ON FOR ABOUT AN HOUR. THEY ENDED UP TRANSFERRING TO FRAUD DEPARTMENT ONLY TO BE DISCONNECTED AFTER TRYING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM FOR AN HOUR. CALLED THEM BACK,YET AGAIN AND FOUND OUT CHARGES WERE MADE ON JANUARY 11, 2005 DURING THE TIME THAT MY MOMS’ PHONE WAS BROKEN. I TOOK IT IN FOR SERVICE ON THE 13TH AND THEY REPLACE SOMETHING ON IT. I MENTIONED ALL OF THAT TO THE SUPERVISOR AND SHE ENDED UP TELLING ME TO TAKE THE PHONE IN FOR THEM TO RUN A TEST TO FIND OUT IF IT LOGGED ON ON ITS OWN. I GO TO THE STORE. THEY TELL ME PHONE HAS TO BE ACTIVE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO CHECK IT. HELLO!!!!! THEY KNEW IT WAS OFF AND THEY STILL SENT ME TO THE STORE. ONCE I CALLED THEM BACK THEY SAID THEY CAN’T ISSUE ANOTHER CREDIT SO THEY CAN CHECK THE PHONE. MY ONLY OPTION IS TO TO PAY $361.00 FOR BOTH PHONES TO BE TURNED BACK ON THEN THEY WILL INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM AND IF THEY FIND THAT THE PHONE LOGGED ON ON ITS OWN I WILL THEN BE ISSUED A CREDIT. I REALLY DON’T THINK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ADMIT THEY SCREWED UP! I REQUESTED NO INTERNET ON THE PHONE FOR A REASON AND IF I’M THE ONE THAT HAS TO PAY FOR THE PHONE BILL THEN I SHOULD RECEIVE THE SERVICE I REQUEST AND ONLY THAT SERVICE. I WILL GLADLY PAY THE EARLY TERMINATION FEE SO THAT I NO LONGER HAVE TO DEAL WITH SPRINT.

Business in question :: sprint

Complaint :: .ive gotten the run around from sprint for 4 months i’ve called them at least 25 times without going into a long story hears some examples the phones are in my boyfriends name since 2000 of witch my daughter signed up for.he has never signed a contract with them spoke to them until nov of this yr when he called to cancel the plans hears the catch my daughter can add phones change agreements etc as long as she has the password , she even changed the password . did you no that every time you call to add something to your plan they automatically sign you up for another 2 yr contract. i just found this out i bet they dont tell there customers that . any way i got tired of talking to the incompatant people on the phone so i went to the sprint store. the manager tells me to have my boyfriend talk to an attorney then go through the mandatory arbirtration. ok so today i call sprint to see how we go through this arbirtration and get this the gal on the phone tells me they dont have that. gee thumbs up to you sprint i guess it doesnt take to many brains to work for your company.

Business in question :: Sprint

Complaint :: I went on line to make a payment of $300.00 printed out my confirmation number which ended in 91. Next day looked at my bank account to balance it and saw two debits for Sprint $300.00 each. The other confirmation number ended in 27. I only made one payment but lets say I accidently did make two. I freaked out! I can see all the bounce checks coming up. Called Sprint they said we can not reverse payments. I said let me talk with your accounting dept. They say ” we dont really have one per say “. But I can call my bank and pay to cancel the payment. First of all you have to do this in person. Secondly I dont have a car. And I would bet by tomorrow morning I have other payment going through my account.
This is customer service??. I am going to have several bounced checks and they dont care.
I have never heard of a bussiness unable to reverse a transaction. What if the Sprint employee punched in the wrong amount. “Were sorry but thank you for the $2,000.00 payment.
I guess that is one way of making money. Drawing interest on other peoples money!
Since Sprint took over Nextel I have never had such horrible service from a company.
there has been other issues that are still unresolved.

Business in question :: Sprint

Complaint :: On 2/23/06, I went to the online Sprint store to check out an ad that I had heard about a wireless connection card for FREE. I was wanting one of these for my laptop since I travel from time to time, that would enable me to get on the internet from anywhere using cell towers in the area and this would be added to my existing account (like and extra phone number), and I understood there was a monthly charge involved of $59 and would be added to my existing cell phone account. In filling out the information I was asked if I worked for a large corporation, which I do, that I maybe entitled to a corporate discount. I was told that I was elligable to get the card that I wanted for FREE, with free shipping. So I signed up for it. I received my card on March 3, 2006. On March 8, I tried to use my regular cell phone and my service had been disconnected. I called in to check and they told me my bill was $240.65. I had noticed that Sprint had deducted $99.99 from my bank account that I did not authorize. So in able to get my phone turned back on I had to pay the full $240.65 bill, which I was forced to do because I use my cell phone for business. I then looked on the internet and found that Sprint had charge me $267.99 for the “FREE” card that I had ordered. I called Sprint ‘customer UN-service’ and after about an hour and a half of being switched around the globe, was told that “Yes, the card is free and your account was charge the $267.99, but it will be credited back to you in the next 3 months” I demanded my money be returned, since I had to pay it upfront in able to get my service back on and I was told that they could not do that but they would give me a $30 credit for my trouble. So, as of this minute I have paid, upfront, $340.64, for an advertised FREE card and I want my monies returned to me immediateley. I do have the Sprint Invoice showing $-0- balance, and the phone bill for $340.64, and would be glad to provide you with anything else you might need to get this resolved., and me get my money back. I feel that this is fraud and deceiteful advertising.

Business in question :: Sprint cell phone

Complaint :: I have been using sprint for about 4 years and I signed a new contract when I got a new phone I was one year into my new contract when I broke my phone I did not have the Insurance so I bought a new phone and kept the same plan 500 anytime $5 for unlimited text. They talked us into trying The vision for 30 days for free and we did but decided not to keep it and when we tried to cancel it they said they would have to take the text off or we would have to pay $15 a month to keep it. When I said $5 was my plan before and it should not change Sprint informed me that in the fine print of the contract they have the right to change the plan at any time and that I had to finish out my contract with the pcs vision or pay $15 a month for the text and I could do nothing about it. This is truly a rip off plan and I will never use sprint again once my contract is complete.