Shoemoney - Skills To Pay The Bills

---

Verizon Wireless Lincoln Nebraska Location advises I go to @att for better deal @verizon Posted: 23 Sep 2013 11:30 AM PDT I would like to share my recent experience to the Verizon Wireless Lincoln Nebraska location near SouthPointe Mall.  The new iPhone just came out last thursday…  and I was amped to get it.  I currently have the iPhone 4s and am super excited for the iPhone 5s.  But I have a issue – My contract is not up until January 1st, so I am not allowed to upgrade at the discounted $299 price but instead would have to pay the $899 price if I went by the book..  But that’s silly.  I know their early termination fee is only $150 so I figured worse case they would let me pay the $150 early termination fee on my 2 year contract and buy the iPhone and renew my 2 year contract.  That makes sense right? So I went in… put my name on the list and waited for 30 mins or so…  But during that time I started chatting with other folks.  It’s Lincoln, Ne and everyone is friendly here.  They were would be iPhone users and had all kinds of questions.  Then they asked me what I did for a living and all that…  good people.  I sold them on the iPhone easy.   I told them about my dilemma and they thought I was silly for not waiting a couple months and saving a $150 but I told them it was worth it to me. Took a little longer than quoted for my name to be called (45 mins or so) but I never really cared; I was having good conversation. I was straight up with the guy.  I wasn’t looking for any sort of “deal”.   I told him I know my contract doesn’t allow me to upgrade for 3 months but I wanted to get the iPhone 5s today and wanted to know what my options are. Oh side note -  I don’t want to give up my phone number.  About 3 years ago I ported my old number to Google voice and just now people are finally adjusting it.  Most still text my old number and I am always lost who they are.  I DID not want to change numbers again. So the guy was kind of cocky…  He said ‘Newp, can’t do it.’   I asked well what are my options.   He said well you can get a new line with a new number,  drop this one down to $40 a month and let it terminate.  But I would lose my number when it terminates. I told him that seemed really silly to me and I would rather just pay $150 and renew my 2 year contract.   He said I could terminate but the phone number would be terminated with it and I would lose it. Then it hit me that I could terminate my contract with them by porting my phone number over to another provider… say AT&T (which my company has all of its cell phones with.  I am the only one on Verizon). I looked at him confused and was just like,  ”Lemme get this straight, just so I am clear.  Any way you slice it I have to give up my phone number even though I am willing to renew right now and pay the fine?” “Yup,” in a smartass ‘I’m better than you’ tone. So then I brought it to his attention that the answer would be for me to simply port over to AT&T or Sprint.  I would pay the SAME etf fee but be able to get the iPhone 5s AND keep my contract. His smart ass answer?  ”Yup, that would work.”. Wait what?? Ok I’m out of here. On my way out I ran into other fellow Lincoln Nebraska business owners who were looking at moving their business to Verizon Wireless.  They asked me how it went. I told them the guy advised I goto AT&T cause they can’t help me.  They, like me,  were absolutely baffled.   The one guy was a older gentlemen and he recited what I said really loud.  Started to draw other customers attention. I then,  in a loud voice,  announced that the Verizon Employee advises that I go to AT&T due to their ignorant policies.  They are ready to give up a loyal customer who has never been late on paying their bill and is not asking for anything outside of my contract except keeping my phone number. They told me I have to go to AT&T to keep my phone number. The manager came out and I was asked to leave.   The other 10 or so people I were talking to said they did not want to deal with a place that treated people like crap. I called customer service as soon as I got home.  The lady was VERY nice and said she totally understood.  She put me on hold and tried to get a manager to make sense of …. something that made no sense. The real fact is I LOVE Verizon Wireless service.  Mostly cause they are the only company that has ringback tones (lol, I know). Anyway said while it does not make sense….  it is that way.  Again she was very nice. She was SUPER nice.  But those jerks in the store….  I’m done with Verizon.  Unless I hear different in the next couple weeks I will port over to AT&T.  At least there I have had great in store customer service.   Trying to increase your Google rank that is like no other?

New ASM downloadable content Posted: 23 Sep 2013 06:00 AM PDT My friends Matt Clark and Jason Katzenback are doing awesome on Amazon right now. And it has nothing to do with Kindle ebooks.   Check out what they’ve figured out (no opt-in required). If you remember they released a live training course on how to run a company on auto pilot with Amazon last spring.  I know over 100 people from my newsletter took part in the training and I have heard nothing but great things from them. They are releasing some great insider content (for free) right now from the course and there is no opt in required to watch the video. Check it out here.   Its great stuff!    Looking for an SEO service that won’t get you banned?

You are subscribed to email updates from ShoeMoney To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Shoemoney - Skills To Pay The Bills

---

FTC Flunks First Court Test of ‘Biz-Op’ Rule Posted: 12 Sep 2013 07:45 AM PDT  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) loves to trumpet its new enforcement actions, new rules and big court wins through full-court media blitzes. Quite the opposite occurs when it suffers a legal defeat. A case in point involves the FTC's Business Opportunity ("Biz-Op") Rule. The FTC announced the rule in March 2012 with great fanfare, holding press conferences and sending out "notice" mailers to thousands of businesses. With equal fanfare, it announced its first series of lawsuits to enforce the rule last November. In one of these cases (disclosure: author is defense counsel), U.S. v. Zaken Corp. et al., defendants argued in opposition to a preliminary injunction motion that the rule doesn't apply to them. In this first legal test of the regulation, a federal judge agreed, saying the rule doesn't apply because defendants aren't selling a "business opportunity." Not surprisingly, the FTC PR machine hit the mute button when this unwelcomed decision came out in July. The decision is significant because the rule, if liberally enforced by the courts, will give the FTC a powerful weapon to wield against "work-at-home" programs it sees as populated with hucksters seeking to grab the "last dollar" from the Great Recession consumers. Once limited to biz-ops costing $500 or more, the rule now covers the ones carrying no purchase minimum. It requires several disclosures on a prescribed form, including the basis of earnings claims. The seller must disclose, at least seven days prior to sale: a) who it is; b) whether it's making an earnings claim; c) whether it's had any legal trouble; d) whether it has a cancellation or refund policy; and e) a list of purchasers during the past three years. If the seller makes earnings claims, has been sued, or has a cancellation/refund policy, it must provide substantiation for the claims, identify the suits, and state the key cancellation/refund terms. The disclosure document must be provided even if the seller is not making earnings claims. As the Zaken ruling indicates, however, in order for a work-at-home program to be subject to these requirements, it first must fit within the rule's definition of "business opportunity." The definition doesn't apply to any work-at-home offer but only those in which the seller represents (in pertinent part) that it "will … provide outlets, accounts, or customers … for the purchaser's goods or services … or buy back any or all of the goods or services that the purchaser … provides." The business in Zaken offers consumers the opportunity to earn a commission by locating distressed merchandise for the company to buy and sell. Purchasers are "finders" who work on behalf of Zaken to find inventory that it can choose to buy and resell to its own customers, sharing any profits with the consumer. It is akin to Internet affiliates that receive commissions on conversions from traffic they send to merchants, the only difference being that the Internet affiliate is providing customer leads and the Zaken finder is providing merchandise leads. Payment is not guaranteed, but contingent on a lead becoming a sale. Parsing the rule's "business opportunity" definition, the court in Zaken held that defendants don't offer a business opportunity under the rule because: a) they do not represent that they will "provide outlets, accounts, or customers" for the purchaser's goods or services"; b) they do not provide such "outlets, accounts, or customers;" and; c) the sales commissions their finders receive upon converted merchandise leads do not constitute a "buyback" of their services. In reaching these conclusions, the court was heavily influenced by the contingent nature of the income opportunity offered to consumers. It noted that by the government's own description, defendants represent only that they will "'attempt to negotiate a deal with the located company. If that deal is completed and [Zaken] can sell the merchandise at a profit,' then Zaken will pay the consumer a portion of the profits." Defendants also do not provide "outlets" or "customers," the court said, because the "excess merchandise for which Zaken arguably provides an 'outlet' does not belong to consumers" but to Zaken, and because the "contingency arrangement" Zaken has with consumers "does not render it a 'customer'" under the rule. Zaken "never purchases a service" from consumers, but rather only shares profits with them from transactions to which "the consumer is not a party." Finally, the court found, Zaken does not "buy back" anything because it: "Does not offer to 'provide payment' to consumers in exchange for any service or good. Rather, Zaken in essence offers consumers an incentive to provide information that may or may not yield them some ultimate benefit. The government's attempt to apply the rule to the contingency arrangement between Zaken and its purchasers is therefore inconsistent with [the 'buyback' provision], which requires, at the very least, that a seller of a business opportunity pay the purchaser for performing a service." Like the defendants in Zaken, Biz-Op Rule targets, in constructing their defense, need to ask themselves such questions as: 1) Do my purchasers actually become their "own bosses," selling their own goods or services to their own customers, or are they just "finders" for my products? 2) Do I actually "provide outlets, accounts, or customers" to my customers, or am I really just offering advertising and general business help, which is exempt from the rule?; 3) If I do represent that I "provide outlets, accounts, or customers," is it an absolute promise, or conditional?; and 4) am I required to pay my purchasers for goods or services they provide, or are there contingencies? If you're a work-at-home opportunity seller, and the answer to any of these or other coverage questions is no, then, as Zaken shows, the heavy-handed Biz-Op Rule may not apply to you. Looking for an SEO service that won’t get you banned?

You are subscribed to email updates from ShoeMoney To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610