Gottastopperping: Making Money Cash

This post is a little self-indulgent, as I know not many of you had the pleasure and pain of being a Helio subscriber but if you were in that elite group, you may be eligible for some cash from a class-action lawsuit regarding early-termination fees.

As with most class-action lawsuit endings, the lawyers are the ones making the most money, as users will likely not get much more than $5 or $10. The legal action claims Helio was unlawfully charging users extra on the ETF, even though this was supposed to be reduced by $5 a month after a certain period.

I remember Helio and that amazing dual-sliding Ocean handset quite fondly but the fees were way too high for the demographic it was targeting. The nail in the coffin was the release of the Apple iPhone a few months after the Ocean, as this provided a better overall experience (except for 3G) for about the same price on a better network.

By the time Helio was sold for pennies on the dollar to Virgin, I was already fed up and moved on to another winner, the BlackBerry Storm. I didn’t pay my ETF right away but did immediately when contacted by a third-party collector. If that situation is similar to yours, then you may be entitled to some money.

According to the Termination fee settlement website:

If you paid a flat rate Early Termination Fee to a third party, such as a debt collector, you are also entitled to a refund equal to the difference described above. You must submit proof of payment (a receipt, a credit card statement, or other proof) to the Settlement Administrator.
If you don’t appear in Helio’s records and have no proof of payment, or if you paid a third-party debt collector and have no proof, or if you simply were charged the Early Termination Fee but refused to pay it, or if you were never charged the Early Termination Fee but swear under oath that you stayed with Helio due to the Early Termination Fee, you are entitled to $10

Any other Helio users out there?

Radley Balko says that the true purpose of red light cameras is to raise money, not stop accidents:

verall collisions are up at the intersections where Clarksville has installed red light cameras (a result we've seen nearly everywhere they've been installed). The city just chooses to ignore rear-impact collisions when evaluating the cameras. Those collisions increased from 138 in 2008, to 173 in 2009, to 169 through October of this year. It's true that side-impact collisions are generally more dangerous than rear-impact collisions. But even taking that into consideration, it's a bit of a stretch to say that a decrease of eight side-impact collisions coupled with an increase of 25 rear-impact collisions shows that the cameras are preventing accidents.

His alternative:

The best approach doesn't bring in any revenue, for camera makers or city governments: Lengthening the duration yellow lights has proven to be much more effective at preventing accidents than cameras. Which of course is why several cities have been caught making intersections more dangerous by shortening yellow lights in order to generate more tickets.

advertising enlargement info

If you paid a flat rate Early Termination Fee to a third party, such as a debt collector, you are also entitled to a refund equal to the difference described above. You must submit proof of payment (a receipt, a credit card statement, or other proof) to the Settlement Administrator.
If you don’t appear in Helio’s records and have no proof of payment, or if you paid a third-party debt collector and have no proof, or if you simply were charged the Early Termination Fee but refused to pay it, or if you were never charged the Early Termination Fee but swear under oath that you stayed with Helio due to the Early Termination Fee, you are entitled to $10

Any other Helio users out there?

Radley Balko says that the true purpose of red light cameras is to raise money, not stop accidents:

verall collisions are up at the intersections where Clarksville has installed red light cameras (a result we've seen nearly everywhere they've been installed). The city just chooses to ignore rear-impact collisions when evaluating the cameras. Those collisions increased from 138 in 2008, to 173 in 2009, to 169 through October of this year. It's true that side-impact collisions are generally more dangerous than rear-impact collisions. But even taking that into consideration, it's a bit of a stretch to say that a decrease of eight side-impact collisions coupled with an increase of 25 rear-impact collisions shows that the cameras are preventing accidents.

His alternative:

The best approach doesn't bring in any revenue, for camera makers or city governments: Lengthening the duration yellow lights has proven to be much more effective at preventing accidents than cameras. Which of course is why several cities have been caught making intersections more dangerous by shortening yellow lights in order to generate more tickets.

allbench craft company rip off

If you paid a flat rate Early Termination Fee to a third party, such as a debt collector, you are also entitled to a refund equal to the difference described above. You must submit proof of payment (a receipt, a credit card statement, or other proof) to the Settlement Administrator.
If you don’t appear in Helio’s records and have no proof of payment, or if you paid a third-party debt collector and have no proof, or if you simply were charged the Early Termination Fee but refused to pay it, or if you were never charged the Early Termination Fee but swear under oath that you stayed with Helio due to the Early Termination Fee, you are entitled to $10

Any other Helio users out there?

Radley Balko says that the true purpose of red light cameras is to raise money, not stop accidents:

verall collisions are up at the intersections where Clarksville has installed red light cameras (a result we've seen nearly everywhere they've been installed). The city just chooses to ignore rear-impact collisions when evaluating the cameras. Those collisions increased from 138 in 2008, to 173 in 2009, to 169 through October of this year. It's true that side-impact collisions are generally more dangerous than rear-impact collisions. But even taking that into consideration, it's a bit of a stretch to say that a decrease of eight side-impact collisions coupled with an increase of 25 rear-impact collisions shows that the cameras are preventing accidents.

His alternative:

The best approach doesn't bring in any revenue, for camera makers or city governments: Lengthening the duration yellow lights has proven to be much more effective at preventing accidents than cameras. Which of course is why several cities have been caught making intersections more dangerous by shortening yellow lights in order to generate more tickets.

http://www.ddfghhdfxd.com/">advertising

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Making Money Cash

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me