c, Flame (continued)

Last night, during the Passover dinner, I had an oportunity to discuss my flame with 3 good and honest lawyers (1 my son, the others, the daughter of a very good friend and her fiance).
They argued that while there have been abuses of class action suits, my position was too radical.  We are talking about chump change for each affected individual which collectively mean millions to the provider.  No affected individual has the patience or wish to recover a $20 overcharge that occurre by charging $0.50 more per month over years. Only by combining these overcharges (and giving 33% or more to the lawyers that do) can such excesses from providers be avoided.
Giving the affected the option of enrolling (rather than opting out) would mean that most, if not all, would not enroll. This would vitiate the ability of our altruistic lawyers to go after the extortive vendors.

There is some merit to the argument, since I frequently classify as "spam" invitations from stocks I own to vote proxies.  But is this sufficient to make the practice of enrolment by fiat and exclusion by specific action a good practice.

I am presently conflicted.  I believe it is not.  If I am not interested in a $.50 a month charge, it does not affect my psyche.  If the charge becomes too large, and if another vendor comes around with a better offer, I'll just switch to that new vender.  This process will keep vendors in line, unless they are monopolies of oligopolies.
Leon

Lawyers, Class Actions, Flame

I just received a postcard from the AT&T "DSL Speed Settlement Administrator" telling me I can cash in $2.90 max per month where my DSL speed was bellow "what it should have been" starting in 1994.
I assume AT&T has kept the information, I never measured the speed of the DSL, only knew it was too slow, and eventually went to Time Warner (God Help us!) because of the DSL speed.

In any case. I solved my problem by changing carriers.  Thank God that in America we have competition, and we can choose.  Why the hell do I need lawyers to make millions by suing AT&T for something I resolved years ago? Why do I have to do anything to "stay out of the settlement?"  When did I give permission to anyone to sue AT&T?  Why are conditions imposed on me when I never asked to be included?

This reminds me of the medical insurance just passed.  I must take it or I am punished.  I have to do things even though I never signed up to them.

There probably is a law saying lawyers can use me in a class action suit without my permission.  That law should be repealed.  No one should be able to espouse my cause, when I have not asked for help!
Leon