Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:59:21 -0400]:
> In article <dfht97hpiqp2q2hm3vba1gisr4amm16h1o@4ax.com>,
> meh <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> A woman bought a cellphone for her deaf brother.
>>
>> He went to Canada for a month, and NO ONE told him about roaming,
>> OR turning off data.
>
> Ummmm.....are we such a nanny state that we have abdicated ANY and ALL
> responsibility for knowing how something works? That we can complain
> loudly about how "they never told me!" and EXPECT the world NOT to
> ridicule that?
Yes and no.
These companies spend every waking hour devising methods of screwing the
consumer over. Should I be required to take my contract for a freaking
cell phone to a lawyer every time I get one or renew one?
Charges need to be explained in minute detail instead of hidden in minutae
On 10/19/2011 10:55 AM, Justin wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:59:21 -0400]:
>> In article<dfht97hpiqp2q2hm3vba1gisr4amm16h1o@4ax.com >,
>> meh<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A woman bought a cellphone for her deaf brother.
>>>
>>> He went to Canada for a month, and NO ONE told him about roaming,
>>> OR turning off data.
>>
>> Ummmm.....are we such a nanny state that we have abdicated ANY and ALL
>> responsibility for knowing how something works? That we can complain
>> loudly about how "they never told me!" and EXPECT the world NOT to
>> ridicule that?
>
> Yes and no.
>
> These companies spend every waking hour devising methods of screwing the
> consumer over. Should I be required to take my contract for a freaking
> cell phone to a lawyer every time I get one or renew one?
>
No need to get a lawyer, assuming that you are able to read! You do
have a duty to read and understand the cell phone contract BEFORE you
agree to it. If you don't understand the contract and all of its
provisions DON'T SIGN IT!!!!! It's just that simple.
Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:19:54 -0400]:
> On 10/19/2011 10:55 AM, Justin wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:59:21 -0400]:
>>> In article<dfht97hpiqp2q2hm3vba1gisr4amm16h1o@4ax.com >,
>>> meh<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A woman bought a cellphone for her deaf brother.
>>>>
>>>> He went to Canada for a month, and NO ONE told him about roaming,
>>>> OR turning off data.
>>>
>>> Ummmm.....are we such a nanny state that we have abdicated ANY and ALL
>>> responsibility for knowing how something works? That we can complain
>>> loudly about how "they never told me!" and EXPECT the world NOT to
>>> ridicule that?
>>
>> Yes and no.
>>
>> These companies spend every waking hour devising methods of screwing the
>> consumer over. Should I be required to take my contract for a freaking
>> cell phone to a lawyer every time I get one or renew one?
> >
>
> No need to get a lawyer, assuming that you are able to read! You do
> have a duty to read and understand the cell phone contract BEFORE you
> agree to it. If you don't understand the contract and all of its
> provisions DON'T SIGN IT!!!!! It's just that simple.
I haven't seen a cell phone contract before receiving service in years.
I also have never signed one.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:55:30 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:59:21 -0400]:
>> In article <dfht97hpiqp2q2hm3vba1gisr4amm16h1o@4ax.com>,
>> meh <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A woman bought a cellphone for her deaf brother.
>>>
>>> He went to Canada for a month, and NO ONE told him about roaming,
>>> OR turning off data.
>>
>> Ummmm.....are we such a nanny state that we have abdicated ANY and ALL
>> responsibility for knowing how something works? That we can complain
>> loudly about how "they never told me!" and EXPECT the world NOT to
>> ridicule that?
>
>Yes and no.
>
>These companies spend every waking hour devising methods of screwing the
>consumer over. Should I be required to take my contract for a freaking
>cell phone to a lawyer every time I get one or renew one?
>
>Charges need to be explained in minute detail instead of hidden in minutae
They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
tlvp wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:21:59 -0400]:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:23 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>
>> ...
>> They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
>
> Sure they can -- they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement,
> with no notice to the customer. SOP at T-Mobile, and surely elsewhere, too.
>
> Welcome to the funny farm :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
Or send a convoluted notice saying that the seventh word on the fifth line
of the third page has been changed to "can" instead of "cannot".
It's funny how they reserve the right to alter the contract at any time
yet the consumer is expected to be held to the agreement.
tlvp wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:21:59 -0400]:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:23 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>
>> ...
>> They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
>
> Sure they can -- they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement,
> with no notice to the customer. SOP at T-Mobile, and surely elsewhere, too.
>
> Welcome to the funny farm :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
Or send a convoluted notice saying that the seventh word on the fifth line
of the third page has been changed to "can" instead of "cannot".
It's funny how they reserve the right to alter the contract at any time
yet the consumer is expected to be held to the agreement.
On 10/19/2011 9:21 PM, tlvp wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:23 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>
>> ...
>> They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
>
> Sure they can -- they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement,
> with no notice to the customer. SOP at T-Mobile, and surely elsewhere, too.
>
> Welcome to the funny farm :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
I don't recall encountering such behavior from VZW when I was still
under contract. I've been "month to month" for at least a couple of
years now. If I had any reason to do so I could tell VZW to "take it
and stick it". I won't need to execute a new contract until I need new
phones.
On 10/20/2011 12:07 AM, Justin wrote:
> tlvp wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:21:59 -0400]:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:23 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
>>
>> Sure they can -- they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement,
>> with no notice to the customer. SOP at T-Mobile, and surely elsewhere, too.
>>
>> Welcome to the funny farm :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
>
> Or send a convoluted notice saying that the seventh word on the fifth line
> of the third page has been changed to "can" instead of "cannot".
>
> It's funny how they reserve the right to alter the contract at any time
> yet the consumer is expected to be held to the agreement.
If you agreed to it you have no basis for complaint!
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:21:59 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:23 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>
>> ...
>> They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
>
>Sure they can -- they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement,
>with no notice to the customer. SOP at T-Mobile, and surely elsewhere, too.
>
>Welcome to the funny farm :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
"they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement"
Only if you've agreed to let them do that. If you don't like the terms
of the service, don't get it.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:09:54 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>tlvp wrote on [Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:21:59 -0400]:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:23 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
>>
>> Sure they can -- they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement,
>> with no notice to the customer. SOP at T-Mobile, and surely elsewhere, too.
>>
>> Welcome to the funny farm :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
>
>Or send a convoluted notice saying that the seventh word on the fifth line
>of the third page has been changed to "can" instead of "cannot".
>
>It's funny how they reserve the right to alter the contract at any time
>yet the consumer is expected to be held to the agreement.
And part of the agreement is that they have the right to alter the
contract at any time. If you accepted that, then you are stuck wit it.
On 10/20/2011 2:59 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<-aOdnayUgKZwOQLTnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't recall encountering such behavior from VZW when I was still
>> under contract. I've been "month to month" for at least a couple of
>> years now. If I had any reason to do so I could tell VZW to "take it
>> and stick it". I won't need to execute a new contract until I need new
>> phones.
>
> <snort> You are SUCH a tool of the corporations.
>
> You don't EVER *need* to execute a contract. But you've been suckered
> in by the "FREE PHONE!" crap that's unique to the US.
>
> How's this sound: ****ing BUY your next phone, then you STILL won't
> need to "execute a contract".
If you plan to stay with your current provider anyway, it makes no sense
to buy a phone to stay out of contract. In fact it's very stupid to not
take the new subsidized phone as soon as you qualify for it, since
you're effectively paying for it in your monthly fees whether your under
contract or not. If you don't want the new phone you can always sell it
on craigslist.
Only if you plan to leave your current provider relatively soon does it
make sense to not take the subsidized handset and go back under contract.
Of course the best thing for many people would be to move to a company
like Pageplus and buy their own phones, but so many people are addicted
to the "free phone" that they would rather spend hundreds or thousands
of extra dollars per year in order to get that "free" phone.
In article <4ea0659d$0$1681$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
> If you plan to stay with your current provider anyway, it makes no sense
> to buy a phone to stay out of contract. In fact it's very stupid to not
> take the new subsidized phone as soon as you qualify for it, since
> you're effectively paying for it in your monthly fees whether your under
> contract or not. If you don't want the new phone you can always sell it
> on craigslist.
That's insane. If you don't want the phone, don't buy the phone and you
will go month to month. The cost of your plan isn't going to go up just
because you're no longer on contract,
> Of course the best thing for many people would be to move to a company
> like Pageplus and buy their own phones, but so many people are addicted
> to the "free phone" that they would rather spend hundreds or thousands
> of extra dollars per year in order to get that "free" phone.
Or maybe they have an old phone, and they're ready to upgrade, but the
prepaid carriers don't have the phone they want. My experience is that
the prepaid carriers' selection is rather limited. (Although I haven't
looked at prepaid in a long time)
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:57:19 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>That's insane. If you don't want the phone, don't buy the phone and you
>will go month to month. The cost of your plan isn't going to go up just
>because you're no longer on contract,
I got in just a day before V ended their unlimited data/everything
plan, and gave me a new phone to do it. When this contract ends,
I'll buy a new phone, because I doubt if V will have a better plan
with a free phone. I'll month 2 month it as long as I can.
Thing is, I don't text, seldom web, on my phone. I know my data
etc use is less then zero. V is making $$ off me...now...
...oh...btw... Hours before the deal ended I took the time to read
the contract, understand it, then go that route. I have always said:
"..learn, or be sold to..."
Also, unless you have a unlimited plan, if ya text n or web till
ya thumbs bleed, one has to understand the costs involved.
For sure, said account should of been flagged at the 1st $10k..
"..No lay-a-way plan in the dark ..." <Zonkaraz>
JJTj
"..As I leaned over to correct her spelling of the
words: "..Boogie-Woogie..", I realized I loved her.."
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:34:48 -0400, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 9:21 PM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:15:23 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> They can't screw over a customer who knows what they've agreed to.
>>
>> Sure they can -- they just unilaterally change the terms of the agreement,
>> with no notice to the customer. SOP at T-Mobile, and surely elsewhere, too.
>>
>> Welcome to the funny farm :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
>
> I don't recall encountering such behavior from VZW when I was still
> under contract. I've been "month to month" for at least a couple of
> years now. If I had any reason to do so I could tell VZW to "take it
> and stick it". I won't need to execute a new contract until I need new
> phones.
I've never had the dubious pleasure of being a VZW customer.
And I've not been under contract to T-Mobile for years and years.
But after eight years of never charging for data while I was roaming
abroad, suddenly I returned from a foreign trip once two years ago
to find a $600+ data roaming charge on my bill, for an extremely
suspicious 42.94967 MB of data, all on one day, while using (yeah,
right!) t-Zones on my 2003-vintage Nokia 6610 handset.
(I'm sure you recognize the digits 42.94967 from the decimal expansion of
2^32, right? 4.2949673 x 10^9. I wonder what brought that figure up :-) .)
Tell T-Mo to "take it and stick it"? Bye-bye credit rating for tlvp!
Any more good advice?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:59:01 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> ... the "FREE PHONE!" crap that's unique to the US. ...
Nope, not unique to the US. You find it also in England, Belgium,
France, Poland, Germany, Canada, ... in short, wherever cell phones
and cellular service are marketed.
What's unique to the US is the extreme difficulty of finding any
B&M stores selling handsets, apart from some cellular service bundle,
at anything other than utterly extortionate prices, if at all.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:57:19 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
> The cost of your plan isn't going to go up just
> because you're no longer on contract,
Alas, not true in all cases. F'r instance:
SMS sent to non-US cell phones used to cost
a dime apiece with T-Mobile when we first
came off contract with them -- that's up to
20 cents apiece today.
Another f'r instance:
t-Zones usage used to be free of charge world-wide
when we first came off-contract with T-Mo years ago
-- it's $15/MB (ok, less from Canada) from outside
the USA today.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
> ... best thing for many people would be to move to a company
> like Pageplus and buy their own phones ...
Or find them in recycling bins. In fact, I just found a cute, old,
little Verizon-branded Motorola StarTac, complete with battery and
charger, working, with its last assigned phone number still visible,
doing 800 CDMA, 1900 CDMA, and 800 AMPS (ranging options Auto A,
Auto B, and Home, whatever those mean), and I think it's time
to get it set up with Page Plus.
It's been so long since last you posted 'getting started' instructions
for Page Plus and the discounted bundles of additional time credits
that I'd like to ask you to repost those -- there's a 3-digit number
to dial to reach Page Plus (was it 737?), and there's the questions
of what I need to be ready to tell them, and what I need to have ready
in the way of payment (or prepayment) means.
I'd greatly appreciate that :-) . TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
On 10/20/2011 5:14 PM, tlvp wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:59:01 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> ... the "FREE PHONE!" crap that's unique to the US. ...
>
> Nope, not unique to the US. You find it also in England, Belgium,
> France, Poland, Germany, Canada, ... in short, wherever cell phones
> and cellular service are marketed.
>
> What's unique to the US is the extreme difficulty of finding any
> B&M stores selling handsets, apart from some cellular service bundle,
B&M??????? *** is that supposed to mean?
> at anything other than utterly extortionate prices, if at all.
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
In article <pus0a751pkhkghgeboct5c322ff4772uc3@4ax.com>, It's that Guy
again... says...
>
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:57:19 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
> >That's insane. If you don't want the phone, don't buy the phone and you
> >will go month to month. The cost of your plan isn't going to go up just
> >because you're no longer on contract,
>
> I got in just a day before V ended their unlimited data/everything
> plan, and gave me a new phone to do it. When this contract ends,
> I'll buy a new phone, because I doubt if V will have a better plan
> with a free phone. I'll month 2 month it as long as I can.
You're just automatically going to buy a new phone because your contract
ended? Or at end-of-contract, are you going to hold out as long as
possible with the current phone, and re-up when you see a new phone with
features you need/want?
On 10/20/2011 11:57 AM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<4ea0659d$0$1681$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
>
>> If you plan to stay with your current provider anyway, it makes no sense
>> to buy a phone to stay out of contract. In fact it's very stupid to not
>> take the new subsidized phone as soon as you qualify for it, since
>> you're effectively paying for it in your monthly fees whether your under
>> contract or not. If you don't want the new phone you can always sell it
>> on craigslist.
>
> That's insane. If you don't want the phone, don't buy the phone and you
> will go month to month. The cost of your plan isn't going to go up just
> because you're no longer on contract,
Nor will it go down.
You have to look at the big picture. Whether you take the highly
subsidized phone or not your plan price pays the same. So if know you're
staying with your carrier for the long term you always want to take the
"free" phone because you're paying for at as part of your monthly fees
whether you take it or not.
In article <4ea111e7$0$1643$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
> > That's insane. If you don't want the phone, don't buy the phone and
you
> > will go month to month. The cost of your plan isn't going to go up just
> > because you're no longer on contract,
>
> Nor will it go down.
> You have to look at the big picture. Whether you take the highly
> subsidized phone or not your plan price pays the same. So if know you're
> staying with your carrier for the long term you always want to take the
> "free" phone because you're paying for at as part of your monthly fees
> whether you take it or not.
Are you serious?
Are you forgetting that once you purchase the new phone, you're
committed for another one to two years?
Are you forgetting that then, if you decide you want to quit, you're out
$150-300 depending on which carrier you use, and how far into the
contract you are?
If you don't want the phone, it would be unbelievably stupid to buy
another one anyhow and commit yourself to another contract.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:23:52 -0700, in alt.cellular.verizon you wrote:
> In article <1wo0aa4guofiu.1wfa6fgao43tr$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp says...
>
>
>>
>> Tell T-Mo to "take it and stick it"? Bye-bye credit rating for tlvp!
>> Any more good advice?
>
> Pfft. I busted their chops about a much smaller line item that they
> couldn't itemize for me. $40 in data charges.
Yah ... chump change I've gotten them to credit back, too. But not $600+.
> I got them to credit it after pointing out, ad nauseum, that they
> couldn't document why I was being charged. I did have to threaten to
> cancel first.
More power to you, then :-) . I tried for months ... and failed ...
and gave it up. Now I'm plotting my escape :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
On 10/21/2011 3:57 AM, tlvp wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:36:38 -0400, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2011 5:14 PM, tlvp wrote:
>>> ... finding any
>>> B&M stores ...
>>
>> B&M??????? *** is that supposed to mean?
>
> Sorry, I thought you were from our planet: B&M = Brick& Mortar. OK?
>
At 21 Oct 2011 08:00:20 -0400 Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 3:57 AM, tlvp wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:36:38 -0400, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/20/2011 5:14 PM, tlvp wrote:
> >>> ... finding any
> >>> B&M stores ...
> >>
> >> B&M??????? *** is that supposed to mean?
> >
> > Sorry, I thought you were from our planet: B&M = Brick& Mortar. OK?
> >
>
> When in doubt, spell it out!
No one else in here seemed to be in doubt bedsides you.
Any industry discussion is going to use jargon and abbreviations common
to that industry.
"When in doubt..." Google it on your giant 27" monitor rather than waste
the class' time by asking the professor questions everyone else already
knows the answer to.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:22:12 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>You're just automatically going to buy a new phone because your contract
>ended? Or at end-of-contract, are you going to hold out as long as
>possible with the current phone, and re-up when you see a new phone with
>features you need/want?
I only got the new phone to get in on the data stuff, I doubt if I
will update the phone afterwards. I'll hold out, I guess..
At 20 Oct 2011 23:41:35 -0700 Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <4ea111e7$0$1643$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
>
>
> > > That's insane. If you don't want the phone, don't buy the phone and
> you
> > > will go month to month. The cost of your plan isn't going to go up
just
> > > because you're no longer on contract,
> >
> > Nor will it go down.
>
>
>
> > You have to look at the big picture. Whether you take the highly
> > subsidized phone or not your plan price pays the same. So if know
you're
> > staying with your carrier for the long term you always want to take
the
> > "free" phone because you're paying for at as part of your monthly
fees
> > whether you take it or not.
>
>
> Are you serious?
>
> Are you forgetting that once you purchase the new phone, you're
> committed for another one to two years?
It's a tough call- SMS' argument is "if you *know* you'll stay with the
carrier anyway..." Sure, some of us hop around, but in my case, I've
been a T-Mo customer since 2001, and I've only been under contract three
of those ten years. I've probably left $1000-2000 in unused subsidies in
the table, and for what? An illusion of free agency I've never
exercised? I've received no financial benefit like lower rates, in fact,
from buying unlocked non-T-Mo handsets over the years, I'm far deeper in
the hole than if I took the best "free" handset offered each year and
flipped it on eBay.
> Are you forgetting that then, if you decide you want to quit, you're
out
> $150-300 depending on which carrier you use, and how far into the
> contract you are?
I don't think he's forgetting that- he's just pointing out that those who
are very satisfied with their carrier should take advantage if the
subsidy they're paying for anyway, in or out of contract.
> If you don't want the phone, it would be unbelievably stupid to buy
> another one anyhow and commit yourself to another contract.
I think you have to look at the risk vs. reward. If you're 80% sure
you're not leaving your carrier, why not? Some smartphones you can get
for $0-200 can be flipped on the used market for $400 or more. With the
right handset of the moment, you could be ahead almost enough to cover
the EFT in the unlikely event you do switch.
In my case, I just resigned a contract two months ago with T-Mo for the
first time since 2005, but not to try to flip handsets for a profit- I
did it in the off-chance the merger goes through, to protect my
grandfathered rate plan. AT&T can make all the promises they want about
letting T-Mo customers keep their plans, but I trust AT&T about as far as
I can throw them, and I saw exactly what those same promises were worth
when they were made by Cingular to the old ATTWS customers before that
merger.
Re: OBSCENELY large bill!! 
Linear Mode
