Sleazy Verizon rep... whoah.

[OneThirty8]

I think I got some dude from Verizon Wireless in trouble today. I got a text from Verizon stating that I was "trending to incur substantial charges for data usage--call us and we can help!" So I called and got this dude. He tried telling me that the unlimited data for mobile web that I'm paying for "doesn't include the downloadin'." So, I ask him to define downloadin'. "Well, if you go to one web page, you're fine because you haven't downloaded yet, but once you start scrolling through to other pages, it has to download the pages, and that's $1.99 per megabyte." The first part he said is technically not true--I have to download the page or else it's not on my phone to view. The second part is technically true, but the common understanding of 'download' is more along the lines of what V-Cast is--downloading music. I mention V-Cast because this is what he tells me I need to buy in order to get what I'm already paying for. So I speak to him like a child for a minute (he really deserved it). I said, "what you're saying is like if your ISP tells you that you get unlimited bandwidth, except that you have to pay extra for the bandwidth required to view web pages using your unlimited bandwidth service--it doesn't make sense." I tell him that I'm gonna go home and check my bill and then call back.

I call back, and the girl I talk to doesn't understand why I'm calling her about data usage charges, because that's all covered under my plan--unlimited data, texts, yadda yadda. Just not V-Cast, which I don't use and don't want. I tell her about the text I got, and she says, "oh, just ignore that. It went out to you by mistake. You're covered. Don't worry." So I say, "well, that's good to know, but that's not what I heard from the guy I spoke to this morning. He said I needed to switch my plan and add V-Cast." She says, "no, you're covered... uh, please hold for a second." I hold for about a minute and a half, and she says, "you're covered. That guy was trying to make a sale." So I told her that he had me really upset, and thanked her for being helpful and providing me with accurate information. I hope they fired that guy's ass.

[hearld500]

If it's not too far out of you way, I'd recommend running down to the local verizon shop and ask...maybe see if you can get anything in writing.
Verizon's data packages are pretty shaddy in my experience.

[curt_grymala]

Are you sure you called Verizon in the first place? Did you look up the number, or did you just call the number provided in the text?

It sounds like a phishing scam to me.

BTW - $1.99 per megabyte is about 20% of what I have to pay if I want to browse the Internet on my AT&T phone, right now.

Of course, for $15/mo, I could add the unlimited data plan (which I will probably end up doing, even though I don't browse the net much).

[DaMadFiddler]

Are you sure you called Verizon in the first place? Did you look up the number, or did you just call the number provided in the text?

It sounds like a phishing scam to me.

BTW - $1.99 per megabyte is about 20% of what I have to pay if I want to browse the Internet on my AT&T phone, right now.

Of course, for $15/mo, I could add the unlimited data plan (which I will probably end up doing, even though I don't browse the net much).

I have an unlimited data plan for my phone (technically, carriers all do have a bandwidth cap these days, but generally they're not very strict about it unless you're really moving a ton of data around). I don't use it as much as I thought I would, but it is really nice to have that data connection for Google Maps if I get lost or turned around. That's really the main reason I have it...that, and so I can get on AIM (or look things up) when I'm away from home. It's really more of a safety net than anything else, and I like having it there. I'd probably use the data connection more if I had a phone with a better browser.

[OneThirty8]

Are you sure you called Verizon in the first place? Did you look up the number, or did you just call the number provided in the text?

It sounds like a phishing scam to me.

BTW - $1.99 per megabyte is about 20% of what I have to pay if I want to browse the Internet on my AT&T phone, right now.

Of course, for $15/mo, I could add the unlimited data plan (which I will probably end up doing, even though I don't browse the net much).

Nah, I didn't look it up, but I just googled the number. It looks legit. I think that the guy was trying to sell me the V-CAST and make a commission or something like that.

[Quzar]

I've had that exact thing happen with T-Mobile. Scummy local store employees will grab up lists of customers and try to trick them into upgrading their plans to get commisions for it. When I talked to the people at the T-Mobile loyalty department about it they said that it was a common scam and sadly they have no way to weed it out unless the customer recognizes it as such and reports so after the fact. They then reimbursed me an hours worth of minutes to make up for the fact that the call with the person wasn't free. Very nice.

Oh, apparently the key is that the company will basically never call you unless you're behind with payments or something.

[Specially Cork]

I signed up for "unlimited" data from 02. 2 seconds after activating, I get a text saying "Your unlimited data bolt-on has been activated. This has a fair use policy of 200mb traffic".

FANTASTICALLY UNLIMITED

Still amazes me that such terminology hasn't been made illegal yet. I read some articles about it being considered, but nothing yet. Either something is unlimited (i.e. I am free to rape your service of every possible byte of data I can), or it isn't. Companies love to rebuff this with "an unlimited data service with no fair use policy is unsustainable and unfair to other customers". Well don't sell unlimited data services then fuckwads.

[DaMadFiddler]

Still amazes me that such terminology hasn't been made illegal yet. I read some articles about it being considered, but nothing yet. Either something is unlimited (i.e. I am free to rape your service of every possible byte of data I can), or it isn't. Companies love to rebuff this with "an unlimited data service with no fair use policy is unsustainable and unfair to other customers". Well don't sell unlimited data services then fuckwads.

See, in order to outlaw deceptive product labeling and terminology, you have to have a government that's interested in consumer protection and corporate oversight. Now, think about who drives US policy--a group of people who actually BANNED a small, organic meat producer form expanding their mad cow testing, because larger, more powerful producers were afraid it would make them look bad if the organic farm was able to say "we test 100% of our cows".

[OneThirty8]

I signed up for "unlimited" data from 02. 2 seconds after activating, I get a text saying "Your unlimited data bolt-on has been activated. This has a fair use policy of 200mb traffic".

FANTASTICALLY UNLIMITED

Still amazes me that such terminology hasn't been made illegal yet. I read some articles about it being considered, but nothing yet. Either something is unlimited (i.e. I am free to rape your service of every possible byte of data I can), or it isn't. Companies love to rebuff this with "an unlimited data service with no fair use policy is unsustainable and unfair to other customers". Well don't sell unlimited data services then fuckwads.

See, I can understand putting in some clause that will place certain restrictions so that the company can afford to offer "unlimited" package at a price that is reasonable for the customer. If you're download hundreds of megabytes in the amount of time that an average customer would use 500k of data, I could see them saying, "hey, c'mon, that's not fair. We offered you unlimited web browsing, but it's not fair to use this network to download a Linux ISO. That's not what the service is intended for and you're making it difficult for us to offer our other subscribers access because you're taking up too much of our available bandwidth." On the other hand, if you're on the go a lot and like to check out your friends' MySpace photo albums from your phone and they tell you that you went over your limit, I could see you saying, "hey--no fair limiting my unlimited data! I'm using the service for what it's intended for!"

[Roofus]

See, in order to outlaw deceptive product labeling and terminology, you have to have a government that's interested in consumer protection and corporate oversight. Now, think about who drives US policy--a group of people who actually BANNED a small, organic meat producer form expanding their mad cow testing, because larger, more powerful producers were afraid it would make them look bad if the organic farm was able to say "we test 100% of our cows".

I think it's the right thing for the wrong reason. There have been 3 vCJD cases in the US. It's such a minor risk it's not even worth thinking about.

[Specially Cork]

I signed up for "unlimited" data from 02. 2 seconds after activating, I get a text saying "Your unlimited data bolt-on has been activated. This has a fair use policy of 200mb traffic".

FANTASTICALLY UNLIMITED

Still amazes me that such terminology hasn't been made illegal yet. I read some articles about it being considered, but nothing yet. Either something is unlimited (i.e. I am free to rape your service of every possible byte of data I can), or it isn't. Companies love to rebuff this with "an unlimited data service with no fair use policy is unsustainable and unfair to other customers". Well don't sell unlimited data services then fuckwads.

See, I can understand putting in some clause that will place certain restrictions so that the company can afford to offer "unlimited" package at a price that is reasonable for the customer. If you're download hundreds of megabytes in the amount of time that an average customer would use 500k of data, I could see them saying, "hey, c'mon, that's not fair. We offered you unlimited web browsing, but it's not fair to use this network to download a Linux ISO. That's not what the service is intended for and you're making it difficult for us to offer our other subscribers access because you're taking up too much of our available bandwidth." On the other hand, if you're on the go a lot and like to check out your friends' MySpace photo albums from your phone and they tell you that you went over your limit, I could see you saying, "hey--no fair limiting my unlimited data! I'm using the service for what it's intended for!"

Any intended use would be a limit though. I don't believe a truly unlimited service is fair or sustainable, just like the companies say. But then that's why I think any mention of "unlimited" should be banned. The only real problem is with the wording, not the actual package that they're selling.

[Ex-Cyber]

Yeah, right now "unlimited" just means "we don't want to tell you what the limit is". Comcast played this game pretty hard for a while, but they've at least taken a first step by defining a limit. Now if they just adjusted their advertising to match, we'd have a winner...

[OneThirty8]

Any intended use would be a limit though. I don't believe a truly unlimited service is fair or sustainable, just like the companies say. But then that's why I think any mention of "unlimited" should be banned. The only real problem is with the wording, not the actual package that they're selling.

I don't think that there's a conflict of terms if they tell you that these specific things are unlimited, and only these specific things. I believe that the language in the "click here for details" link on their website actually amounts to that. You can use it as much as you want for web browsing on your phone, but don't abuse the service to download large files onto your computer.

[Quzar]

Any intended use would be a limit though. I don't believe a truly unlimited service is fair or sustainable, just like the companies say. But then that's why I think any mention of "unlimited" should be banned. The only real problem is with the wording, not the actual package that they're selling.

I don't think that there's a conflict of terms if they tell you that these specific things are unlimited, and only these specific things. I believe that the language in the "click here for details" link on their website actually amounts to that. You can use it as much as you want for web browsing on your phone, but don't abuse the service to download large files onto your computer.

The thing is that nothing in them is unlimited. It's not like they detect web content data to make web browsing unlimited, while limiting only other sorts of data.

[Ex-Cyber]

The Internet is a peer-to-peer network with open, application-agnostic protocols; an intended use is anything that users and developers agree is worth doing. Phone and cable companies didn't have veto power over applications when Tim Berners-Lee created the Web, and they shouldn't have it now.

[OneThirty8]

Any intended use would be a limit though. I don't believe a truly unlimited service is fair or sustainable, just like the companies say. But then that's why I think any mention of "unlimited" should be banned. The only real problem is with the wording, not the actual package that they're selling.

I don't think that there's a conflict of terms if they tell you that these specific things are unlimited, and only these specific things. I believe that the language in the "click here for details" link on their website actually amounts to that. You can use it as much as you want for web browsing on your phone, but don't abuse the service to download large files onto your computer.

The thing is that nothing in them is unlimited. It's not like they detect web content data to make web browsing unlimited, while limiting only other sorts of data.

My intention wasn't to really argue over whether there actually is a limit on the "unlimited" amount of data. But I did agree to certain things with the plan, which seem to be in place to make sure that I'm not using the service in a manner that will disrupt service for others.

The Internet is a peer-to-peer network with open, application-agnostic protocols; an intended use is anything that users and developers agree is worth doing. Phone and cable companies didn't have veto power over applications when Tim Berners-Lee created the Web, and they shouldn't have it now.

I think that in a case like this, I would have to disagree with you. I think that my cell provider should be able to say, "you can view web pages, and download a reasonable number of other sorts of files, but you agree not to use our service in such a way that is detrimental to the quality of service we are able to provide our other subscribers." If somebody comes out with a program for my phone that will allow me to use some other sorts of content via a mobile web connection, fine, but if I'm tying up network resources to a large degree by doing so, I think that my access provider should have the right to object.