Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21490
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android |
| Subject | Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? |
| Date | 2015-07-28 10:22 +0200 |
| Organization | SAP AG |
| Message-ID | <mp7e40$iak$1@news.sap-ag.de> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <220720151854223176%nospam@nospam.invalid> <d1cot8Ff6rdU1@mid.individual.net> <250720152045053496%nospam@nospam.invalid> <mp541m$fb$1@news.sap-ag.de> <270720151733100498%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Am 27.07.2015 um 23:33 schrieb nospam:
> In article <mp541m$fb$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> No such requirement in most (all?) of the rest of the (civilized)
>>>>>> world! But I'm sure you'll turn that into another "the usa does it
>>>>>> correctly. everyone else does not.".
>>>>>
>>>>> carriers are free to offer whatever plans they think will be profitable
>>>>> and consumers are free to sign up or not sign up for them. if few
>>>>> people sign up, then they'll change their offerings.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, and that's why many if not most if not all providers in most
>>>> if not all of the rest of the world, *do* offer such dataless plans.
>>>
>>> there are such plans in the usa but not for smartphones which are
>>> designed to use data.
>>>
>>> a smartphone without a data plan is crippled.
>>
>> Bullshit. You don't use all of its capabilities,
>
> you *can't* use all of its capabilities. thus it's crippled.
I can use all that I need it for - thus it's not crippled.
>> but heck I know some
>> people that never use the camera on their phone either. Would you call
>> their phones crippled?
>
> not the same thing.
It is comparable in the way that I'm the one to decide which features
and functions of a device I want to use - and which not. I don't anybody
to tell me what I need to use.
>> Why not accept that there are people out there
>> who don't need (or don't want) to use mobile networks, who only ever
>> will use WiFi (or even no data at all)?
>
> of course there are, but the point that you're missing is that if they
> sign up for a plan that requires data then they are required to pay for
> data.
M.L. *DID NOT* sign up for a plan containing data, he signed up for a
plan explicitly containing *no data*. So, according to your own logic,
that's all he is required to pay for. It was never his wish to be
changed over to a plan containing data, it was only the idea of AT&T.
> if they don't want data, they should find a plan that does not include
> data.
Which is exactly what he did. Just that his contractual partner didn't
want to obey to their contract and pulled a (as I assume) well hidden
term from up their sleeves, a term that at least in other jurisdictions
would be considered at least close to being fraud and thus null and void.
>> My wife e.g. had for quite a number of years a smartphone, but no data
>> plan. She used the online functions only when there was WiFi coverage
>> (mostly at our home), and didn't (back then) miss a bit being online
>> while on the road. It took me quite some convincing several years later,
>> to put her on a (small) data plan. Which, by the way, can be canceled
>> monthly - just in case she wouldn't like it anymore... ;-) Not gonna
>> happen, but that was part of the deal. :-)
>
> so what?
The point being that there are people out there (I know further ones)
that don't need/want to have mobile data on their smartphone, as they
don't need it. And so they choose a plan that fits their needs, and at
least here in Germany they will exactly get what they signed up for.
Different from the US (i.e. AT&T).
>>> the carriers decided that it is more profitable and less headaches from
>>> upset customers ("why can't i get email?") to require data plans on
>>> smartphones.
>>>
>>> that might piss off a small number of people but they tend to not be
>>> profitable customers anyway and there aren't enough to matter either.
>>
>> The carriers are stupid, IMHO.
>
> they are not stupid. the carriers know what's profitable and what is
> not, which is why they structure the plans the way they do.
Why don't they stick to what the customers sign up for???
>> I don't mind them pushing customers
>> towards data plans when deciding which plan to use. I can even
>> understand them making it harder to find data-less plans in the first
>> place. Or not offering data-less plans at all.
>
> that's what they're doing.
I understand that AT&T offers data-less plans. So why won't they let
(some) customers use them as requested?
>> But adding an option
>> afterwards (only based on some paragraph in the general terms) wouldn't
>> stand for a single second in front of a German judge... :-) Actually, I
>> would even doubt that this judge would even call for a session in court,
>> this would probably even be decided based on written statements - if any
>> provider would be so stupid to breach some long-standing (German) rules
>> of customer contract handling so blatantly... :-) Which they aren't, for
>> all I know.
>
> the customer is committing fraud.
Obviously they're not committing fraud? They're willing to pay what they
signed up for, and don't use anything they're not entitled to. Where's
the fraud in that?
> is fraud legal in germany?
No, obviously not. But the only one (possibly) committing fraud here is
AT&T, not the customer.
>> But this is about the US, where customers have much less rights than
>> over here in Germany.
>
> nonsense.
Not at all. And this whole discussion is quite a nice example that
customers in the US are much less protected against company practices
than over here in Germany.
Best regards,
Michael
Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 09:50 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:25 +0100
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 12:45 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:29 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:07 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 03:25 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:30 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:32 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:27 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:28 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:27 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:26 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:24 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:28 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:13 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:59 +1000
imei modification is legal in the US (proof posted) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-07-26 09:40 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 14:02 +1000
imei alteration is not fraud -- 1 of 5 legal tests pass. Insufficient. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-07-26 12:00 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:52 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 19:51 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:09 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:14 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:03 +0200
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:52 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 19:04 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 22:06 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 19:09 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 22:13 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 20:04 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 23:16 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 19:46 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-26 15:21 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:13 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-26 22:07 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:04 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 08:02 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:30 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:48 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:11 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 05:49 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 07:18 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 17:13 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 14:24 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-31 06:48 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-31 20:51 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 12:00 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-01 19:18 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-01 15:19 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-02 20:15 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-02 17:38 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-04 18:20 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-04 14:25 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 00:56 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:06 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 08:03 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:51 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:12 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 05:50 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:50 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-28 19:46 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-28 17:02 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-29 19:34 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 14:41 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-29 20:27 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 15:39 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 15:42 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-01 19:07 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:54 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:53 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:22 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:14 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:07 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:18 +1000
Smartphone contracts in the US (was: Who pays for a phone call..) Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201507.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-07-23 15:27 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-23 18:08 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:45 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 14:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 00:56 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:09 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 01:40 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:44 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:48 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:22 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:15 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 10:10 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:55 +1000
csiph-web