Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21121 > unrolled thread

Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#21536 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

On 29 Jul 2015 20:27:48 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
>[...]
>> You're and idiot.
>[...]
>> You're an idiot.  
>
>[Yes, I know I said 'EOD', just bear with me.]
>
>  Just for kicks, I checked my 'Posted' file. I see that we had some
>pleasant - and only pleasant - exchanges in the past. (Mainly involving
>RS and others loons, so perhaps they just were 'the enemy of my
>enemy...' exchanges! :-))
>
>  Anyway, no hard feelings. After all, you can't help it that you're an
>idiot, can you!? :-) Better luck next time, for the both of us.

  You could help being an idiot if you has understood noit in context.

No hard feelings. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21537 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

On 29 Jul 2015 20:27:48 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
>[...]
>> You're and idiot.
>[...]
>> You're an idiot.  
>
>[Yes, I know I said 'EOD', just bear with me.]
>
>  Just for kicks, I checked my 'Posted' file. I see that we had some
>pleasant - and only pleasant - exchanges in the past. (Mainly involving
>RS and others loons, so perhaps they just were 'the enemy of my
>enemy...' exchanges! :-))
>
>  Anyway, no hard feelings. After all, you can't help it that you're an
>idiot, can you!? :-) Better luck next time, for the both of us.

There's no hard feelings.  You could help being an idiot had you
understood the post in question in context, but it flew right past
you.

Oh, there's no "enemy of my enemy" involved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21614 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2015 18:20:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On 29 Jul 2015 20:27:48 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> >[...]
> >> >> You're and idiot.
> >> >[...]
> >> >> You're an idiot.  
> >> >
> >> >[Yes, I know I said 'EOD', just bear with me.]
> >> >
> >> >  Just for kicks, I checked my 'Posted' file. I see that we had some
> >> >pleasant - and only pleasant - exchanges in the past. (Mainly involving
> >> >RS and others loons, so perhaps they just were 'the enemy of my
> >> >enemy...' exchanges! :-))
> >> >
> >> >  Anyway, no hard feelings. After all, you can't help it that you're an
> >> >idiot, can you!? :-) Better luck next time, for the both of us.
> >> 
> >> There's no hard feelings.  You could help being an idiot had you
> >> understood the post in question in context, but it flew right past
> >> you.
> >
> >  You really can't help yourself, can you!?
> >
> >  About "flew right past you": Exactly *which* part of this didn't
> >*you* understand?:

  Non-response/egg-on-face duly noted.

> >>  Yes, "he addressed a specific situation and was absolutely correct",
> >
> >  So I acknowledged - and hence understood - that his post was correct.
> >
> >  But I continued with:
> >
> >>but the situation which he addressed was *not* related to the point(s) I
> >>made to Michelle Steiner. I.e. his response was 'proving' a straw man,
> >>which *he* created.
> >
> >  So I understood his response and acknowlegded that it was *correct*,
> >but it was *not relevant* to the points *I* made to *Michelle*.
> >
> >  You *do* understand the difference between correctness and relevance,
> >don't you?

  Non-response/egg-on-face duly noted.

> >  I even explained what 'caused' him to post a non-relevant response /
> >straw man:
> >
> >>  That's the problem with - mostly silent - snippers like nospam. Their
> >>snipping changes/loses (the) context and leads to hordes of straw men.
> >
> >  You missed all of that and *I*'m the one with the comprehension
> >problem!? Dream on!
> >
> >  Bottom line: If you can't realize/accept that what I was addressing
> >and what you *thought* I was addressing can_be/are two different things,
> >you're beyond help.
> None are so blind as those.......

who don't have any arguments/defense and can only 'counter' with lame
phrases.

  But keep digging that hole of yours, sofar you're doing splendidly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21353 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:250720152044532783%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <4c75f$55b41998$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When I was considering changing the IMEI, I even told the FCC that I was
>> considering it (in my written complaint), and they said over the phone
>> that it was legal, in and of itself, when we discussed the complaint.
>
> bullshit they did.
>
>> As I already proved, in the USA, with T-mobile, it's impossible for all
>> five elements of fraud to apply; however, I wouldn't be so sure with USA
>> AT&T that all five elements don't apply.
>
> you didn't prove any such thing.
>
> the only thing you've proven is that you have no ethics and not only
> blatantly violate the law but advertise that you're doing so, even to
> the fcc.
>
>> So, whether or not it's fraud, depends on the first three elements under
>> your control, and of the last two elements under the control of the other
>> party:
>>
>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud
>>
>> Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved
>> five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2)
>> knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3)
>> intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4)
>> justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5)
>> injury to the alleged victim as a result.
>
> all 5 conditions are satisfied.

Just another of your bare faced lies when you continue to pay for the use of 
the device, fool. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21332 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

In article
<2c8d4$55b41a37$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> I'm *not* a lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV),

that much is clear.

> but, notice that 
> the definition here relies upon 'statements'. So, I'm not so sure that 
> merely changing an IMEI qualifies as a *statement*, but I would let the 
> legal profession haggle that one out if they were to attempt to prove all 
> five elements of fraud.

someone who flunked out of law school could prove all 5.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21352 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:250720152044532815%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <2c8d4$55b41a37$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm *not* a lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV),
>
> that much is clear.
>
>> but, notice that
>> the definition here relies upon 'statements'. So, I'm not so sure that
>> merely changing an IMEI qualifies as a *statement*, but I would let the
>> legal profession haggle that one out if they were to attempt to prove all
>> five elements of fraud.
>
> someone who flunked out of law school could prove all 5.

Not even possible with the injury to the alleged victim
when you continue to pay for the use of the device, fool. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21171

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <8deb6$55af9f9e$43da7656$2630@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they 
> > *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
> 
> smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> to get a smartphone and not use data.

  It that another US-only idiocy?

  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.".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21184

In article <d1accaFrgqkU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they 
> > > *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
> > 
> > smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> > use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> > to get a smartphone and not use data.
> 
>   It that another US-only idiocy?
>
>   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.

carriers require data because that's where the money is. nearly
everyone has a smartphone and a smartphone without data is rather
limited.

it's a business decision.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21200

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151854223176%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1accaFrgqkU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > > I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if 
>> > > they
>> > > *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
>> >
>> > smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
>> > use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
>> > to get a smartphone and not use data.
>>
>>   It that another US-only idiocy?
>>
>>   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.

And that is why so many are leaving AT&T and joining T-mobile instead.

> if few people sign up, then they'll change their offerings.

> carriers require data

None of mine do.

> because that's where the money is.

How odd that mine is happy for you to never use any data at all.

> nearly everyone has a smartphone and a
> smartphone without data is rather limited.

Even sillier than you usually manage with wifi.

> it's a business decision.

A stupid one and most aren't that stupid. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21211

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720152306180134%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1aputF6t8U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> And that is why so many are leaving AT&T and joining T-mobile instead.

> they aren't.

Wrong, as always.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21217

In article <d1b7jhF3189U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> And that is why so many are leaving AT&T and joining T-mobile instead.
> 
> > they aren't.
> 
> Wrong, as always.

nope. 

at&t and verizon's churn rate is lower than t-mobile (and sprint). that
means more people are leaving t-mobile than joining.

<http://marketrealist.com/2014/09/att-able-maintain-low-churn-rates/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21220

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:230720150108551514%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1b7jhF3189U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> And that is why so many are leaving AT&T and joining T-mobile instead.
>>
>> > they aren't.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.

> nope.

Yep.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21238 — Smartphone contracts in the US (was: Who pays for a phone call..)

> > > smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't
> > > plan to use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few
> > > people are going to get a smartphone and not use data.

I (the consumer) will be the judge of whether I need data service.

> >   It that another US-only idiocy?
> >
> >   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

Actually it's fraudulent for consumers to be told by sales people "you
should sign the contract, because even though you are married to
Sprint, you will always have the option of changing to another Sprint
plan, which will be competitive."  Only later to discover that
Sprint's new competitive plan is "for new customers only".

It's fraud.  And the contracts are predatory.  You advocate for big
business as if you value a competitive marketplace from an extremists
viewpoint, blindly, without realizing that it's a competition tricks
and traps, not a competition of value that benefits consumers.

Block the sneaky tricks and traps, as Belgium has done, and you get
the competition that consumers want-- a competition of transparent
price and quality.

> and consumers are free to sign up or not sign up for them. if few
> people sign up, then they'll change their offerings.

You overrate American consumers.  They are push-overs.  They don't
vote with their feet when they shop; they're too impulsive to get the
delusional credit that you give them.  And because of this, the
minority of smart shoppers have nothing good on the table to choose
from.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21244

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d1accaFrgqkU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they 
> > > > *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
> > > 
> > > smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> > > use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> > > to get a smartphone and not use data.
> > 
> >   It that another US-only idiocy?

  Silent acknowledgement duly noted.

> >   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.

  And, according to other responses, so do some providers in the US.

> carriers require data because that's where the money is. nearly
> everyone has a smartphone and a smartphone without data is rather
> limited.
> 
> it's a business decision.

  Which they can make *themselves*, thank you very much! They don't need
some anonymous Usenet poster to tell them what they can and cannot do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21342

In article <d1cot8Ff6rdU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> 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.

>   And, according to other responses, so do some providers in the US.

mvnos and some prepaid options do. 

postpaid does not.

> > carriers require data because that's where the money is. nearly
> > everyone has a smartphone and a smartphone without data is rather
> > limited.
> > 
> > it's a business decision.
> 
>   Which they can make *themselves*, thank you very much! They don't need
> some anonymous Usenet poster to tell them what they can and cannot do.

i'm not telling anyone what to do.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21360

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:250720152045053496%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1cot8Ff6rdU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> 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.

Wrong, as always.

> a smartphone without a data plan is crippled.

Wrong, as always. You are free to use wifi for the data.

>>   And, according to other responses, so do some providers in the US.

> mvnos and some prepaid options do.

> postpaid does not.

Wrong, as always.

>> > carriers require data because that's where the money is. nearly
>> > everyone has a smartphone and a smartphone without data is rather
>> > limited.
>> >
>> > it's a business decision.
>>
>> Which they can make *themselves*, thank you very much! They don't need
>> some anonymous Usenet poster to tell them what they can and cannot do.
>
> i'm not telling anyone what to do.
>
> 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.

And the consumer is welcome to make an obscene gesture in
their general direction and use a carrier with a fucking clue.

> that might piss off a small number of people but
> they tend to not be profitable customers anyway

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> and there aren't enough to matter either.

Wrong, as always. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21387

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d1cot8Ff6rdU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> 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.

  As M.L. said many times, T-mobile has dataless plans. So your claim is
false, and no amount of foot-stamping changes that!

> a smartphone without a data plan is crippled.

  Tell someone who cares about your opinion.

> >   And, according to other responses, so do some providers in the US.
> 
> mvnos and some prepaid options do. 
> 
> postpaid does not.

  (US) T-Mobile's is postpaid.

> > > carriers require data because that's where the money is. nearly
> > > everyone has a smartphone and a smartphone without data is rather
> > > limited.
> > > 
> > > it's a business decision.
> > 
> >   Which they can make *themselves*, thank you very much! They don't need
> > some anonymous Usenet poster to tell them what they can and cannot do.
> 
> i'm not telling anyone what to do.

  Yes, you do.

> 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.

  No "the carrierS" (plural) decided no such thing. Until now there's
been mention of *one* carrier - AT&T - which does.

> 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.

  Why aren't we surprised that you like the arrogant ones!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21399

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:260720151823126654%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1krpjFg33bU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > there are such plans in the usa but not for smartphones which are
>> > designed to use data.
>>
>>   As M.L. said many times, T-mobile has dataless plans. So your claim is
>> false, and no amount of foot-stamping changes that!
>
> for non-smartphones, they do, but for smartphones, there is data.
>
> <http://www.tmonews.com/2012/10/t-mobile-changes-smartphone-data-require
> ments-now-2gb-minimum/>
>  As of October 10th however, the smallest data package required for
>  smartphone purchase moves to the 2GB plan, though this has no impact
>  on existing customers already working with the 200MB plan. T-Mobile
>  explains this change in exactly the way I would think, that modern
>  smartphones consume data at a faster rate and that the 200MB plan is
>  easily used up. Right fitting customers to 2GB or higher data
>  protects the customer from any unexpected overage charges or
>  throttling.

You're still welcome to decide that you will
never use any data and only use wifi for that.

Apple even allows you to automate that in their phones. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21402

In article <d1lbpoFjsouU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're still welcome to decide that you will
> never use any data and only use wifi for that.

of course but you have to pay for whatever is required by the plan you
signed up for.

> Apple even allows you to automate that in their phones. 

no they don't. apple has no say in which plan a user chooses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21405

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> You're still welcome to decide that you will
>> never use any data and only use wifi for that.
 
> of course but you have to pay for whatever 
> is required by the plan you signed up for.

Consumer law overrides what some arsehole has chosen to 
try shafting consumers with in some 'contract' which is not 
in fact a contract at all when it flouts their consumer rights.

And plenty have never signed a damned thing either.  
 
>> Apple even allows you to automate that in their phones. 
 
> no they don't. 

Of course they do. 

> apple has no say in which plan a user chooses.

But Apple does allow the user to ensure that their iDevice never 
uses any data and only ever uses wifi when that is available.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web