Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21121 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-22 09:50 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-07-26 13:55 +1000 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 110 — 12 participants |
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.
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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 01:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <270720150140009140%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21405 |
In article <d1lsodFneteU1@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. > > 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. if the user signed up for a particular plan then they are required to pay for what they agreed to and trying to avoid paying for certain parts of it is a breach of contract and/or fraud depending on what the user does. > And plenty have never signed a damned thing either. they don't need to physically sign anything. > >> Apple even allows you to automate that in their phones. > > > no they don't. > > Of course they do. no they definitely do not. > > 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. that has absolutely nothing to do with the service plan the user has chosen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 15:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1luqlFntdaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21406 |
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. > if the user signed up for a particular plan Fuck all users sign a damned thing. > then they are required to pay for what they agreed to Not when that flouts consumer law they aren't. > and trying to avoid paying for certain > parts of it is a breach of contract Not when that flouts consumer law it isn't. > and/or fraud Not when that flouts consumer law it isnt. > depending on what the user does. Not when that flouts consumer law it isn't. >> And plenty have never signed a damned thing either. > they don't need to physically sign anything. Then they haven't SIGNED UP for a damned thing, fuckwit. >>>> Apple even allows you to automate that in their phones. >>> no they don't. >> Of course they do. > no they definitely do not. 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. > that has absolutely nothing to do with > the service plan the user has chosen. Never said it did you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <270720151733040142%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21387 |
In article <d1nekgF5e7cU1@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. > > Who the heck is talking about "smartphone purchase"? > > M.L. moved (from AT&T) to T-Mobile. There was *no* mention of > purchasing a phone. whoosh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <270720151733100498%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21342 |
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.
> 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.
> 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.
if they don't want data, they should find a plan that does not include
data.
> 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 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.
> 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.
> 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.
is fraud legal in germany?
> But this is about the US, where customers have much less rights than
> over here in Germany.
nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 08:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1nqq9F8e7dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21465 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:270720151733100498%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> 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.
Even sillier than you usually manage with all that wifi available.
> thus it's crippled.
Even sillier than you usually manage with all that wifi available.
And you should be able to use it that way if you want to anyway.
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> if they don't want data, they should find a plan that does not include
> data.
Which isn't available from arseholes like AT&T
and Verizon if you have a smartphone.
>> 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?
So she shouldn't be required to pay for data that she doesn't use.
>> > 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.
They are arseholes and only fools like you let them get away with that.
> the carriers know what's profitable and what is not,
How odd that the rest of the world manages fine.
> which is why they structure the plans the way they do.
And you fools are stupid enough to let them
get away with shafting their customers like that.
>> 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.
Because they are arseholes shafting their customers.
>> 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.
Wrong, as always.
> is fraud legal in germany?
It ain't fraud.
>> But this is about the US, where customers have much less rights than
>> over here in Germany.
>
> nonsense.
Fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 10:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mp7e40$iak$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #21465 |
Am 27.07.2015 um 23:33 schrieb nospam:
> In article <mp541m$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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-23 09:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1amgdFtvemU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21129 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:220720151033330238%nospam@nospam.invalid... > 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, Completely barking mad, as only the US can be. > and that's not just at&t either. > *very* few people are going to get > a smartphone and not use data. BULLSHIT with wifi so ubiquitous. Apple even has enough of a clue to allow you to turn data off on their smartphones even if you are too stupid to be able to grasp why they do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 10:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1imr4Fu6njU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21194 |
M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >>> smart phones generally require a data >>> plan, even if you don't plan to use data, >> Completely barking mad, as only the US can be. > > What I don't get is why anyone in the USA puts up with that AT&T plan > (and I think Verizon has it too), where you are FORCED to have data even > if you don't want it. Presumably because most do use some data, and because quite a few others find that T-mobile isn't satisfactory for them, and presumably quite a few who don’t want a data plan don’t realise that T-mobile doesn’t require you to have one if you don’t want one because they are stupid enough to not realise the real cost of their stupid subsidized phones. > At least, on T-mobile, when I switched from AT&T to > T-mobile because of AT&T's policies, I had four phones > for $60/month and zero data, and I was just fine But that wouldn’t work if you were stupid enough to want a subsidised phone at a much higher price than buying one outright. > (the kids hated it though). Don’t forget who will be picking your nursing home... > Now I have those four phones for $100 a month, and 2.5GB of high-speed > data per phone (unlimited lower-speed data), with unlimited calls to the > USA and a couple of surrounding countries, and unlimited texting. I don’t spend anything at all per month, just pay for the calls, texts and data I use in a month and don’t normally even spend $10 a month.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <250720152044542848%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21194 |
In article <58f3c$55b41d36$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > What I don't get is why anyone in the USA puts up with that AT&T plan > (and I think Verizon has it too), where you are FORCED to have data even > if you don't want it. because 99.9% of customers want data on their smartphone. the number who don't are lost in the noise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 13:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1j41tF2enpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21333 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:250720152044542848%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article > <58f3c$55b41d36$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. > <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > >> What I don't get is why anyone in the USA puts up with that AT&T plan >> (and I think Verizon has it too), where you are FORCED to have data even >> if you don't want it. > > because 99.9% of customers want data on their smartphone. That number is straight from your lard arse, we can tell from the smell, fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web