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 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#21121 — Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:55:43 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

> Why should someone else have to pay extra because of the type of phone I
> choose? If I choose a landline, mobile, or satellite, shouldn't that be
> my business?

As an aside on that issue, I once had AT&T as my cellular provider but I 
dropped them for T-mobile when they decided to charge *more* for what 
they called "smart phones" than for what they didn't call smart phones 
(this was a few years ago when not everyone had them).

I remind you this was *before* data plans existed (AFAICR), so, they were 
simply charging more for the fact that your phone was smart.

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21129

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.

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

#21144

On 22/07/2015 15:33, nospam 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.

Not true. Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data. 
Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

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

#21146

In article <moog3d$rc5$1@dont-email.me>, chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
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.
> 
> Not true. 

yes it is.

> Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data. 
> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan for smartphones,
whether you use it or not. it's just how it is and it's not unique to
any particular carrier. mvnos might have alternate options but many of
them require data too.

<http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB422370&cv=820>
  We want you to have the best possible experience with Web surfing,
  social networking, email, and more. If you activate a smartphone on
  the AT&T Network, a compatible smartphone data feature is required.
  If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data
  feature for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after
  activation. You can read the details of our data plan policy outlined
  in our Wireless Customer Agreement.

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

#21163

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:45:27 -0400, nospam wrote:

> you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan for smartphones,
> whether you use it or not. it's just how it is and it's not unique to
> any particular carrier. mvnos might have alternate options but many of
> them require data too.

I went off my T-mobile data-less plan about a year (or so) ago, but, I 
did perfectly fine with four phones for $60/month with no data.

You don't *need* data; it just makes maps a little easier, and it makes 
getting your email a little easier, etc.

As for AT&T *still* requiring data (thanks for finding that reference), 
well, all I can say is *that* is the reason I left AT&T and never looked 
back. I've been happy with T-mobile ever since (and saved about $10/month 
at the time of the switcheroo also).

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

#21175

M.L. wrote on 7/22/2015 3:29 PM:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:45:27 -0400, nospam wrote:
> 
>> you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan for smartphones,
>> whether you use it or not. it's just how it is and it's not unique to
>> any particular carrier. mvnos might have alternate options but many of
>> them require data too.
> 
> I went off my T-mobile data-less plan about a year (or so) ago, but, I 
> did perfectly fine with four phones for $60/month with no data.
> 
> You don't *need* data; it just makes maps a little easier, and it makes 
> getting your email a little easier, etc.
> 
> As for AT&T *still* requiring data (thanks for finding that reference), 
> well, all I can say is *that* is the reason I left AT&T and never looked 
> back. I've been happy with T-mobile ever since (and saved about $10/month 
> at the time of the switcheroo also).

Don't you have to live where there are many hotspots available?? I live
between Philly and NYC, an area you'd think would be rich in WiFi
hotspots. Not so. There are lots of places -- even near my home  --
where there are none.

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

#21722

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:25:23 -0400, M.L. wrote:

> yes, we have *plenty* of hotspots here 
> in the Silicon Valley environs.

Pity they don't reach to New Hampshire or Vermont, where most of the few
hot spots available are WPA2-protected, with passwords that are not shared.

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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

#21188

In article
<35ee4$55afef01$adb2d18a$4488@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan for smartphones,
> > whether you use it or not. it's just how it is and it's not unique to
> > any particular carrier. mvnos might have alternate options but many of
> > them require data too.
> 
> I went off my T-mobile data-less plan about a year (or so) ago, but, I 
> did perfectly fine with four phones for $60/month with no data.
> 
> You don't *need* data; it just makes maps a little easier, and it makes 
> getting your email a little easier, etc.
>
> As for AT&T *still* requiring data (thanks for finding that reference), 
> well, all I can say is *that* is the reason I left AT&T and never looked 
> back. I've been happy with T-mobile ever since (and saved about $10/month 
> at the time of the switcheroo also).

they require a lot of things. 

try to find a data-only plan. it's next to impossible and usually not
particularly cheap. 

the money is in data, not voice, and with the ubiquity of smartphones,
they are *not* going to let that go.

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

#21205

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151854303617%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <35ee4$55afef01$adb2d18a$4488@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan for smartphones,
>> > whether you use it or not. it's just how it is and it's not unique to
>> > any particular carrier. mvnos might have alternate options but many of
>> > them require data too.
>>
>> I went off my T-mobile data-less plan about a year (or so) ago, but, I
>> did perfectly fine with four phones for $60/month with no data.
>>
>> You don't *need* data; it just makes maps a little easier, and it makes
>> getting your email a little easier, etc.
>>
>> As for AT&T *still* requiring data (thanks for finding that reference),
>> well, all I can say is *that* is the reason I left AT&T and never looked
>> back. I've been happy with T-mobile ever since (and saved about $10/month
>> at the time of the switcheroo also).
>
> they require a lot of things.
>
> try to find a data-only plan. it's next to impossible

BULLSHIT.

> and usually not particularly cheap.

Much cheaper than AT&T in fact.

> the money is in data, not voice, and with the ubiquity
> of smartphones, they are *not* going to let that go.

How odd that ALL of ours allow you to have no data at all if you want. 

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

#21164

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:45:27 -0400, nospam wrote:

>   If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data feature
>   for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after activation

I always wanted to *test* that out, but, of course, I *dropped* AT&T 
precisely because of that policy. 

I can't see *how* they can legally do it (other than it's in the service 
contract, yes, I know), but what they're doing is charging you for a 
service you don't want and can't use (I had a data block on all my 
phones).

Yes, I could *lift* the data block, but, it was easier to just drop AT&T 
(after complaining to the FCC). The complaint process, by the way, is a 
joke.

1. You call up AT&T and argue until you're blue in the face.
2. You file a complaint to the FCC.
3. The FCC sends that complaint to AT&T 
4. A VP at AT&T literally calls you up.
5. You go through step 1 exactly (verbatim!) all over again & get nowhere.
6. The FCC sends you a letter saying AT&T told them the issue was 
"resolved".

Yeah, I dropped AT&T. That's how I "resolved" the issue. 
But the complaint process was a farce.

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

#21186

In article
<5842f$55afefc4$adb2d18a$4488@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> >   If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data feature
> >   for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after activation
> 
> I always wanted to *test* that out, but, of course, I *dropped* AT&T 
> precisely because of that policy. 

it's not any much different anywhere else unless you go to mvnos.

here's what verizon says:
<https://community.verizonwireless.com/thread/114057>
  ...However, when I start into the on-line upgrade checkout process, I
  am required to select one of two PDA/Smartphone Email plans, at an
  added monthly cost of at least $30. So, my question is - is there any
  way that I can get this phone without the extra monthly cost of
  adding a data plan on top of the voice plan that I already have?

...

  There are many good reasons that VZW requires a data plan for all
  Smartphones, PDAs, and Blackberry devices, which correlate to
  financial reasons, but mostly we require it so that the customer can
  use their advanced device as it should be used and benefit from
  EVERYTHING the device can do, which you just cannot do if you don¹t
  have a plan. 
 
  Before this requirement, we were seeing an inordinate amount of
  customers using data and being charged a good amount on the for Pay
  As You Go data rateŠ  Also, Wi-Fi is a relatively new addition to our
  offering at VZW and while Wi-Fi spots are located in a lot of places,
  we pride ourselves on having the Nation¹s Best and Largest 3G
  Network, hence we want it to work everywhere you need it to work and
  not have you to have to rely on finding Wi-Fi hot spots.  
 
  I suppose it comes down to, ³It is what it is² as it is a requirement
  and not only by VZW, but by every other major wireless carrier.    

> I can't see *how* they can legally do it (other than it's in the service 
> contract, yes, I know), but what they're doing is charging you for a 
> service you don't want and can't use (I had a data block on all my 
> phones).

what they're doing is charging for a service you signed up for.

if you don't want data you need to find a plan that does not offer
data, not try to get out of paying for something to which you signed up
for.

those do exist but they're a lot harder to find (usually mvnos) and may
have other issues, such as limited roaming or the company suddenly
shutting down (rare, but it's been known to happen).

> Yes, I could *lift* the data block, but, it was easier to just drop AT&T 
> (after complaining to the FCC). The complaint process, by the way, is a 
> joke.

it's only a joke because your complaint is a joke. they're not doing
anything wrong.

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

#21203

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151854283490%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <5842f$55afefc4$adb2d18a$4488@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >   If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data 
>> > feature
>> >   for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after activation
>>
>> I always wanted to *test* that out, but, of course, I *dropped* AT&T
>> precisely because of that policy.
>
> it's not any much different anywhere

Wrong, as always.

> else unless you go to mvnos.

Wrong, as always.

> here's what verizon says:
> <https://community.verizonwireless.com/thread/114057>
>  ...However, when I start into the on-line upgrade checkout process, I
>  am required to select one of two PDA/Smartphone Email plans, at an
>  added monthly cost of at least $30. So, my question is - is there any
>  way that I can get this phone without the extra monthly cost of
>  adding a data plan on top of the voice plan that I already have?
> ...
>
>  There are many good reasons that VZW requires a data plan for all
>  Smartphones, PDAs, and Blackberry devices, which correlate to
>  financial reasons, but mostly we require it so that the customer can
>  use their advanced device as it should be used and benefit from
>  EVERYTHING the device can do, which you just cannot do if you
> don¹t  have a plan.

Usual utterly mindless silly stuff and corporate bullshit and lies.

>  Before this requirement, we were seeing an inordinate amount of
>  customers using data and being charged a good amount on the for Pay
>  As You Go data rateS

I pay PAYG data rates and don't come even close to spending
anything like what the carrier's data plan would cost me.

> Also, Wi-Fi is a relatively new addition to our  offering at VZW

Irrelevant.

> and while Wi-Fi spots are located in a lot of places,  we pride
> ourselves on having the Nation¹s Best and Largest 3G Network,
> hence we want it to work everywhere you need it to work and
> not have you to have to rely on finding Wi-Fi hot spots.

Usual utterly mindless silly stuff and corporate bullshit and lies.

It should be up to the owner of the phone to decide what they
want to do on that, not up to the carrier to force them to have
a data plan if they know that they will not be using one.

>  I suppose it comes down to, ³It is what it is² as it is a requirement
>  and not only by VZW, but by every other major wireless carrier.

That last is a complete pack of lies even in the US.

>> I can't see *how* they can legally do it (other than it's in the service
>> contract, yes, I know), but what they're doing is charging you for a
>> service you don't want and can't use (I had a data block on all my
>> phones).
>
> what they're doing is charging for a service you signed up for.
>
> if you don't want data you need to find a plan that does not offer
> data, not try to get out of paying for something to which you signed up
> for.
>
> those do exist but they're a lot harder to find (usually mvnos) and may
> have other issues, such as limited roaming or the company suddenly
> shutting down (rare, but it's been known to happen).
>
>> Yes, I could *lift* the data block, but, it was easier to just drop AT&T
>> (after complaining to the FCC). The complaint process, by the way, is a
>> joke.
>
> it's only a joke because your complaint is a joke. they're not doing
> anything wrong.

Even more stupid than you usually manage. 

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

#21196

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151245275106%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <moog3d$rc5$1@dont-email.me>, chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> 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.
>>
>> Not true.
>
> yes it is.

No it isn't.

>> Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data.
>> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

> you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan
> for smartphones, whether you use it or not.

Only the fucked ones do, mine doesn't.

> it's just how it is

Like hell it is.

> and it's not unique to any particular carrier.

Plenty of carriers don't require any data plan at all.

> mvnos might have alternate options
> but many of them require data too.

Only the fucked ones.

> <http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB422370&cv=820>
>  We want you to have the best possible experience with Web surfing,
>  social networking, email, and more. If you activate a smartphone on
>  the AT&T Network, a compatible smartphone data feature is required.

Only because AT&T is fucked by design.

>  If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data feature
> for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after  activation.

Good reason to make an obscene gesture
their general direction and use someone else.

> You can read the details of our data plan policy
> outlined in our Wireless Customer Agreement.

Or flush it where it belongs. 

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

#21162

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:25:44 +0100, chris wrote:

> Not true. Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data.
> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

Exactly. Even GPS traffic routing works fine without a data plan, as long 
as you use the right offline map apps that can both route and locate sans 
data.

The only thing you need data for is traffic, or getting email, or exit 
services (like current gas prices). 

I had smart phones for about 2 years sans data, and I never needed it. I 
only got a data plan because the kids wanted it. Even so, I use about 100 
megabytes of my 2.5 Gigabytes alloted each month (I called T-mobile to 
check that out. Only the kids use the data, not the adults.)

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

#21199

"M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message 
news:e5541$55afee88$adb2d18a$4488@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:25:44 +0100, chris wrote:
>
>> Not true. Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data.
>> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.
>
> Exactly. Even GPS traffic routing works fine without a data plan, as long
> as you use the right offline map apps that can both route and locate sans
> data.

You don’t even need offline maps for that. Both google maps and apple maps
allow you to setup the route using wifi and all you have to do is follow the
route and not deviate from it if there is no wifi available enroute.

> The only thing you need data for is traffic, or getting
> email, or exit services (like current gas prices).

You don’t need it for any of those, you are free to use wifi.

> I had smart phones for about 2 years sans data, and I never needed it. I
> only got a data plan because the kids wanted it. Even so, I use about 100
> megabytes of my 2.5 Gigabytes alloted each month (I called T-mobile to
> check that out. Only the kids use the data, not the adults.)

I just pay for what I use at 7.5c/MB charged per KB. 

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

#21328

M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> You don’t even need offline maps for that. Both google maps and apple
>> maps allow you to setup the route using wifi and all you have to do is
>> follow the route and not deviate from it if there is no wifi available 
>> enroute.

> Not really.

Yes, really, I do it all the time.

> I know what you're talking about (ok google, for example);
> but, you can't *change* that route midway in it,

That's what I just said.

> last I checked (which, admittedly, was a few years ago).

Its still true now. 

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

#21173

chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/07/2015 15:33, nospam 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.
> 
> Not true. Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data. 
> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

  Exactly! I don't even use my smart-phone as a (regular) phone. Except
of course for *receiving* calls and SMS, *free of charge* for us lucky
devils in the (really) civilized world! :-)
> 

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

#21160

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:33:33 -0400, nospam 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.

Heh heh heh ... When I had AT&T, I didn't have a data plan at one point, 
and then I bought my teen an iPhone and AT&T said I had to *pay* for a 
data plan, even though I had data *blocked*! 

(In those days, even a dumb Motorla Razr flipphone could "do" data; it 
just wasn't worth the hassle.)

So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for 
plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a smart 
phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI to 
that of a "dumb" phone.

Since spoofing the IMEI to a dumb phone turned out to be too hard for me 
to do, I simply dropped AT&T and never looked back.

Even today, T-mobile doesn't *require* a data plan. At least the last 
plan I was on was just $60 for 4 phones, with zero data and it was fine 
(until my kids went to college and one went to high school).

I "think" you don't need to get a data plan (and pretty much everything 
works without data anyway - you just don't get "instant" access); but I 
have had data for about a year or so now, so, I don't know the current 
non-data plans anymore.

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

#21187

In article
<e883d$55afee00$adb2d18a$4488@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for 
> plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a smart 
> phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI to 
> that of a "dumb" phone.

that's fraud.

do you change vins on your cars to get cheaper insurance rates too?

> Since spoofing the IMEI to a dumb phone turned out to be too hard for me 
> to do, I simply dropped AT&T and never looked back.

it's hard to change for many reasons.

> Even today, T-mobile doesn't *require* a data plan. At least the last 
> plan I was on was just $60 for 4 phones, with zero data and it was fine 
> (until my kids went to college and one went to high school).

which plan is that?

the plans on their site include data:
<http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html>
<http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/family.html>

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

#21204

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151854293576%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <e883d$55afee00$adb2d18a$4488@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for
>> plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a smart
>> phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI to
>> that of a "dumb" phone.

> that's fraud.

Nope.

>> Since spoofing the IMEI to a dumb phone turned out to be too hard for me
>> to do, I simply dropped AT&T and never looked back.
>
> it's hard to change for many reasons.
>
>> Even today, T-mobile doesn't *require* a data plan. At least the last
>> plan I was on was just $60 for 4 phones, with zero data and it was fine
>> (until my kids went to college and one went to high school).
>
> which plan is that?
>
> the plans on their site include data:
> <http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html>
> <http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/family.html> 

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

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

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

csiph-web