NY Wrests $1 Million From Verizon Wireless

netbuzz writes "Unlimited really means unlimited, even in advertising. So says the New York State Attorney General's Office in squeezing a $1 million settlement out of Verizon Wireless for disconnecting 13,000 of its customers who had the temerity to believe that the unlimited service they were promised came with unlimited service. Verizon's statement explaining the settlement is a gem, too."

Comments

Oh, wow

[johndiii]

Eighty dollars per person. That'll make a big impact. Take that, Verizon!

Re:Oh, wow

[stoolpigeon]

It's all about the lawyers. They'll be taking more than $8 each. Have you seen the ad they are running in magazines for the settlement over Herbalife? Max payout per person - $75 (it will be a lot less). Money going to the law firm - not including costs - over 2 million. Class action suits benefit the law firms and not anyone else.

Re:Oh, wow

[Algorithmnast]

The verizon TOS is why I use Sprint. I can't get DSL, cable or even FIOS - I'm one of 2 homes on a street, and the companies don't want to lay half a mile of cable (from either direction) to get to us. My 60kB cellmodem is better than dialup.

When Sprint says "unlimited data" on my cellmodem plan, they actually mean it.

My net research revealed too many people who'd been bit by Verizon's bad habits. Glad to see the courts have spanked them.

Re:Oh, wow

[Jaysyn]

Class Actions are mostly to smack the company so it will stop doing whatever it's doing.

Re:Oh, wow

[Joebert]

Verizon is Sprints' half-retarded younger sibling. They haven't quite figured out how to make you thank them for robbing you like Sprint does yet.

Re:Oh, wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the direct compensation is not much but the overall impact may be more. If all data providers were completely honest and disclosed the hidden limits, it will allow you to make a better decision and take your business to someone that can serve your needs better. An example is the recent Comcast issue with P2P blocking. Instead of Comcast stating "unlimited internet" at a blazing 8mb/sec, they may now have to say 8mb/s but we block all P2P applications, do not allow you to host your own email server on port 25 and we will disconnect your service if you use more than 100GB a month. If those limits are stated up front, you can gauge the competition and make an informed decision. Local governments that "license" these monopoly franchises to exist within their boundaries should know these limits as well so they can make an informed decision when it comes time to renew those contracts. Promising one thing and delivering another is a scam and unfair competition.

Another side effect is for competition where it can exist, these companies can now compete on real numbers, before this case Verizon and Sprint could announce unlimited wireless bandwidth but Sprint cut you off at 50GB and Verizon cut you off at 35GB. Neither is unlimited. Maybe now they will compete, Verizon seems to have their limit at 5GB and if they want to get more customers, they can change that to 10GB. When it was sold as "unlimited", there was no incentive to compete fair.

I have unlimited SMS with my Sprint account. I expect unlimited SMS. I am not paying 5000 a month, not 2000 a month, I am paying for unlimited.

Re:Oh, wow

[debrain]

I figure class actions have three predominant purposes.

First, judicial efficiency: encourage binding settlement of disputes between large numbers of people (having lawyers profit from such settlements encourages lawyers to do this; it's capitalism);

Second, access to justice: provide remedy to those who would have no access to justice (even if that remedy is itself quite small);

Three, feedback: modify corporate behaviour.

While $80.00 per person appears minor, one would hope that a multi-million dollar settlement is relevant to modifying corporate behaviour (which is often dependent on the tax implications to the company of such a settlement). So while the individual remedy is meager, there is other value provided: resolving a large number of outstanding disputes (which would be prohibitively expensive to remedy individually, for the company or for those individuals), and it establishes boundaries for corporate behaviour.

So while the lawyers do profit, it is my belief that profit is both incidental and necessary to the predominant purpose of effective class action regimes. Mind you, profiteering (night champerty) is poor form, and while the lawyers ought to be entitled to a respectable profit for their efforts (as in all capitalistic efforts), the fees taken ought to be scrutinized based on the work done (difficulty, expertise, time, etc.) and the actual value provided to the class. While I've presented value in class actions above, you've highlighted one of the cornerstones of principle conflict in the regime: the conflict of interest between class members and their legal representation when it comes time to pay the lawyers. I believe the courts ought to approve the fees after the settlement, with the input of an appointed amicus curae who would represent the interests of the class as against their own lawyers.

Re:Oh, wow

[Algorithmnast]

Well, I pay $60 a month for 60Kb/sec, when my only other alternatives are dial-up and satellite.

Dial-up is... well, dial-up.

Satellite has a lag (which personally doesn't affect me), is a bit more expensive ($200), and has more restrictive TOS's.

So yeah, I'm paying more than I'd like to pay - but it's optimal for my circumstances. We don't download large files very often, and I can leave the cellmodem on indefinitely. With bittorrent I can easily share files outward at night when I'm not using the bandwidth to do things.

Re:Oh, wow

[stoolpigeon]

I have difficulty with perceiving $1 million as significant to Verizon. Smack seems a bit strong. This to me looks more like a payoff to make the problem go away.

Re:Oh, wow

[Amouth]

i hope that you are saying you pay 60$ a month for a 60KB/sec not Kb (little b = bit big B = byte)

cause dialup is 56Kb/sec... and for 60$ you could get 2 phone lines and 2 accounds and shotgun for 113Kb/sec

(god it has been a while sence i have thought about shotgunning ras connections.. ahhhh)

Re:Oh, wow

[SkelVA]

a multi-million dollar settlement is relevant to modifying corporate behaviour

The settlement was ONE million dollars. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the http://investor.verizon.com/profile/overview.aspx 88.1 billion they did in revenue last year, which they'll likely surpass this year.

That's 1/88,100 of their revenue. For comparison, if you're somewhere around the GDP per capita at PPP of the US at $40k per year, that's like charging you 45cents as a fine. Yeah, that's really going to modify some behavior.

The only people that got any real benefit from this situation were lawyers. Verizon isn't going to stop cutting off accounts that don't make money for them.

Re:Oh, wow

[ortholattice]

What class action suits need is some competition. As it is now, there is (almost?) always only one law firm sending out a mass mailing about the suit, and the only choice a consumer has is (a) to agree to be a class member or (b) to seek independent litigation. Of course no one is going to choose (b) and hire a lawyer, go to court, etc. to get an $80 refund, so in effect the law firm has a monopoly.

Instead, imagine that you receive 2 or more such mass mailings: law firm 1 promises to seek an $80 refund, whereas law firm 2, by lowering its fee, promises to seek a $100 refund. Now capitalism can work the way it's supposed to.

Of course IANAL so feel free to point out the flaws of this idea. Is there a reason this isn't done now, given that there are plenty of hungry lawyers?

Re:Oh, wow

[timeOday]

From what I can tell, the settlement doesn't even force Verizon to uphold their end of the bargain by providing unlimited service to those who signed up for it.

I'll be a lot of wireless customers wish they could welch on their service contract and only get hit for $80.

Re:Oh, wow

[Manchot]

Class action suits benefit the law firms and not anyone else.

I guess that depends on how you look at class actions. If you look at them as a way for the victims to be compensated for their financial losses, then they aren't beneficial. If you look at them as a way for a group of people to punish a company when the government fails to do so, they're great. With the Justice Department under its current management, there is very little recourse that a consumer has against a misbehaving coroporation, and class actions are essential to justice.

Re:Oh, wow

[Aczlan]

Instead of Comcast stating "unlimited internet" at a blazing 8mb/sec, they may now have to say 8mb/s but we block all P2P applications, do not allow you to host your own email server on port 25 and we will disconnect your service if you use more than 100GB a month.

no, they will just say "some restrictions apply, see our website for details" (which admittedly would be better than a invisible limit like they currently have)

Aaron Z

Re:Oh, wow

[budgenator]

It's all the "Can you understand unlimited now" jokes that'll kill'em

Re:Oh, wow

[russotto]

You forgot, last but not least:

4) Publicity for the New York State Attorney General's Office.

These sorts of suits got Eliot Spitzer the governorship, no reason for the A.G. to stop now.

And don't they know by now you're supposed to demand one BILLION dollars?

Re:Oh, wow

[beckerist]

I really hate the "I am not a lawyer" acronym. I always want to reply to:

Of course IANAL

With:
Oh yeah? What's your number?

Re:Oh, wow

[Alioth]

For small actions like this, customers can always use the small claims court in most places - no lawyers required. Hundreds of small claims court cases for a company like Verizon would act as a pretty good deterrent over deceptive advertising - it would cost a huge amount for them to defend them all, but a trivial amount for the customers they bilked.

Re:Oh, wow

[debrain]

I think it's fair to say that the present system of binding without consent is inadequate, and opting out of the class being a class member's only option (so they may pursue legal remedy as an individual).

One problem with having two law firms working on the same action is that the lawyers cannot guarantee an outcome. One cannot say guarantee $80, the other $100, until a settlement has been reached. In fact, you have to agree to be part of the class of one firm or the other before you know how much you'd get. As well, a defendant would never agree to a certain settlement until they know the number of people they are settling with.

The way the plaintiffs make decisions in the class action for the class members is unfair. Typically there is a class representative (or a couple reps) who tell the lawyers what to do. As you may imagine, these reps are often "guided" into making certain decisions, based on the lawyers' assessment, and these decisions are binding on the whole class. What I think would be better is if the individuals in the settlement each had a choice to agree with a particular settlement proposal.

Contrast bankruptcy. There is generally a sophisticated mechanism for determining the rights of creditors when an entity goes bankrupt. Typically, creditors are divided up into groups, and a majority of each group must agree to the settlement. This provides every individual with the opportunity to provide input, and reject the settlement if it is unfair.

I see little reason why this shouldn't apply to class actions. It would allow class members to decide whether they think the settlement is fair to them. It would also give class members the opportunity to assess the lawyer fees. All to say, I think it would be better than the present class representative-as-dictator.

Re:Oh, wow

[walt-sjc]

Ever file anything in small claims court against a large company? Not so easy. Just "serving notice" can be a challenge.

Re:Oh, wow

[Mister Whirly]

"I am not a lawyer"? Here I always thought people were talking about some kinky new product from Apple - the iAnal.

Apparently IANARS. (I am not a rocket scientist)

Re:Oh, wow

[Spy Hunter]

This is not a class action suit and there's no law firm. This is an investigation by a state Attorney General. Verizon is paying a hundred or so thousand dollars to the state of New York in penalties, and they estimate a million to actual customers, plus changing their advertising *and* they have stopped terminating people's contracts (though that isn't an explicit requirement of the settlement).

As someone whose service actually *was* terminated by Verizon and who stands to be reimbursed for the cost of his hardware, I am pretty happy with this turn of events. I do wish the penalty was larger, because I have a sneaking suspicion Verizon has saved at least that much by terminating their most expensive customers, but I didn't really expect to get a resolution at all so I am pleasantly surprised by the effectiveness of the justice system.

Re:Oh, wow

[InvalidError]

A law firm can propose a $100M class-action suit but that will do the class' plaintifs no/little good if the judge awards their class only $1M in remedies. Lawyers cannot know in advance and afford to make any guaratees about the case's conclusion... making promises could render them liable for misrepresentation.

Judges ultimately decide the class-action's outcome and that determines what actual compensation the class can possibly hope to get, class-action lawyers only need to do business as usual: do their best to convince judges to award them as much as they can.

Since $1M is little more than a rounding error to Verizon, it might not be enough to make them fix their definition of "Unlimited" or advertise the limits of their "Unlimitedness".

People should take any claims of something being "Unlimited" with grains of salt: they always have hidden limits which the service providers hope will not be hit often enough to affect service quality and operating costs... but when heavy users start pounding a little too hard, operators are swift to point out the often undisclosed or little known limits of the unlimited.

Re:Oh, wow

[conlaw]

"Serving notice" against a company of any size that is legally doing business in your state should not be a problem in this day and age. Check with the Corporations Department or Division in your state: it's usually part of the Secretary of State's office and the few that are not online yet will list a number that you can call. Then just ask, "Who is the registered agent for XYZ Corporation in this state?" Because that's public information, they'll give you the name and address of the registered agent and you can serve your notice on him/her/it.

IAAL but I try to be a person also.

Re:Oh, wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course IANAL so feel free to point out the flaws of this idea.

Well, if you anal the main "flaw" is that it is a small, delicate orifice. It can certainly be done safely, but not by everyone.

Re:Oh, wow

[pilgrim23]

Fancy way of sayin "Lawyers get rich" Remember the tobacco suits where the Lawyers that won then turned aroudn and sued their clients for a bigger piece of the pie?

Re:Oh, wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It is worse than I thought! If we are at a point where lawyers are so prolific that it is easier to assign a number to all non-lawyers, our society is in trouble!

Re:Oh, wow

[jank1887]

he forgot one other point of 'modifying corporate behavior': legal precedent. Now, it's been legally determined that 'unlimited means unlimited'. You now have a case to point to for future incidents. That's worth something.

Re:Oh, wow

[TheGeneration]

Yes, but I live in California which is a state that is about 900 miles long and 200 miles wide. If the registered agent is in San Diego and I'm in San Francisco you're talking a 500 mile trip to serve them.

Re:Oh, wow

[Algorithmnast]

My bad - typo'd the 'B' to a 'b'. Yes - $60/month for 60 KB/sec.

On the upside, at least I can take the cell modem and a laptop with me when we've got one of the kids at a gymnastics class. Not only can I get stuff done, but I don't have to look up and see the parents pretending they're more interested in the development of their children than posturing for each other.

Hm.. for a local-only phone line... Nope. 10 would still cost me more than $60/month. Ah well.

Re:Oh, wow

[MindStalker]

1 million is tiney tiney. But most importantly is this sets some president. Sure it didn't go to judge but its something.

Re:Oh, wow

[aplusjimages]

I'm pretty sure somebody at Verizon got reamed for this. Let's just hope it was the person who deserved it.

Re:Oh, wow

[debrain]

I don't know the rules of civil procedure in California, but most jurisdictions have rules of civil procedure with a couple options for service instead of personal service.

Big companies often have no problem accepting alternatives to personal service. Call them and ask how they would accept service of originating process. Ask if they would accept it by fax, mail or email, and whether they would confirm it's receipt.

I think the rules are CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 415.10-415.95 . It's convoluted, to be sure, but I think it covers personal service and alternatives to personal service.

Re:Oh, wow

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not legal precedent-- the case was not decided by a judge or jury, it was settled. Settlements do not become legal precedent. Thus, unlimited != "unlimited"

Re:Oh, wow

[pthisis]

Ever file anything in small claims court against a large company? Not so easy. Just "serving notice" can be a challenge.

Corporate agents are a matter of public record, and in most places the sheriff will do the actual physical serving for a nominal fee (it's around $18 where I live). Of course, in a small claims case even a nominal fee may be a large percentage of the dispute.

Re:Oh, wow

[smclean]

It did, however, make them stop calling their "Unlimited" service "Unlimited". I know people who purchased Verizon's data service thinking that it really was unlimited, only to switch away from them as soon as they realize they wasted their money.

I'm just glad to see anything improve the consumer situation with cell carriers. They make the phone carriers in the pre-cell days look like saints.

Re:Oh, wow

[graviplana]

"...Sets some president..." Yes, sets some president of some Law Firm up with a lot of cash for the year and sets the president of Verizon up to get flogged by his board of directors when even more lawsuits start to come in due to this precedent. (Fixed that for you.)

Re:Oh, wow

[manekineko2]

Yeah, there's no evil lawyers quite like the NY Attorneys General. I'm sure they're just out to make a quick buck at the expense of Verizon's customers.

Maybe as others have pointed out $1 million isn't a whole lot to $88 billion dollar revenue Verizon, so does that mean that wrongdoings shouldn't be punished just because you're not capable of inflicting much damage? Or is it that wrongdoings shouldn't be punished when the people principally responsible for causing them to be punished (the lawyers in class action suits) are being rewarded through capitalism to encourage them to do so? The principal purpose of the class action mechanism is to motivate lawyers out there to punish the companies doing wrong.

In this case, $1 m out of $88b isn't a whole lot, but a lot of class actions come in a lot heavier. It's simply cherry picking facts to support your preconceived notions to argue that just because the payment isn't huge this time that there is no effect in discouraging the companies in the future.

Re:Oh, wow

[mediis]

Especially when they profited how many billions?

Re:Oh, wow

[innocent_white_lamb]

That's what process servers are for. There are lots of people and companies who will undertake to deliver notices of that type (and provide you with an affidavit of service) for a fee.
 
You mail the process server your documents. He delivers them and sends you his affidavit.
 
There's not much to it.

Re:Oh, wow

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this off-topic? We're talking about lawyers here and how most of the proceeds from these kinds of lawsuits go to them and not the victims. So this guy has a rather strong opinion. It's still an opinion about what we're talking about. Guess I'll go back to meta-moderating again.

Re:Oh, wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, they're called process servers. Every state has them, in some states Sheriffs or Marshalls serve the same purpose. You contact one local to the entity you want to serve and send them the documents you want to serve and pay them $50 or so (which you can recoup as fees if you win your suit). Trivial.

Re:Oh, wow

[hyades1]

"So while the lawyers do profit, it is my belief that profit is both incidental and necessary"

So what you're saying is that in order to attain the desirable end of keeping the mink plump and healthy, I have to feed the weasels and rats as well.

Please don't pick at the analogy...it leaves a nasty scab.

Re:Oh, wow

[Pollardito]

if fits because it's pretty much understood that in the U.S. if you are not a lawyer it's only a matter of time before you're bent over by one

Re:Oh, wow

[wvuphan]

Actually, in that Herbalife class action you mention, ALL the $$$ left over after all the $75 claims are paid out of the $7 million settlement will go to charity: http://www.tcpasettlement.com/

Slimy response from Verizon

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

As I read this response I couldn't help but hear the voice of the G-Man in my head:

"We are pleased to have cooperated with the New York Attorney General and to have voluntarily reached this agreement," a company spokesman told Associated Press. "When this was brought to our attention, we understood that advertising for our NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess services could provide more clarity."

Assumed Guilt

[eldavojohn]

When you try to sign up there is a huge scrollable box beneath your order. In the mess of those terms and conditions is now:

DATA PLANS AND FEATURES
Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, GlobalAccess, and certain VZEmail services that do not include a specific monthly MB allowance or are not billed on a pay-as-you-go basis) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). These Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading, or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file-sharing services and/or redirecting television programming content for viewing on laptops is prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses continuously for one hour could typically use 100 to 200 MB, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GB in a month.

For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We reserve the right to limit throughput speeds or amount of data transferred, and to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using one of these Data Plans or Features in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to limit throughput speed or immediately terminate the service of any such person without notice. We also reserve the right to terminate service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term.

Verizon Wireless Plans, Rate and Coverage Areas, rates, agreement provisions, business practices, procedures and policies are subject to change as specified in the Customer Agreement. Emphasis mine.

They now have a site defining acceptable use.

So they really haven't learned their lesson. I personally think that CmdrTaco should sign up and start hosting Slashdot through it. Either that or point the loyal readers to a page he's hosting through it.

I would recommend prospective customers of Verizon to think twice and assess if they want to sign contracts with a company so inclined to assume a user of the service is guilty of copyright violations just because of the amount of data they are transferring. Couldn't someone watching YouTube all day or streaming video from another TV network site rack up this sort of data transferring?

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Algorithmnast]

So they really haven't learned their lesson. I personally think that CmdrTaco should sign up and start hosting Slashdot through it. Either that or point the loyal readers to a page he's hosting through it.

Perhaps they think they've learned their lesson - but they think the lesson isn't "Do what's right" to you and me, but rather "How can we make our business plan legally defensible?"

Seems if they get a lot more specific, then they'd have a greater chance defending it in court.

And if all of us geeks go over to other carriers, will Verizon notice? We're a pretty small minority.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Algorithmnast]

Oh - I forgot. Those who download pr0n! If they threaten to move off of Verizon (ewwww) then the company's sure to notice!

Re:Assumed Guilt

[morgan_greywolf]

I would recommend prospective customers of Verizon to think twice and assess if they want to sign contracts with a company so inclined to assume a user of the service is guilty of copyright violations just because of the amount of data they are transferring. Couldn't someone watching YouTube all day or streaming video from another TV network site rack up this sort of data transferring? Yes. And add to that people transferring files from the company intranet to the laptop, or receiving many large attachments via e-mail. Even some music nut with a lot of money to spend on song downloads could buy 20 songs a day for 30 days and use 2.4GB of bandwidth just for that, not counting the rest of the surfing they do.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Red Flayer]

I think you interpreted what you wanted to, instead of what was spelled out in the TOS.

I would recommend prospective customers of Verizon to think twice and assess if they want to sign contracts with a company so inclined to assume a user of the service is guilty of copyright violations just because of the amount of data they are transferring.

Nowhere does it say that. They make no mention of copyrights. The prohibted uses:

(i) continuous uploading, downloading, or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections.

Please, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. For once a company is taking steps (though forced to do so) to limit the extent to which they oversell bandwidth.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[timster]

I'm sorry to say, you aren't thinking very clearly if you missed the part that the poster put in bold. I'll quote it again for you:

Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above

Re:Assumed Guilt

[eldavojohn]

I think you interpreted what you wanted to ... I'm a human being, I have faults, this is precisely what I did.

For once a company is taking steps (though forced to do so) to limit the extent to which they oversell bandwidth. That's odd, when I read the article, I didn't see the part where Verizon stepped up and admitted they were wrong and asked for forgiveness. In fact, it kind of sounded like they were actually part of the solution. Once I read the details, it was those evil filesharers that did this. Those P2P users who are just automatically guilty if they reach a certain point.

I don't think Verizon is taking any responsibility here at all. It reeks of political maneuvering and just plain leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm ashamed to be a customer of theirs.

If you don't admit your mistakes and your faults, there is no chance in hell you can correct them.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[AmaDaden]

We're a pretty small minority.

Yes but we advise the majority. How many people do you know who you give advice to? Personally I tell allot of people what to get. We might not matter all at once but once we are burned we hardly give that tech a second chance and we do not advise our friends to get it. So next time some one asks me what cell phone company to switch too I'll be saying "not Verizon" and after 5 or 10 people that might start to matter.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[plague3106]

Are they still calling those Unlimited plans though? That seems to be the crux of the matter here. Also, given that this settlement was just reached, I can understand they haven't update the site yet.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading, or streaming of audio or video programming or games;

Holy crap, that's messed up. Let me count the ways you can't use your Internet connection:

(1) No Nintendo Wii, XBox 360, or PS3 (you bad person!)
(2) No legally purchased music from iTunes or [Doesn't]PlayForSure service.
(3) No legally watching television or movies from iTunes, Vongo, or MovieLink. (why oh why would you want to do that? /sarcasm)
(4) No listening to your favorite net-radio station. (Get yer' self a transistor radio, cheapskate!)
(5) No watching YouTube. (*gasp!*)
(6) No watching of Flash movies or playing of Flash games
(7) No playing World of Warcraft
(8) Don't do anything with your connection, ever. Just pay Verizon lots of dough.

And by don't do anything, I am referring to the fact that the rest of the agreement also makes it improper to:

(9) No Linux ISOs for you, you dirty, bearded Unix hippie!
(10) No online backups of your important data. (You don't need those office documents, do you?)
(11) No downloading Windows patches. (Too much data, ya' know.)
(12) No downloading any large patch, ever. (Remember, 100MB an hour is a LOT. *scoff*)
(12) No getting infected with a virus because you didn't install the patch you weren't supposed to install.
(13) Just unplug your network cable and pay Verizon money. Lots of money. Hey, it's unlimited as long as you don't use it! All the data transfer you can possible not consume! Unlimited! Yay!

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Firethorn]

Is it necessarily right or good to allow unlimited usage of a limited resource(cell spectrum bandwidth)?

Somebody using more than 5 GB is at the high end of the curve, likely costing verizon more than what they're paying; increasing costs for other users of the service.

Yes, a business has a right to at least attempt to make a profit. They shouldn't be required to sell money-losing products.

What they rightly got slapped for is false advertising - A service with a 5GB cap isn't 'unlimited' by any standard definition. Heck, draconian firewalls and QOS settings wouldn't meet my 'unlimited' standard. I'll bend enough to say that it's reasonable to bill a service as unlimited and still restrict illegal activities and have restrictions to prevent the spread of viruses/worms/spam.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[topham]

5G? What a joke. I was concerned a few months ago when I deliberately exceeded the bandwidth cap my provider put on my internet. It was specified when I signed up that it was 50G/month. I downloaded 100G of data in about a week.

All data was downloaded from a Canadian Government website and was all perfectly legal and legit. (300dpi, calibrated maps of Canada at 1:50000 Scale)

I decided to double-check the bandwdith cap, and was pleasantly suprised to see that on my level of service it was doubled to 100G at some point in the previous year.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

In a manner prohibited above, like for games, or audio/video programming (possibly legal), hosting servers. No mention of copyright violations.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Red Flayer]

And, I'm sorry to say, you missed entirely my point:

Nowhere in the prohibited uses dows it make mention of copyright. Nowhere. This is why I requoted the prohibited uses.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to say, you aren't reading very clearly if you missed the part where he said They make no mention of copyrights.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[DaveWick79]

You probably wouldn't want to download 100GB a week on Verizon's wireless network, you'd be pulling your hair out waiting for stuff to download, legal or illegal. But every ISP oversells their bandwidth - they count on people paying $60/month who only use it occasionally, to offset the heavy users that are costing them more than they are worth.
From another perspective, unlimited is not really unlimited anyway because only a certain amount of bandwidth is available to you at any given time. Wireless systems have a much smaller total bandwidth allocation at this point so the real issue as pointed out numerous times here is truth in advertising. If there's a 5GB cap, make it clear to users. It's not Verizon's job (or Comcast's job for that matter) to police the internet. I really don't think they can legally assume that someone is doing something illegal solely based on the amount of data transfer that is happening over a period of time.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Dunbal]

Yeah, that's 167MB/day. Darned pirates.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Dunbal]

Yes, a business has a right to at least attempt to make a profit. They shouldn't be required to sell money-losing products.

      Which part of FALSE ADVERTISING don't you understand?

      No one is trying to deny them a profit. Create a "restricted" package, advertise it as such, and sell it at the current price. But for people who want/need a faster connection, charge them more. However what they are currently doing is FRAUD. They are telling customers that they have "UNLIMITED" access when clearly there are very concrete, defined limits both in the TOS and in practice. So instead of either 1) admitting that they are lying in their commercials or 2) investing in more infrastructure to improve congestion on the network, they decide to use "traffic shaping", packet sabotage (if Comcast can do it I'm sure Verizon can), download limits etc WITHOUT informing the customer. That's not right.

      This "settlement" is not right either. It's a tap (not even a slap) on the wrist.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[sconeu]

. Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above,

Mandriva 2008.0 ISO - 4.7 GB.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[jamar0303]

Yep- People wouldn't be complaining if Verizon called it the 5GB plan upfront. In China, for example, mobile data is metered (50MB/100MB/800MB/2GB, ranging from US$4-$30) if you buy it with a cellphone. They have an unlimited datacard plan, which is truly unlimited (as much as you want, no matter what you're downloading) but you can't make phone calls with that card (not regular circuit calls- VoIP's OK).

Re:Assumed Guilt

[letxa2000]

On a cell phone, 167MB/day is painful. When I go to Blockbuster and my wife asks me to check the comments/rating of a movie on IMDB via my cell phone, I cringe. It's painful. 167MB/day? The Verizon T.O.S. should be rewritten to say, "If you download more than 5GB per month, you are assumed to be stupid and your account will be terminated."

Re:Assumed Guilt

[budgenator]

If they are it could be wash, rinse, repeat! already they

Verizon Wireless fully and voluntarily cooperated with the Office of the Attorney General throughout this inquiry. Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses.VERIZON WIRELESS AGREES TO SETTLE DECEPTIVE MARKETING INVESTIGATION

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? This is about Mobile Phones not Verizon Fios or DSL. And some of the stuff you mentioned is specifically called out in the legalize. You can download iTunes music. You can't p2p. Read the details Mr. Richard Cranium.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Firethorn]

Not to detract from your statement, but that's fairly unlikely

20 songs a day, assuming five minutes per song, is 1 hour 40 minutes. Not undoable.
However, assuming $3/song, is $1.8k, which is quite a lot of money.

Now, if it's a service where you can redownload previously purchased music, now you have a point.

Customer X, for whatever reason, has over 2k songs in his account. He lost his computer, replaced it, so he's redownloading his music. There goes that 5gig limit.

Although you'd run into their 'not to replace a dedicated data line' rule.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[aztektum]

They still sell wireless data cards specifically for your laptop. So the argument still remains: Download TV shows or movies or software you purchase and you'll hit that barrier fast then *yoink* "We rule you!"

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Firethorn]

Which part of FALSE ADVERTISING don't you understand?

Ahem:

What they rightly got slapped for is false advertising

So instead of either 1) admitting that they are lying in their commercials or 2) investing in more infrastructure to improve congestion on the network, they decide to use "traffic shaping", packet sabotage (if Comcast can do it I'm sure Verizon can), download limits etc WITHOUT informing the customer. That's not right.

Again:
Heck, draconian firewalls and QOS settings wouldn't meet my 'unlimited' standard.

So, you post saying you disagree with me while making statements that agree with what I said. You might want to read posts a bit more carefully.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[phiwum]

Which part of FALSE ADVERTISING don't you understand? Maybe you should read his whole post before replying.

What they rightly got slapped for is false advertising - A service with a 5GB cap isn't 'unlimited' by any standard definition.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Firethorn]

Even better - don't cut them off completely, just turn their data access off until the beginning of the next billing period. If they wish, move them up to a higher plan.(10GB for 50-75% more, for example).

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded instightfull?

The judgement was brought against Verizon Wireless. How many people connect their game console to the 'Net through their cell phone?

Financial data streams could easily consume that much bandwith though.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[jamar0303]

...I was thinking of charging overage, but your idea works better (for the customer, not so for the telco who can't sneak a uber-high overage bill on you; in China if you buy the 2GB plan- about US$30, they're nice enough to stop charging it at double that, so you effectively get an unlimited plan if you so choose).

Re:Assumed Guilt

[jc42]

es, a business has a right to at least attempt to make a profit. They shouldn't be required to sell money-losing products.

Which part of FALSE ADVERTISING don't you understand?

Hey, what part of "make a profit" don't you understand, fella?

If this sort of decision is upheld on appeal, such a ban could easily mean the end of lots of companies, especially the biggest ones. How many do you think could sell their stuff at all without false advertising?

Anyway, we have Freedom of Speech in the US, right? What does this mean if we're not allowed to lie to our gullible customers? After all, anyone can tell the truth. The ability to tell a lie and get away with it is what freedom is all about.

Jeez; some people have no idea about how business works ...

(Consult Steven Colbert for much more information on this subject.)

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Firethorn]

Which is the reason I worded it the way I did - I'd much rather have a cell phone that can only be used for 911 for a week than a $300 bill.

If nothing else, I can change my plan to one with more minutes for ~$10. At .20/minute, it takes less than an hour over to make the more expensive plan worth it.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[jc42]

Mandriva 2008.0 ISO - 4.7 GB.

Well, there ya go. Verizon's CS people make it very clear that they only supply service to people running MS Windows. You're obvious a one of those weird linux hippies, and we don't need people like you in our neighborhood or on our network.

Really. I've helped some friends solve some problems with their Verizon internet link, and when we called CS, it quickly became clear that unless we had a Windows box on our end of the link, there was nothing they could do to help us. If it wasn't in their scripts, they simply didn't understand anything we said. (Even the few with an American accent. ;-)

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahah! A chance to make a positive comment on Slashdot. You examined the information, thought about it, and added something to the discussion. I will admit I am not technically literate enough that those ideas occurred to me. You should submit this post to Verizon's competitors. After all, no harm in publicizing a companies terms of service.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[jc42]

Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses.

Really? Their residential service now allows web and email servers? And ssh and vpn servers? And they guarantee that these will still be allowed 1 or 5 or 24 months from now? Got a link to a Verizon doc that promises this?

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

So, please explain to me why you are connecting an XBOX to an EVDO card. I don't think you understand the issue. This is not normal house line DSL, this is EVDO cards ... you plug in your laptop and use it where you go. I have one, and let me tell you ... I would never think of downloading an ISO on it. It would be faster to run and grab the bits. EVDO is faster then dial up ... but not that much.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[budgenator]

The settlement follows a nine-month investigation into the marketing of NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess plans for wireless access to the internet for laptop computer users. ... Verizon Wireless fully and voluntarily cooperated with the Office of the Attorney General throughout this inquiry. Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses.
if your a verison wireless customer take a look at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2007/oct/oct23a_07.html .

Re:Assumed Guilt

[bluemonq]

Wait, so you'd want to do all of this over your wireless CELLPHONE connection?

Re:Assumed Guilt

[ReTay]

"Is it necessarily right or good to allow unlimited usage of a limited resource(cell spectrum bandwidth)?"

When the company in question is advertising "Unlimited" then yes it is and it should be required.
People are expecting what they were promised nothing more nothing less.
If they can't live up to the claims whose fault is that?
They are falsely advertising their TOS so I don't care what the hard core economics of it are.
What is the deal now a days with people and companies expecting to be let out of a deal when they give your word....? They are trying to oversell just like AOL and should be treated the same way.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[pwnies]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but lets say theoretically you had verizon's new 20/20 Fios service. Assuming 5GB is you cap limit per month, and you can transfer 2.5GB downstream and 2.5GB upstream ( for a total of 5GB transfered ) in approximately ( 2,500MB / 2.5MB/sec ) = 1000 seconds = 16 minutes and 40 seconds; that means that you can only use your connection at max speed for

( 16.666 / ( ( 365.2425 / 12 ) * 24 * 60 ) ) * 100 =

0.038% of time.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[whimmel]

All the need is to say "UNLIMITED ACCESS"*

*where UN is defined as 5GB/month

Re:Assumed Guilt

[jc42]

take a look at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2007/oct/oct23a_07.html

I see nothing in there that answers my questions. First, it's not a link to a page on a verizon site. And there's no occurrence of strings like "server", "ssh", "vpn", or anything dealing with such topics. And there's no mention of how long such agreements might be valid for, so by the time you get your service installed, they could have disavowed anything in any agreement you've read.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[rastoboy29]

5 GB is nothing!  Hell, you can rent a server anywhere and get 3000 GB data transfer per month for under a hundred bucks.  How fucking stupid.

Re:Assumed Guilt

[mgcarley]

5GB? Geez, that starts to look like the pathetic data caps of all the ISPs in New Zealand. No wonder I don't live in NZ or the USA!

Europeans (especially Scandinavia and France) and certain Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong that I can think of) laugh at your woeful bandwidth!

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Firethorn]

Like I said, they rightly got slapped for false advertising.

I was just pointing out that having caps and limitations make a certain amount of sense for the service; Cell bandwidth isn't as unlimited as landlines can be. I mean, it's even more of a hub type system than cable, with a much lower overall bandwidth capability.

Spin doctors

[Nefarious Wheel]

Geez I wish I could be a corporate spin doctor like that. With my skills -- I could be a Hundredaire!!

One million dollars?

[Travoltus]

All they had to do was turn one of their execs upside down and shake the change out of his pants.

Sheesh.

Re:One million dollars?

[stinerman]

Once again, a +5 funny where the intent was a +5 insightful.

Re:One million dollars?

[arivanov]

Once again, a +5 funny where the content was a +5 insightful.

Here we go. Fixed that for ya...

Re:One million dollars?

[clickclickdrone]

>the intent was a +5 insightful.
That's becuase on /. people think insightful = 'agrees with me'

Re:One million dollars?

[Daimanta]

How dare you question the holy working of democracy! It is my democratic right to spend my mod points however I want. If I disagree with you I have the absolute right to mod you -1 Flamebait and if I like, I have every right to mod you +1 Insightfull. For democracy is an infallible system that never fails and do to the infinite wisdom of the owners of /. we have this perfect system.

Re:One million dollars?

[Hoi Polloi]

That is just human nature. It isn't resticted to /. by any means.

Re:One million dollars?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's becuase on /. people think insightful = 'agrees with me'

And Bastard Meta-Moderators From Hell like me look for any insight I can find in posts modded such, and if there is none, bzzt! How many times can your M's be M2'ed as "Unfair" before you're never asked to M again?

Re:One million dollars?

[pipingguy]

That reminded me of the extremely funny Capital One commercials:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XMOh-kyDhis
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nyrzyd5Rq1Y

I think there are more than these two.

Re:One million dollars?

[rs79]

"That reminded me of the extremely funny Capital One commercials:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XMOh-kyDhis
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nyrzyd5Rq1Y "

Are they to be sued next for advertising cheap credit cards? (They aren't)

Please oh please...

[Lumpy]

Let this set precedence and all the other states go after Verizon,Comcast and the others hard like this. hell please go after the Cellphone assholes as well.

They thrive on blatantly lying to the customer, Unlimited internet, unlimited calling, unlimited this that the other... they know they are lying. they need to be spanked hard and forced to not lie.

Re:Please oh please...

[fsulawndart]

Can this be used as precedent against crapcast?

Petty cash

[sm62704]

What a bunch of sleazeballs, both Verizon AND the New York State's Attorney. I got halfway down TFA (Sorry, I know that's unslashdottish of me to RTFA but I'm not feeling well) before my stomach started turning and I was forced to hit the "back" button.

What Verizon did, from TFA, was FRAUD plain and simple. Their CEO and board of directors should be in prison, not made to take petty cash and give it to New York. In their defense I must say, why isn't MY nad-free AG doing anything?

However, I'm not the least surprised. Nobody from Sony went to prison for rooting millions of PCs, despite the fact that if you did to them what they did to me you'ld be in the slammer for years.

I didn't read far enough to see if they agreed to stop defrauding their customers. But hell, you expect thieves and con men to tell the truth in a contract? I mean, the agreement is about their LIES to begin with!

I'm looking for a new cell phone company. Is there one out there that is reletively sleaze-free? I was happy with Cingular for years, never went over my minutes (always had rollover minutes) and the bill was always the same, under $50. Then AT&T bought them out, and all of a sudden I got hit with a $150 bill. I didn't pay it. The next month they tacked on another $450 on top of the $150, and shut off my service. After shutting off my service, they tacked ANOTHER $150 for the month I was without service, including taxes on the service they never provided.

Verizon was on the list of possible replacements (I'm using pay as you go right now), so this story was just in the nick of time. Thank you, slashdot!

You iknow, I'm a geezer; I don't remember businesses being run by thieves and sociopaths when I was young. Maybe my memory is bad, or I was naive. Or maybe we're heading for another world wide depression like tha 1930s?

-mcgrew

(Oblig link to my blagh posting about Sony rooting my box, titled "SONY MUST DIE!!!!")

Re:Petty cash

[Lumpy]

But hell, you expect thieves and con men to tell the truth in a contract? I mean, the agreement is about their LIES to begin with!

there! right there is the essence of wisdom for today.

Anyone demanding a contract or agreement is a thief and needs to be treated as such.

Re:Petty cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on your level of usage, you might consider sticking with pay-as-you-go, and as well consider checking out STI Mobile. Their plans are quite basic, and delivered as they advertise. And the costs for low volume usage amounts to $5/month or less. If you seldom use your phone, you can get by on about $3.10/month.

Re:Petty cash

[stinerman]

Is there one out there that is reletively sleaze-free?

LOL! Hell no. Sleaze is what makes these guys money. The least objectionable is probably Alltel, but I haven't a clue if they're available in your area. I have Verizon but only because they (and Alltel) are the only carriers that cover my hometown. I'd switch to Alltel if I didn't have to pay a termination fee.

Of the big 4, I don't think any of them are any better than the rest. You're really getting into Hitler > Stalin > Castro > Mao type situation here. And before I get trolled, those aren't my actual preferences. I don't have preferences wrt those guys.

Re:Petty cash

[arivanov]

You iknow, I'm a geezer; I don't remember businesses being run by thieves and sociopaths when I was young.

Really? United Fruit anyone? ITT? Want a few others?

Maybe my memory is bad, or I was naive.

Both I guess

Or maybe we're heading for another world wide depression like tha 1930s? Yes by the look of it

Re:Petty cash

[TheGreatHegemon]

Virgin Mobile is pretty good. It's true I only had a minimal plan from them, but they even warn you when you're running low on minutes. IIRC it's originally a British Company, so that may have something to do it. My receptoins also great in the Greater Los Angeles area.

Re:Petty cash

[Dunbal]

Anyone demanding a contract or agreement is a thief and needs to be treated as such.

      The idea behind a contract is some assurance of continued business. Why would a bank loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars without some form of assurance that you will actually pay it back? Why would a telco invest in technology and infrastructure without some form of guarantee that they will be able to recover their cost?

      Contracts are necessary. If you don't like them, don't sign them. No one is forcing you. Buy some carrier pigeons, make sure you pay for your house cash in advance, etc.

Re:Petty cash

[LoofWaffle]

For mobile service, why not become your own provider? http://www.sonopia.com/ It would be nice if we had something similar for broadband.

Re:Petty cash

[Lumpy]

No they are not.

Why does the gas company not make me have a contract? the electric company? hmmm? Laws cover the needs of that.

how about a basic phone line at my home? no contract there either. your examples are all flawed as there are laws in place that protect both sides. Contracts are about extending those laws in a manner that gives the company way more benefits then they are entitled to. Can I call up AT&T wireless and get a sim card without a contract? nope. they will not do it. why? because they feel the need to lock you in. you cant even change your existing contract to a higher service level without extending the contract another 2 years. They lose nothing.

contracts are only used by the thieves and con-men of this planet. They have no other use other than to steal more than your fair share out of someone else.

Re:Petty cash

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for wireless (I hate cell phones) but the last apartment I was at I had a REALLY bad experience with Verizon landlines. I moved out in October and asked them to shut off my service. Come February I was still getting bills for a service I had asked them to terminate and I didn't even live there anymore! Needless to say I called them up each time I got a bill and explained why I refused to pay it. Just for giggles I called my old phone number and... it was disconnected. So they were billing me for a non-existent connection! They later tried to sick a series of collection agencies on me, each of which I wrote a polite letter to explaining the situation and why I did not feel the need to pay anything. I never got a second attempt from any of the collection agencies, so at least they had the decency and intelligence to understand the situation. Pleasant surprise there, but I will never touch Verizon in any form ever again after that.

Re:Petty cash

[russotto]

Why does the gas company not make me have a contract? the electric company? hmmm? Laws cover the needs of that.

Because they can put a lien on your house if you don't pay.

Re:Petty cash

[sm62704]

Sting said:

Poets, priests and poiticians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no-one's jamming their transmission
And when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you

A horse is a four legged animal. That does not mean that a four legged animal is a horse.

I shall add a bit of emphasis to what I said:
"But hell, you expect thieves and con men to tell the truth in a contract?"
I expect honorable men to tell the truth, in a contract or otherwise. I do NOT expect thieves and con men to be honorable.

I applaud your Smartassedness. All of you, well done!

Re:Petty cash

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking for a new cell phone company. Is there one out there that is reletively sleaze-free? I was happy with Cingular for years, never went over my minutes (always had rollover minutes) and the bill was always the same, under $50. Then AT&T bought them out, and all of a sudden I got hit with a $150 bill

I hear ya, BellSouth/AT&T really suck. I stopped doing business w/ them. Till they bought Cingular. Now I can't WAIT to have my contract expire. I even entertained the idea of cancelling all 3 of my lines and taking the hit.

But saddly, in terms of value and service.... Verizon seems to be the best. And they don't set the bar very high. Followed by T-Mobile. I haven't touched AllTel so I can't speak for them. But considering they have NO contracts, they can't be bad. The rest pretty much fall magnitudes lower.

The whole American business model around cell service is utter crap. It is oiled by players who cater to the "sqeaky" wheels in their customer base, and POS discounts that shouldn't exist in the 1st place. Then there is the retarded consumer base that helps keep up their business model by taking it up the ass through complicated, low value deals, while asking for more with each raping.

Re:Petty cash

[JesseMcDonald]

Why does the gas company not make me have a contract? the electric company? hmmm?

First, they do have an implicit contract for payment in exchange for services rendered. Second, they either make you pay a deposit (in case you don't pay up later), or require evidence of good credit, or make you pay a month in advance (like most phone bills). Most importantly, they're only extending you one month's worth of well-insured credit at a time. There's always overhead and risk involved in signing up a new customer -- particularly if they're handing you a couple hundred dollars' worth of electrics as part of the deal -- and without a long-term contract there's no way they could extend that kind of credit. Everyone would have to pay the activation costs, the cost of the hardware, etc. up front.

Lastly, if you agreed to the contract you've claimed to have read it and known what you were getting into. Anyone who would do that and then later turn around and demand to have the contract voided as "unfair" is a far better example of a "thief" or "con-man" than the companies you're denouncing.

Re:Petty cash

[letxa2000]

I was happy with Cingular for years, never went over my minutes (always had rollover minutes) and the bill was always the same, under $50. Then AT&T bought them out, and all of a sudden I got hit with a $150 bill. I didn't pay it. The next month they tacked on another $450 on top of the $150, and shut off my service. After shutting off my service, they tacked ANOTHER $150 for the month I was without service, including taxes on the service they never provided.

Funny. AT&T bought Cingular and the only difference I noticed in my service was the logo that appears on the bills.

Re:Petty cash

[Anonymous Coward]

You iknow, I'm a geezer; I don't remember businesses being run by thieves and sociopaths when I was young. Maybe my memory is bad, or I was naive. Or maybe we're heading for another world wide depression like tha 1930s?

Business has always been run by thieves.

Re:Petty cash

[WhiteWolf666]

Want cell phone service?

Go to www.sprint.com/sero

Enter "savings@sprintemi.com" for the e-mail address.

Enjoy!
$30/month, 500 minutes, unlimited data, EVDO RevA speeds, unlimited text/picture messaging, no roaming fees.

Cheap, easy to deal with. Moderate hold times, and the customer service is okay (not stellar, like T-mobile, but the service is excellent).

Also, Sprint has plenty of extra bandwidth, so they actually _encourage_ streaming video and gaming over their data network.

For example:
"Mobile Broadband Capable
With the evolution to EV-DO Revision A, users in markets where it is rolled out, will experience faster average download speeds of 600 kbps - 1.4 Mbps and average upload speeds of 350 - 500 kbps.

Wireless High-Speed Data Capable
Mobile employees can access:
E-mail with large attachments
Corporate Intranet and Internet
Digital Imaging
Location-based applications
Video/audio streaming
Rich Messaging
Bandwidth intensive applications for sales and customer service"

The only way that I liked T-mobile better is that they tended to try to make you happy, and Sprint customer service tends to aim for fairness, which I can accept. T-mobile CS was willing to go the extra mile (for example, issuing overage credits), while Sprint employees, although quite helpful, tend to be slightly more strict.

Can't beat the SERO pricing, though, and Sprint doesn't have the same dirty tricks mentality that Verizon does (I absolutely hate Verizon customer service. I've had to deal with them for friends several times, and they are a bunch of rude louts, and this sort of unlimited = very limited is typical for those bastards).

Sprint gets it right. They're fair, their network isn't badly oversubscribed, they're upgrading quickly, and the pricing can't be beat, at least with SERO.

Re:Petty cash

[Hoi Polloi]

I don't remember businesses being run by thieves and sociopaths when I was young.

No, things haven't changed that much. Do a little searching and you dig up all of those great ads for cigarettes that have "Doctors recommend Camel cigarettes" and "Good for your 'T Zone'" bylines. Go back further and you find that radium will cure what ails you even when scientists already knew it caused illness. The case of New Jersey vs Radium Corp (and the slap on the wrist they got even when internal documents and practices showed they knew it was toxic) really stands out.

Re:Petty cash

[budgenator]

yeah they stopped DCing customers in April until the suit was settled and have agreed not to advertise unlimited plans with caps and prohibited uses. Also the NY AG's press release wasn't completely clear but I read it as Verizon was going to divide the $1M among the 13,000 customers disconected and that the $1M was an estimate rather than a hard numbers so they are probably paying per DC, disconnect.

Re:Petty cash

[Firethorn]

I'm looking for a new cell phone company. Is there one out there that is reletively sleaze-free? I was happy with Cingular for years, never went over my minutes (always had rollover minutes) and the bill was always the same, under $50. Then AT&T bought them out, and all of a sudden I got hit with a $150 bill. I didn't pay it. The next month they tacked on another $450 on top of the $150, and shut off my service. After shutting off my service, they tacked ANOTHER $150 for the month I was without service, including taxes on the service they never provided.

Did you protest the bills, preferably by certified mail?

There are numerous ways to fight this stuff - to include small claims court.

Businesses are not allowed to change the terms of the contract without notifying you and giving you the chance to decline - though this generally means 'your service ends at the end of this billing period'.

On the other hand, there is some assumption that you have to be pro-active before going to the court system. You need to be able to show that you attempted to work with them.

Re:Petty cash

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking for a new cell phone company. Is there one out there that is reletively sleaze-free? ALWAYS do your homework, but I'll throw in a recommendation: T-Mobile. (Disclaimer I used to work for T-Mobile)
The reason I could recommend them is because
1 They had or (still have) 1 year contracts
2 They don't automatically restart your contract when you switch to another regular plan (promo plans may be different)
3 They have 24/7 Customer service
4 Fair upgrade policy (It's tiered so if you can't wait a year you have some discount accrued)
5 Phones come loaded: with free headset in the box, loaded w/ ringtones, etc. Compared to my Verizon phone...
6 They are proud of having the highest customer satisfaction around
7. GSM phones (removable SIM means you can have several phones and swap out the sim into the phone you're using).
8. Great Voicemail System (didn't realize this till I switched).

The bad:
1. Not the best coverage! Reason I sadly had to switch to Cingular (not that bad) and then to Verizon (OMG is it horrible in so many ways).
2. No roll over minutes (though some will say that's a sign your plan is overkill, I still liked having the buffer).
3. Some others people will surely point out.

Neutral:
1. They'll unlock a phone but only after you've been with them a few months but won't unlock it if it's more than 6 months since you canceled.

I have not checked out Sprint in a while, but don't forget these points (and other things you take for granted but consider essential), and ask alot of questions - when you do get the name of the rep you talked to. If things go sour you can always quote the rep that gave you the bad info.

Example would be "Do you charge for incoming text messages even if I dont read them?" - most people will assume no, that's silly, of course they wouldnt charge you. Fact is most if not all providers charge for incoming text messages .10 to .15 each (which in my opinion is bogus - the person sending it got charged already). I know at one time T-Mobile had 50 first incoming messages free on all plans but that has gone away.

Oh and don't automatically choose the provider that'll save you an extra $30 to $50 on that shiny new phone. $50 or even $100 is nothing compared to the grief and expense of getting stuck with a plan or provider that doesn't work for you.

Re:Petty cash

[Elladan]

T-Mobile seems to be the best of a bad lot in the USA. They don't mess with people much getting their phones unlocked and so forth, and generally don't seem to exhibit the quite same level of criminal depravity you see in the rest of the phone companies.

Re:Petty cash

[Danga]

They later tried to sick a series of collection agencies on me, each of which I wrote a polite letter to explaining the situation and why I did not feel the need to pay anything. I never got a second attempt from any of the collection agencies, so at least they had the decency and intelligence to understand the situation.

I would definitely check your credit report if I was you. Earlier this year I had a similar situation where a former landlord of mine turned me into a collection agency when I refused to pay a bunch of extra fee's they wanted when I moved out, fee's that were NOT anywhere in the contract I signed with them. I did the same thing as you where I wrote the collection agency a nice letter and gave them all of my contact information and told them my half of the story and I never heard anything from them so I figured I was in the clear. Well then I checked my credit last month and found out the collections agency is on there saying the money I owe them is "disputed by customer". I have no idea how bad that is to have on my credit report but I am certain it is not a good thing. Needless to say I am not very happy.

If anyone out there knows much about credit in the US and can clue me in more as to how bad this is to have on my credit report I would appreciate it!

Unlimited

[torkus]

Are they still branding their wireless as "unlimited" to new customers? Existing customers that signed up for "unlimited" wireless should have exactly that - at least until their contract expires.

Despite their cute (though repetitive at this point) commercials, VZW is still a bad choice for a cell company in my opinion. T-Mobile OTOH seems to make good where verizon fails. Heck, they keep sending me free phones with a couple months of free service to try them out. Ok, so i'm a corporate customer but meh.

Re:Unlimited

[betterunixthanunix]

T-mobile is OK, but not completely without problems. The most annoying problem, which thankfully I only had to deal with once, is that they block fax calls from cell phones; the only way to send a fax through T-mobile is to fork over some extra cash. Not the worst problem in the world, but pretty annoying.

All in all, I agree: T-mobile is the best service I've dealt with. They don't try to squeeze you on dialup access (I use a non-T-mobile ISP, and those calls aren't dropped), they actually send and receive text messages (unlike Verizon which seem to randomly block SMS messages from non-Verizon numbers), and their coverage, while not perfect, is much better than some other companies.

Re:Unlimited

[MrCrassic]

While T-Mobile's service is pretty good and many Verizon users would switch if they had the choice, their phone selection continues to be behind the curve and they are STILL the only American company without any functional 3G towers operating yet. I don't understand why this is when T-Mobile Germany is one of the top providers (akin to Verizon here) and has one of the fastest 3G networks and the best phones for the buck.

Who would want to pay the insane rates that Verizon charges for a cellular technology that's dying anyway?

Re:Unlimited

[theantipop]

In my estimation no communications company is squeaky clean. So I've decided to go with who gives me the best network coverage and least call drops, and that happens to be Verizon. As much as it pains me, I'm not going to suffer worse service just to stick it to the man.

Re:Unlimited

[betterunixthanunix]

Yeah, the lack of 3G is a bit of a disappointment. The 9.6K limit on data is basically the lowest tolerable, just enough for some email and weather checks (and even then, only with a non-WWW client).

Re:Unlimited

[jamar0303]

You can send faxes from a cellphone?

Re:Unlimited

[betterunixthanunix]

Almost all (99%) of modern cell phones have an integrated modem, that can be used by connecting the phone to a computer. For example, I connect to my phone via bluetooth, and then use it as a modem to dial up to the Internet. You can also use it to send faxes; KDE can set up pseudo-printers that behave as fax machines, and use a modem to send the fax. There is still use for this, even given the rise of email.

Re:Unlimited

[jamar0303]

Oh. I knew about dialing up (I do it every so often) but didn't know that it could be used to send faxes like that. I thought it was some sort of system that converted SMSes to faxes on the fly when sending to a landline or something like that.

Re:Unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked your post-- but it hurts to read it like that, so I will transcribe it for others:

I have to include this chat exchange from a few months ago with Verizon Wireless -
Greg: Hello. Thank you for visiting our chat service. May I help you with your order today?
You: Yea, I am trying to figure out a family plan that 1) has fewer minutes and 2) has free text messaging.
Greg: No, plan has free text messaging.
You: there was a splash thing about free messaging
Greg: I do not know what that means? Splash?
You: Splash page? ad? select family plans have unlimited text
You: here let me just cut and paste for you:
You: * Unlimited Text, Picture, Video & Instant Messaging to anyone on any network in the U.S. * Unlimited IN Calling to any Verizon Wireless Customer and Unlimited Night & Weekend Minutes. * Access to America's Most Reliable W
Greg: Yes, we offer the select plan that has unlimited messaging, but it is not free.
You: ? what does unlimited mean?
Greg: Do you not know what the definition of unlimited is?
You: I think you might br having the definition problem. That McDonalds sells you hamburgers does not mean they offer you unlimited hamburgers. Unlimited means as many as you want, for one low price. They do have unlimited refills on their beverages, for example.
Greg: Okay so you get as many messages as you want on the Select plan.
You: ?
You: isn't that what I asked?
Greg: It is UNLIMITED.
Greg: Is there anything else I can help you with today?
Greg: I guess.
Greg: Do you have any other questions for me?
You: yes, i will cut and paste from the first thing I typed,
Greg,: ea, I am trying to figure out a family plan that 1) has fewer minutes and 2) has free text messaging. I guess we mean "no charge per message".

- I think there is a corporate brain block on the concept of unlimited

I like turtles

[stevedmc]

I like turtles. Disclaimer: This does not mean that I like all turtles. I only like some turtles which I will not specify.

Low barriers to guilt

[sjbe]

A person engaged in prohibited uses continuously for one hour could typically use 100 to 200 MB...

So download OpenOffice twice in an hour and you are busted. Nice! Glad I don't use Verizon.

Re:Low barriers to guilt

[argiedot]

As a matter of fact, just download a couple of Linux ISOs, or update all your software and you're screwed.

Re:Low barriers to guilt

[HyperbolicParabaloid]

on your cell phone? this is Verizon WIRELESS, right?

Re:Low barriers to guilt

[Robert The Coward]

Verizon offers a card the connections to your notebook.

jumping to conclusions

[m2943]

with a company so inclined to assume a user of the service is guilty of copyright violations just because of the amount of data they are transferring

That's not what they are assuming. What they are assuming is that you violate terms like "[prohibited activities:] (i) continuous uploading, downloading, or streaming of audio or video programming or games".

Re:jumping to conclusions

[T-Bone-T]

You can't stream video? Isn't that one of the main reasons to get broadband? That's like giving someone a Ferarri and a race track and telling them they can't go over the highway speed limit. It completely defeats the purpose.

Re:jumping to conclusions

[m2943]

You can't stream video?

You can't stream video continuously. (Are you illiterate?)

It completely defeats the purpose.

Then don't subscribe to it.

That's like giving someone a Ferarri and a race track and telling them they can't go over the highway speed limit

No, it's like buying a turbo-charged car: if you try to drive those at max hp continuously, they break, but if you use the turbo charging for short bursts, you're fine.

If you want a Ferrari rather than a rice rocket, pay for it. Verizon, Comcast, and all the other ISPs give you "business class Internet" if you pay for it, and you can stream and serve all you want with that.

Re:jumping to conclusions

[T-Bone-T]

You're an ass. I would very much like to piss in your cereal like someone else apparently did.

Re:jumping to conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not surprising that you have such infantile compulsions. They go well with your apparently limited reading ability.

Try to upsell instead of turning them off....

[endlesshaze]

First off, I bet Verizon spends more then 1 million dollars a year in trying to find these folks that are abusing the 'Unlimited Plan'... I guarantee that all telcos that offer unlimited plans have systems put in place to catch 'abusers' of these plans and are monitored on a regular basis. Shutting them off in my mind is a little harsh, they should have created another price plan and tried to upsell the customers...

Re:Try to upsell instead of turning them off....

[Anonymous Coward]

they did, its called the unlimited plan. How do you abuse an "unlimited" plan? that is the point of this whole thing. You CAN'T abuse unlimited. the very definition is.... unlimited.

call me crazy

parent post highly underrated

[Travoltus]

"You iknow, I'm a geezer; I don't remember businesses being run by thieves and sociopaths when I was young. Maybe my memory is bad, or I was naive. Or maybe we're heading for another world wide depression like tha 1930s?"

You grew up in the period between the 1930s and the 1980s? I'm sure there were corporate thieves and miscreants in that period, but the tale of the stats say they weren't as rampant as today. Not even close.

Before the 1930s, man, they were effin' brutal. These days, they're trying really hard to bring back those 'Good Old Days' of yankee 'caveat emptor' capitalism. Really really hard.

It's up to us, the people, to stop being so apathetic, turn off that stupid Nip/Tuck, and call for and vote in some corporate responsibility. Start with boycotts and then put pressure on politicians. Stop letting these people think we don't care.

Re:parent post highly underrated

[Bent Mind]

...call for and vote in some corporate responsibility. Start with boycotts and then put pressure on politicians. In addition, research companies you do business with. Promote and provide positive feedback to companies that try to do good by their customers. Personally, I like to promote QWest DSL (with QWest as ISP). The service is good, I don't have any caps, and there are no restrictions on the software I choose to run on my system.

they'll clarify the ads, not change the service

[m2943]

There are two things Verizon could do: change the service or change the ads. They can't change the service because it's economically not feasible.

So, what this will mean is simply that ads will get slightly more prominent disclaimers saying something like

Verizon Unlimited Bandwidth*

*Subject to terms of service; file sharing, bandwidth sharing, public servers, or continuous data transfer are examples of prohibited activities.

RTFA

[cwebster]

"Verizon Wireless" is the cellphone asshole.

Canadian class action $500 per cell phone user

[tomhudson]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/09/19/tech-cellphones.html

And yes, the money will go to the individual users. If this works, I should be getting about $1200 in another 5 years (because that's how long it will take to go through the courts, appleas, etc).

And those are Canadian dollars to boot !!! w00t!

Re:Canadian class action $500 per cell phone user

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Hmmmmm... Canadian $ is worth more than US right know, so being payed in Canadian == Good thing.

Re:Canadian class action $500 per cell phone user

[jaymz666]

paid.

The word is paid.

The Outrage!

[Anonymous Coward]

(9) No Linux ISOs for you, you dirty, bearded Unix hippie! Hey, I may be dirty and I may be bearded and may even be a unix but I am not a ... wait, what was that last thing you called me?

1 Million ??

[zoomshorts]

It should have been , a fine of $1,000,000 USD per customer. THAT would have sent a message.

Yawn.

So much for...

[dazedNconfuzed]

Well, I was increasingly thinking of giving up my wired broadband entirely and switching to cellular "unlimited" broadband (maybe a bit slower, but useable everywhere).

Still want to.
So much for Verizon when my contract ends in a couple months.

Does AT&T have an affordable deal on a 4-way (2 iPhones, 2 notebooks, 1 bill) unlimited (actual, not a paltry 5GB limit) data plan?

Re:So much for...

[Amouth]

i dont' know if AT&T has any deals// or if they have ever limited people BUT i do know that i have done well over 15GB in one month with my unlimited plan - and they have never said anything to me.. i have been very temped to build a wifi AP into my car useing a 3g card for net have the ap open/mac filter and battery powered... that way i would have wifi on my laptop/desktop aslong as i am within 2-300 feet of my car.. which is practily always... *when you need access at home the car is in the driveway at work in the parkinglot (small building) your car goes with you everywhere.. makes a good mounting point.. and i don't think that an ap would drian the battry too much.

One million dollars for Verizon

[dr_d_19]

That'll teach them! That's probably the equivalent of me having to fork up $2.

The should be fined for their statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there someway we can penalize them for such a blatantly Orwellian response? PLEASE!? I think that suing companies for overspin is a feature that language users want!

Are you listening...

[Deadstick]

...Comcast?

rj

Re:Are you listening...

[thosf]

You inadvertently misspelled CONcast. (and after three years, the name *still* evokes memories of piss-poor, lying-cheating-stealing service.) I still have a hard-wired phone at home. And for good reason. When the power goes out, at least I can call for emergency service (police, fire, etc.). Ma Bell/ATT has banks of batteries that are on constant charge in each of their switching buildings. It means that you can still make calls during power outages. Try doing that when your cell/cable phone is non-functioning and a loved one is lying on the floor with an apparent heart attack. Perhaps the cell/cable phone services should be sued for not disclosing that 'crucial' bit of disturbing news when selling you their service. And yes, the slashdot thought police are sure to rack up one more 'politically incorrect' demerit for me - it's just another form of censorship that they engage in (what else can you expect from DEMONcRATS?)

Google "Verizon Unlimited"

[Celarnor]

This would probably be a public relations nightmare if people cared more. Googling the term "Verizon Unlimited", the first page doesn't even contain Verizon's website itself, except in the sponsored links. What it does contain are things such as:

"Verizon Limits Its "Unlimited" Wireless Broadband Service"
"Who's a Bandwidth Bandit? - The Checkout"
"Verizons Unlimited Data Plan Not So Unlimited"
"Verizon: "Unlimited bandwidth means 5GBs or less or we cancel your service"

No WoW

[splutty]

(7) No playing World of Warcraft

You'd actually break 2 of their not-to-be-used rules with that one. One for the fact you're playing a 'streaming' (client-server model) game, and the other for usage of a P2P program (WoW updates through P2P).

The 5GB limit would also severely impact me doing any work for the company through that sort of link, since a backup of a database for installation on a test machine would already get to over 15G. So I wouldn't even be able to do that once.

Re:No WoW

[vux984]

The 5GB limit would also severely impact me doing any work for the company through that sort of link, since a backup of a database for installation on a test machine would already get to over 15G. So I wouldn't even be able to do that once.

Yeah, I'd totally want to upload a 15GB database through my cell phone.

Those links are finally fast enough to be useful, but the amount of bandwidth available is tiny tiny fraction of what they can do on broadband, and their ability to increase wireless bandwidth is pretty limited. So they limit the amount any one person can use.

What would you propose they do?

Can Plan

[kurtis25]

I looked into buying this plan or ATT but read that part and said NO! I was going to sign up for it and use the Gizmo Project and Grand Central to make unlimited free cellphone calls? This made me realize that VZW just couldn't handle what they sold and the saw VOIP as a predator to their precious money making scheme, if I get unlimited bandwidth that is a decent quality I can exploit have unlimited calling for $40 a month which compared to $60 for my cell plan $25 for my land line is a good deal.

"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[GuyverDH]

Come on, is Dr. Evil the NYAG? That's not going to deter Verizon one bit.
The term unlimited means no limits.
There's no way to change the definition no matter what *legalsleeze* you throw at it.

If it's not unlimited, you can't use the term.

Just like most chocolate flavored cereals, if not made using real chocolate, have to say "chocolatey"..

Maybe they need to have the term "unlimitedey" or "unlimitedlike" or "pseudounlimited" instead.

One down, Millions to go

[Anon-Admin]

Ok, they nailed one. Whos next? I can not believe the number of false advertisements I see on the net. Most from legitimate companies that know better than to do it!

I have gone over to reporting them when I find them, you just need to go to

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

and fill out the report. They will do the rest.

I am sure we can find lots of examples to keep the FTC busy.

Re:One down, Millions to go

[Dunbal]

I can not believe the number of false advertisements I see on the net.

      but you really ARE the 10,000,000th visitor to this site!!!

Re:One down, Millions to go

[Anon-Admin]

lol :) Ok, I guess I can believe it.

Re:"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[Guerilla* Napalm]

There's no way to change the definition no matter what *legalsleeze* you throw at it. Then you're obviously working with the wrong lawyers. **** Johnnie Cochrans' out of thread ****

Re:"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[Anonymous Coward]

From a European point of vue, this really sucks :

* Unlimited means "unlimited". Not "unlimited as long as you don't use it".
* Though a very high limit might be denfendable, the limits set are far too low : 5 Gb is nothing
* Most of the activities they are trying to ban are fair and reasonable use of an high speed access. Online gaming, fiel sharing , ... . Moreover they are the reason why people by these access. I could understand banning heaviest user running private very high traffic servers. This is definitely not what they are doing here.

The US needs class action lawsuits

[Nicolas MONNET]

The US needs class action lawsuits as an after the fact correction because your government does not, and probably can not be trusted to, protect the consumer/citizen. In fact, considering how weak consumer protection is in the US, without it corporations would start feasting on babies' entrails(*) if it made them any money.

* cf. John Edwards

The easy way to reach 5GB

[Gr8Apes]

Download the x86 and AMD64 ISOs of Gutsy Gibbon. You'll easily hit 8GB, and probably in a single day if the transmission speed can handle it. It's also 100% legal based on their limitations, as it could be considered browsing, or connecting to your corporate intranet and accessing files there.

Verizon had to stop disconnecting customers

[Animats]

The key point, from the AG's press release, is "Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses." So they do have to provide "unlimited" service. The "voluntary" part means "did it before the state got a court order".

Disclaimers, by the way, don't help. It's a false advertising lawsuit. The big print said "unlimited", and if the small print disagrees, that's false advertising.

Unlimited

[fscrubjay]

I have to include this chat exchange from a few months ago with Verizon Wireless - Greg: Hello. Thank you for visiting our chat service. May I help you with your order today? You: Yea, I am trying to figure out a family plan that 1) has fewer minutes and 2) has free text messaging. Greg: No, plan has free text messaging. You: there was a splash thing about free messaging Greg: I do not know what that means? Splash? You: Splash page? ad? select family plans have unlimited text You: here let me just cut and paste for you: You: * Unlimited Text, Picture, Video & Instant Messaging to anyone on any network in the U.S. * Unlimited IN Calling to any Verizon Wireless Customer and Unlimited Night & Weekend Minutes. * Access to America's Most Reliable W Greg: Yes, we offer the select plan that has unlimited messaging, but it is not free. You: ? what does unlimited mean? Greg: Do you not know what the definition of unlimited is? You: I think you might br having the definition problem. That McDonalds sells you hamburgers does not mean they offer you unlimited hamburgers. Unlimited means as many as you want, for one low price. They do have unlimited refills on their beverages, for example. Greg: Okay so you get as many messages as you want on the Select plan. You: ? You: isn't that what I asked? Greg: It is UNLIMITED. Greg: Is there anything else I can help you with today? Greg: I guess. Greg: Do you have any other questions for me? You: yes, i will cut and paste from the first thing I typed, Greg,: ea, I am trying to figure out a family plan that 1) has fewer minutes and 2) has free text messaging. I guess we mean "no charge per message". - I think there is a corporate brain block on the concept of unlimited

Not Verizon? Well, no one else has coverage...

[danaris]

It's all very well to try that, but I can't in good conscience recommend against Verizon for the friends & family I support, knowing what I know of the coverage of every other cell carrier in my area.

Get some real competition on coverage, then we'll talk.

Dan Aris

Why are slashdotters so naieve?

[truesaer]

Anything based off a limited resource can't by definition be unlimited. Did anyone really think you could use truly UNLIMITED amounts of data? Of course not, it's impossible. Taking advertising that literally is just stupidity. Do you get upset when you see an ad saying "you'll love the new double whopper, for a limited time only" because Burger King didn't personally consult with you to determine if you would in fact love it?

Comcast's secret slowing of P2P traffic is much worse than this. In that case they were actually meddling with the service. Here, Verizon just decided to stop doing business with certain customers that were not profitable. They didn't cap their bandwidth, they just said "starting next month we've decided not to do business with you anymore." Isn't that their right? Customers have the right to cancel, Verizon has the right to cancel.

Broadband internet access is unlimited in a lot of ways...there's no set cap. But there are always realistic limitations. I don't see the problem with advertisers assuming their customers aren't completely stupid. Somehow I just have this mental image of thousands of slashdotters at a buffet screaming "I've only eaten 700 pounds of food, now you claim you're out of food....I was told this buffet was unlimited?!?!

Re:Why are slashdotters so naieve?

[Anonymous Coward]

" They didn't cap their bandwidth, they just said "starting next month we've decided not to do business with you anymore." Isn't that their right? Customers have the right to cancel, Verizon has the right to cancel."

Yes and no...if you have a standard 2 year deal, you can't just willy nilly opt out, you're going to pay out the nose normally for an early termination fee.

Re:Why are slashdotters so naieve?

[Bryansix]

Wait a second. People on Slashdot are not naieve nor are we STUPID. We understand that there is a theoretical limit to the amount of bandwidth you can use because the pipe is only so fat and only so much data can come down it. That theoretical limit is what we think and expect UNLIMITED access to be. IE: You can use 100% of the pipe 100% of the time if you want to.

Re:Why are slashdotters so naieve?

[Bryansix]

For Instance CalPOP.com sells Unlimited 10Meg connections at their Hosting Facility.

Not Enough

[Nom du Keyboard]

$1 million is not enough. It's not nearly enough to deter this behavior in Verizon, and all the other ISP's who are claiming the same thing. $1 BILLION would have been a much better number.

But does Verizon even have a billion? Of course they do. That, and many more billions that they can spend on the FCC 700MHz auction. Slap 'em, and slap 'em hard!

Re:"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[dvonhand]

Might I propose a new term that means not unlimited? I would like to propose "limited".

Settlement is weak

[tknn]

This is weak. The government should not have settled as this sets no precedent and the fine is relatively paltry....

Re:"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[balsy2001]

The chocolatey vs. chocolate probably resulted from some national council on chocolate trying to protect the good name of their product. I guess we will need to start a national council on unlimited to protect its good name.

If a hacker

[gillbates]

Had disconnected 13,000 users, he'd be in jail.

A corporate executive does it, and gets off scott free.

Re:If a hacker

[DragonTHC]

the corpexec most likely didn't break any computer laws in accessing his company's own network.

use your brain moron!

Re:If a hacker

[Burpmaster]

the corpexec most likely didn't break any computer laws in accessing his company's own network. Apologies to the grandparent post's author for removing an upmod I gave him by posting this, but I had to ask... Are you implying that if a hacker disconnects 13,000 users, the only victim is Verizon and the users are worth nothing?

Huge Success

[riffzifnab]

1. Verizon is pleased by this outcome. ... Bet they had a big office party. There was cake. But you can't have any because no one likes you, says so right here on your file, "Unlikeable".

Not just cell phones

[soupforare]

I've friends in very rural areas that (somehow) actually have cellular coverage. They're only other choice is dialup, so, it's not just cell phones.

What would you propose they do?

Not market it as unlimited.

Re:"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[stormguard2099]

Maybe they need to have the term "unlimitedey" or "unlimitedlike" or "pseudounlimited" instead. we already have a term like that. it's "limited"

Naive? Hardly. Verizon screwed up.

[Fantastic Lad]

Telephone companies provide unlimited local calling, and I've never heard of a subscriber being cut off for talking too much. That's because the phone companies have the required infrastructure to deal with the natural usage patterns which have evolved over time. The internet, however, is still new and the usage patterns haven't settled yet. Verizon made some assumptions about what normal usage would be, and they got it wrong. They made a huge mistake in offering 'unlimited' packages before they understood what they were dealing with or before they had the required infrastructure in place.

Your all-you-can-eat buffet argument is actually quite apt. People's eating habits can be mapped, the limit being based on how much one person can physically consume, so restaurants rarely end up with problems.

Verizon should have played it safe, looking at their resources and the real limits, (a customer using the maximum bandwidth 24/7), and they should have charged appropriately for that service package based on their ability to deliver it. Promising unlimited usage to everybody was unrealistic. 10 or 20 people using the full bandwidth is a spike, but 13000 users is evidence of normal mass behavior which they obviously didn't plan for. --They made promises they couldn't keep and they lost the gamble.

The nature of contract law is that people and companies must be held accountable to the promises they make. Why should Verizon be treated any differently? When other companies fail to meet their obligations, the ideal model is to find some way to sever the deal in a manner which leaves the customer feeling that they were dealt with in good will, either through a refund or similar. Verizon handled itself without grace. They could have been up-front in saying, "Oops. We screwed up by signing a contract which we couldn't fulfill. To make it up to you, we'd like to offer the next two months at the same service level for the price you are currently paying, but after that we have to charge more. This will give you enough time to find another service provider. --Or if you want to cancel immediately, we'll give you back your money for the last two months." --Something like that would have shown good will and would have established new systems to avoid future problems with new clients. Instead they chose to act like dicks in the hope that nobody would sue.

I'm glad to see they lost that gamble as well.

-FL

Its like NOT growing corn.

[jon287]

First, you could make tons of money by not growing corn.
Now it seems like you can make money by not providing internet.

Hey everyone, come buy my new internet device! Sure it looks like a 9600 baud modem I found in a thrift store but it will provide you with unlimited bandwidth provided you never ever try to turn it on and use it!

Re:"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[GuyverDH]

Yes, but we're talking legalsleeze here. They want it to sound like or imply unlimited without giving unlimited goodness. While you and I would agree that limited is the proper term, they want something that while it will sound like unlimited, would imply not unlimited without using limited.

This would be just like chocolatey implies chocolate-like, yet some folks take it as being chocolate, which is what the suits are aiming for.

Typo, not false advertising.

[Snufu]

They meant the fees were unlimited.

didn't change anything

[Katmando911]

Part of this settlement should be that VZW isn't allowed to use the term 'unlimited' unless they are not going to limit it. Merely adding a few paragraphs buried in a TOS or EULA that nobody is going to read and still using the term 'unlimited' in all of the advertising is still deceptive at best.

Not the first time

[gcranston]

This isn't the first time Verizon's billing has screwed their customers. Check out this blog with audio of several phone calls where numerous accounts people and managers are completely unable to understand that 0.002 dollars and 0.002 cents are, in fact, different quantities. This was also previously posted on Slashdot

Re:"1 Million Dollars" - Pinky pointing at cheek

[dremel]

I don't know what everyone's complaining about, Verizon were being completely truthy!

MOD PARENT DOWN

[brunes69]

This whole thing is talking about internet access over mobile phones. Not a single thing you posted is valid. if I had mod points i'd bitch slap this post.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Paul Slocum]

A lot of people use their mobile wireless service to provide mobile internet access to their laptops. See here.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[jrieth50]

Actually, the mobile phone service can be connected to your laptop or any other computer so that you have internet access without being at home. So turn your bitchslap on yourself.

I'm a student, and I have plenty of professors who use send us videos to watch, etc. So I shouldn't be allowed to do that at my local Starbucks with the mobile internet service I pay for? I should also be restricted from streaming internet radio while I work?

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[zerkon]

I can connect to the internet on my computer using PAN routed over bluetooh on my cell phone. In fact on buisness if I'm stuck in a crappy hotel w/o free wireless I've done this to play WoW

So yeah his points/post are quite valid

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be ignorant of Verizon Wireless's offerings.

Many of their phones can be "tethered" to a computer via USB to provide broadband connectivity.

They also sell EV-DO modems (USB and ExpressCard) for the same purpose, minus the whole "mobile phone" part.

All of which use the same NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess plans.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Shadow-isoHunt]

I hook my phone up to my router and use it as a USB modem all the time. If you can do it with a normal WAN link, you can do it with a cellphone. Being unrechable from the WAN thanks to the network design is something that is easily solved w/ GatewayPorts and a dedi (of which I have access to many). There is no reason to mod this person down. People do use phones as WAN links under certain situations.

Slingbox seems to be a major culprit

[cshay]

This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file-sharing services and/or redirecting television programming content for viewing on laptops is prohibited

Looks like aside from the usual P2P suspects, it was slingbox users that were the real thorn in their side....

WoW download

[sabt-pestnu]

(7) No playing World of Warcraft One of the advantages of Dialup is that I get a meter of bytes transferred, because those numbers are ususally small. If memory serves (prior to WoW voice chat) WoW Downloaded some 4MB an hour or so during regular usage. Say you're running a 5 person LAN, and running each 24 hours a day. For the sake of hygiene, assume shifts, please. :) about 15GB a month. Cut it down to only 1 person, and you're still only talking 3GB. There's any number of caveats there...

• that's regular usage. Downloading a patch torrent is a different matter
• Other games by default (City of Heroes, for example), and WoW with voice chat, take up more bandwidth in normal operation. Also, you may be running Vent or another voice chat service to take up more bandwidth.
• gaming is, as you pointed out elsewhere, not on the "approved use" list.

... just under normal use (18 hours/day, occasional patches) you would still come in under the wire. Just barely. With the right games.

IANAN

[sabt-pestnu]

I am not a number, I am a free man!

It's almost like...

[Humorless Coward.]

Verizon is Comcastic!

Barely even that...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you RTFA, you'll find that Verizon was "pleased to cooperate" with the AG.

That may be PR lackey talk, but I really don't doubt that they are pleased with themselves. This "punishment" is chump change and we're the chumps.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[mecredis]

No, your comment seems to be invalid. The settlement refers to Verizon's misleading advertising for their EVDO connection, something that laptop users used as "wireless broadband."

From TFA:

The settlement follows a nine-month investigation into the marketing of NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess plans for wireless access to the internet for laptop computer users.

(emphasis mine)

Therefore, the above examples are entirely relevant.

Qwest, eh?

[Travoltus]

They used to be known as Qworst, for the hell people said they put them through.

Of course, recently I heard that they refused to comply with that NSA wiretap thing. Champion of freedom vs allegations of shitty service? The sheep go one way but if I lived in Qwest territory I'd be sorely tempted to go the other.

MOD THIS ONE DOWN ^^^

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, what do you think the pcmcia and usb Verizon wireless cards are for? They plug directly into a computer...

Did you read the contract excerpt?

BTW- most companies with more than a few phones/data cards are actually paying $20-30 less than the average consumer for the unlimited access. I also found if you complain enough you can get the same discount.

Re:Naive? Hardly. Verizon screwed up.

[pipingguy]

Very well-said.

Good Precedent:

[Upaut]

Looking at the larger picture, this gives precedent towards the teleco's having to pay for a lie. Now lets look at this larger: The United States payed a total of 200 BILLION to the telicos to roll out a new broadband infrastructure by, well, now.

Thats 200 Billion of our money. Which, given there are 301,139,947 people as July of 2007, would mean we are all due $6.64... With inflation of both people and currency, lets make it an even seven... Trust me, if we were all payed $7, the telecos would start hurting something fierce... They might even band together and deliver on the promises they made all those years ago... Particularly if a fraud charge is added towards all the executives that spent that money on a place in the Hamptons instead of where it should of gone...

Of course.

[RulerOf]

They have a file for the canceled check in the accountant's office. It reads "Cost of Business."