Slashdot Mirror
FCC Inquires About Controversial Verizon Fees
olsmeister writes "As previously noted here on Slashdot, Verizon Wireless has been increasing their early termination fees and actively charging non-data customers who accidentally press the wrong button and go online. The FCC has now sent them a letter asking why. The PDF of the letter can be viewed online. Maybe someone at the FCC does read Slashdot."
Maybe someone at the FCC does read Slashdot
Or they read New York Times, which Slashdot quoted in the said article.
Is to protect the people. I believe protecting us from getting screwed by gigantic corporations is just as valid as protecting us from invasion.
Maybe letters from you don't work, but letters from the FCC usually work. I've had a problem with a bank once, I wrote them and they completely ignored me. After 30 days, I've asked for help from a governmental organization, they wrote to the bank and a couple of days letter I had my answer AND the problem was fixed thanks to a simple inquiry sent by the right person/organization.
Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
The threat of litigation doesn't mean as much as it used to. It costs the gov the same $$ go send lawyers, do depositions, get into discovery, try and settle, then go to trial as it does the plaintiff (Verizon in this case).
That said, at least Obama's regime is doing something visible about outrageous telco behavior. The prior regime would have done a thumbs-up to Verizon.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
This is what the FCC is supposed to be doing.
Not chasing half-second nipslips because 4 uptight housewives in Idaho get snippy about their kids seeing something they don't want them to see, after they're supposed to be in bed and asleep already.
That said, at least Obama's regime is doing something visible about outrageous telco behavior
There's a lot that Verizon does that's outrageous but does this really fall into that category? I've always found it absurd that they charge the same ETF for a el-cheapo no-frills candy bar phone as they do for a top of the line smartphone. If the theory behind the ETF is the amount of money they front to subsidize your device then shouldn't it stand to reason that the ETF should change according to the value of the device that you receive?
In any event, I think it would be a better use of the FCC's limited time and resources if they were to hold Verizon to it's promise to open up their network. That promise was made almost two years ago as I recall. Where's my market in non-carrier branded devices for the Verizon network?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think it would be a better use of the FCC's limited time and resources if they were to hold Verizon to it's promise to open up their network.
Verizon already started to cover that with the DROID DOES campaign. But even if you agree with Verizon's ETF practices, I still commend the FCC for looking into the problem of making the "bill me $1.99 for browsing the web" button so easy to accidentally press.
No. Most businesses do that. You can substitute "companies" for "telcos". That's how the free market is supposed to work.
Competition keeps the prices down, not companies being reasonable.
So the question should be: Is the telco market perhaps too controlled and not free enough?
American companies don't make money, they steal money. They lie and use "tricks and traps" to pick people's pockets. This crap with Verizon is typical. In California, AT&T submitted a terms of use agreement that was 1500 pages. I'm sure that it contained provisions that would have allowed them to take your house or savings. Even the almost useless state utilities commission rejected it, because the law states that these agreements must be understandable.
What kind of capitalism is this, exactly? The basic theory of capitalism says that buyers and sellers make informed decisions based on open information. How does changing the contract unilaterally fit in? First they write terms of service that allow them to change the rules without negotiation, then they double the cost of canceling. I know what the dumb ass libertarians and republicans will say: 'if you don't like it, you can quit before the change takes place.' This is bullshit because the cost of getting a new high end phone and new carrier is greater then the cost of keeping the service. How many people really change service before the term is up under any conditions?
And this thing with getting charged for a couple of bucks for hitting a button when you did not sign up for the service? That is flat out and out theft. It has nothing to do with actual capitalism. What good or service do you get for pushing the wrong button on a cell phone?
And what about the banks sorting ATM charges so users are charged the maximum overdraft fees? They sort the charges from biggest to smallest so you hit the overdraft at the beginning of the sequence and every charge after you go over the limit has an overdraft fee. Even if it is in the fine print somewhere it is stealing from consumers. Keep in mind that ATM overdraft fees were $38 Billion for the last year of published data. Not exactly chump change.
I am pro-capitalism, but there is no way the system in the US is actual capitalism. It's all about big corporate interests buying the government and then looting the economy. That's why the US is in a long term economic decline. Corporate america has adopted a model based on orgaized crime, not capitalism.
They did invade here - and all we got out of it was T-Mobile - you know, 7th largest mobile operator in the world? They settled into the American Way of cellphone service so readily it's hard to remember they're a multinational.
It is often helpful to ask your lawyer if he'll write letters for you when dealing with companies/institutions. They see the legal letterhead and go hmmmmmm it'll be way easier to just fix this. If you are specific and just need a letter it is generally quite cheap.
"love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US"
European maybe, but you don't want to be subject to Canadian cell phone companies. We look at what you guys have with envy. Until the introduction of the iPhone it was cheaper to get a phone with a US carrier and then pay roaming charges in Canada than it was to just get a data plan here. Nation wide long distance? Sure, for $20 a month, and if you go outside our service area it doesn't count.
Canadian cell phone companies are so bad that they've all started up (or bought) alias companies so they can do business under a name that's not quite so reviled.
Breastfeeding is a beautiful, natural act.
Of course, you probably didn't mean all young children.
(Really, the only reason the sight of a nipple is found disturbing is because we fetishize covering them up; that's just part of our society and I don't really care either way, but it isn't as if the very sight of a nipple is going to induce a sex drive in a 7 year old)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
so wait, you're telling me that Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson grinding all over each other singing about the hardcore raunchy sex they wish they were having during the break of an American institution sponsored by beer companies where grown men hit each other in the most violent manner possible is perfectly acceptable viewing for your kids, but a few seconds of barely visible nipple (which we all have two of on our very own bodies) crosses every line of good taste and acceptability and requires government to act. This logic is a joke to me, your kid is watching my adult event, the super bowl was never meant to be a family event, its not goddamn Disney, its a bunch of corporate ticket holders and rich guys taking a few days off work to get all juiced up and watch other rich guys beat the living hell out of each other for a trophy, some rings, and more money... broadcast around the world thanks to Budwiser. Drink Budwiser... and yes, you're right, if ABC were to start showing clips of pornography during their Saturday morning cartoons that would merit some action, but that example isn't valid here, because this happened during a flipping JANET JACKSON PERFORMANCE! what, exactly, led you to think a sexually charged duet between her and goddamn Justin Timberlake would be suitable viewing for your kids? I mean the clothes that she did have on was a skintight full body leather gimp suit for the most part, correct? Oh, and MTV was producing. You had every clue in the world from the first few seconds of it it might be time to change the channel for a few minutes if you were that concerned about sheltering your children from the outside world, yet despite all of this you still insist on using the FCC as an extension of your stupidity to go on a crusade over a joke two over-privileged out of touch jackasses played on live TV... That being said I've noticed over the past more or less year there have been a lot more news stories about the FCC pursuing something interesting and good and a hell of a lot less about them trying to legislate morality on public airwaves, which makes me happy.
Your parenting is shit. Empower your children with understanding, rather than trying to give them blinders.
This will never fucking work, and we don't need more fucking uptight morons like you in the world.